Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology 2020947374, 9780198863625, 9780192608963

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

OXFORD MODERN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURE MONOGRAPHS Editorial Committee .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy Historiography and Princely Ideology MARTA CELATI

1

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Marta Celati 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947374 ISBN 978–0–19–886362–5 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

In memory of my father Nedo

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

Acknowledgements In delivering this book to the press I have several debts of gratitude. My first and foremost thanks go to Martin McLaughlin, my supervisor and, most importantly, my invaluable guide in all these years since the first stages of my DPhil at Oxford. Without him this book would not have been possible and I will be always deeply grateful to him for all his continuous advice, always given with a friendly smile able to support me beyond the academic work. I would also especially like to thank Nicola Gardini, who gave me the chance to share with him not only my research (and in particular my love for Poliziano) but my thoughts on life and much more. Every time I have had the opportunity to talk with him during my time in Oxford it was a very enriching moment. I am also grateful to Brian Richardson, the external examiner of my DPhil thesis, for his crucial suggestions that helped me to improve the original draft of this book. After my study at Oxford I continued my academic work thanks to fellowships that allowed me to do research in renowned Institutions, in particular the Warburg Institute and the University of Warwick, where I found invaluable interlocutors. I owe profound gratitude to David Lines, my mentor for my three-year research project at the Centre for the Study of the Renaissance at Warwick funded by a Leverhulme Fellowship. He is a priceless mentor, who has encouraged me to expand my research outlook and follow my personal interests in intellectual history, politics, and philosophy, always supporting me in both my previous and new research. From the beginning of my journey as a young scholar I have been very lucky to have the irreplaceable guidance of Gabriella Albanese, my maestra since my dissertation at the University of Pisa. Among many other things, she taught me what love for philology is and what this art really means not only in scholarship but in our fickle contemporary world. I would also particularly like to thank Paolo Pontari, for his continuous encouragement since my first studies, and Jill Kraye, for the interest she has always shown in my work and for the stimulating conversations I have always had with her at the Warburg Institute. I am grateful to all the generous interlocutors I had the chance to meet over these years and from whom I received important advice of various kinds, in particular: Concetta Bianca, Guido Cappelli, Ingrid De Smet, Bruno Figliuolo, Simon Gilson, James Hankins, Stephen Harrison, Antonietta Iacono, Elena Lombardi, and Paola Tomè, a dear friend who sadly left us too early. I want to express my gratitude to the anonymous readers of this books for the Oxford University Press and to Wes Williams, the Chair of the Modern Languages Monographs Committee, for all their vital suggestions. I am also grateful to the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

viii



Oxford University Press and all people who collaborated on this publication in various ways at all stages, in particular Eleanor Collins, the Senior Publishing Editor in Literature, and Ella Capel-Smith, the Editorial Assistant of the Academic Division. The study published in this volume was made possible thanks to the Clarendon Fund (University of Oxford), from which I received a Clarendon Scholarship that funded my DPhil, and the Justin Gosling Award I was given from St Edmund Hall (Oxford). This book also benefited from the new perspectives of study that I was able to develop (and incorporate in this work) thanks to new research projects I carried out funded by a Frances A. Yates Short-Term Fellowship at the Warburg Institute and a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellowship at the University of Warwick (Centre for the Study of the Renaissance). Finally, my most profound thanks are addressed to my family, my mother Margherita and my sister Alessandra, and to my husband Leonardo, for their love and unending support every day. This book is dedicated to the memory of my father Nedo, the brightest light in my life.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

Table of Contents List of Figures List of Abbreviations

Introduction I.1 Fifteenth-century literature on conspiracies: a thematic and political genre I.2 The prince in literature on plots: power and resistance in the literary realm I.3 The classical tradition and crossovers between humanist historiography and political literature I.4 Texts on political plots: a multifaceted corpus 1. Orazio Romano’s Porcaria: Humanist Epic as a Vehicle for Papal-Princely Ideology 1.1 Orazio Romano and the composition of the poem 1.2 Stefano Porcari and the conspiracy against Nicholas V 1.3 Poetry as literary transposition of the topic of conspiracy 1.4 Classical legacy and Latin sources in the Porcaria 1.5 The ‘papal prince’ and the political perspective in the poem 1.6 The eclectic use of the classical legacy and a new political symbolism 2. Leon Battista Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio: The Epistle as Unresolved Reflection on the Political Plot 2.1 Alberti and the Porcaria coniuratio 2.2 The epistle as historical writing: the conflation of literary genres 2.3 Classical theoretical models: Alberti’s view of history 2.4 Thematic and stylistic models: a Sallustian conspiracy 2.5 ‘Eclectic classicism’ in Alberti’s language 2.6 The rhetorical construction of an unsettled political dialogue 2.7 The disapproval of res novae and the ‘iciarchical’ image of power 3. Giovanni Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano: The Historia of the Conspiracy in Political Theory 3.1 Pontano the historian, the royal secretary, and the theorist of politics and historiography 3.2 Pontano’s models and the development of political historiography 3.3 Conspiracy, obedience, and kingship in Pontano’s political theory 3.4 The barons and the crime of disobedience 3.5 The loyal noblemen and the repentant traitors 3.6 The princeps and his people

xi xiii 1 1 10 16 21

29 29 37 41 45 60 69

72 72 77 81 91 97 100 105 113 113 119 130 132 139 143

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

x

  

4. Angelo Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium: The Conspiracy Narrative as ‘Official’ Historiography 4.1 Composition, publication, and circulation of the Coniurationis commentarium 4.2 Classical models: varietas in the historical account 4.3 The stylistic revision of the text 4.4 The Commentarium in Medici cultural politics 4.5 The evolution of the political perspective: from the first to the second version 5. The Conspiracy Against the Prince: Political Perspective and Literary Patterns in Texts on Plots 5.1 The classical legacy: genres, models, symbolism, and political tradition 5.2 The centrality of history and its literary forms 5.3 Political ideology and narrative strategies: the practical model for an ideal state 5.4 Moving towards the sixteenth century 6. ‘Congiure contro a uno principe’: Machiavelli and Humanist Literature 6.1 The ‘conspiracy’ in Machiavelli’s work 6.2 The phenomenon of plots, between political theorization and historical narrative 6.3 Conspiracy, tyrannicide, and crimen laesae maiestatis 6.4 The princely dimension of Machiavelli’s thought on plots 6.5 The common people as decisive protagonist 6.6 Motives and outcomes of plots: the bitter acknowledgement of the ‘certissimo danno’ Conclusions Index of Manuscripts and Archival Documents Bibliography Index

157 157 166 175 177 184

190 190 196 198 209

212 212 218 220 224 230 238

249 253 255 281

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

List of Figures 1.1. Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), f. 2r; dedicatory epistle by Orazio Romano to Pietro Lunense.

32

1.2. Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), f. 5r; incipit of Orazio Romano’s Porcaria.

36

3.1. Guglielmo Monaco, Bronze gate of Castel Nuovo, Naples (1475ca.). Particular: the battle of Troia won by Ferdinando of Aragon.

150

3.2. Guglielmo Monaco, Bronze gate of Castel Nuovo, Naples (1475ca.). Particular: the ambush in Teano against Ferdinando of Aragon.

151

3.3. Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. Italien, 1711, f. 8r: The ambush in Teano against Ferdinando of Aragon, illumination by Nardo Rapicano (1493).

152

4.1. Angelus Politianus, Coniurationis commentarium, s. l. et a. [Roma: Johannes Bulle, 1480]. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Ink. P-665, f. 1r.

187

4.2. Bullae ‘Ad apostolicæ dignitatis auctoritatem’ et ‘Inter cetera quorum nos cura sollicitat’ contra Laurentium de Medicis [Roma: Johannes Bulle, post 22 June 1478]. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Sixtus IV, Ink. S-437, f. 1r.

188

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations DBI

Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, dir. Alberto M. Ghisalberti, Massimiliano Pavan, Fiorella Bartoccini, Mario Caravale (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960–)

Lehnerdt

Horatii Romani Porcaria, seu De coniuratione Stephani Porcarii carmen cum aliis eiusdem quae inveniri potuerunt carminibus primum edidit ac praefatus est Maximilianus Lehnerdt; accedit Petri de Godis Vicentini De coniuratione Porcaria dialogus e codice vaticano erutus (Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1907)

Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio

Leon Battista Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi, in Leon Battista Alberti: Opere latine, edited by Roberto Cardini (Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2010), pp. 1265–1281

ISTC

British Library, Incunabula Short Title Catalogue. https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/istc/

Machiavelli, Florentine histories

Niccolò Machiavelli, Florentine histories, edited by Laura F. Banfield, Harvey C. Mansfield (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)

Machiavelli, Discorsi

Niccolò Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, edited by Francesco Bausi, Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2001)

Machiavelli, Discourses

Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, translated with an introduction and noted by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Machiavelli, Istorie

Niccolò Machiavelli, Istorie fiorentine, in Niccolò Machiavelli, Opere storiche, edited by Alessandro Montevecchi and Carlo Varotti, directed by Gian Mario Anselmi, Edizione Nazionale delle opere di Niccolò Machiavelli (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2010)

Machiavelli, Il principe

Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, edited by Mario Martelli, ‘Corredo filologico’ by Nicoletta Marcelli (Roma: Salerno Editrice, 2006)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

xiv

  

Machiavelli, The prince

Niccolò Machiavelli, The prince, trans. and ed. by Peter Bondanella, with an introduction by Maurizio Viroli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)

Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium

Angelo Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, con introduzione, traduzione e commento edited by Marta Celati (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2015)

Poliziano, The Pazzi conspiracy

Angelo Poliziano, The Pazzi conspiracy, translated by Elizabeth B. Welles, in The earthly republic: Italian humanists on government and society, edited by Benjamin G. Kohl and Ronald G. Witt, with Elizabeth B. Welles (Manchester: Manchester University press, 1978), pp. 305‒322

Classical authors and titles of classical texts when abbreviated follow the abbreviations of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, editus auctoritate et consilio Academiarum quinque Germanicarum, Berolinensis Gottingensis Lipsiensis Monacensis Vindoboniensis (Lipsiae in aedibus B. G. Teubner, 1900‒).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

‘Ex hac tanta rerum commutatione saepe ego de humanae fortunae instabilitate sum admonitus . . . ’ [By this great upheaval and these changes I was often reminded of the instability of human fortune] Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

Introduction I.1 Fifteenth-century literature on conspiracies: a thematic and political genre Conspiracy has always been a recurring political practice and, more generally, a frequent political phenomenon in history, relevant to any form of power since antiquity. It has been brought to the foreground of the contemporary historical and political context especially since the last century, acquiring new distinctive shades, characteristic of the post-modern era, but one of the ages in which this means of resistance against power had its major diffusion is the Renaissance—and in particular the Italian Quattrocento, which can be deservedly regarded as an age of plots. In this period, conspiracies became the most frequent political actions aimed at overthrowing governments. One of the most remarkable aspects in the early-modern Italian milieu is that the centrality of this political issue is not limited to the historical dynamics, but it is much more all-encompassing as it also embraces the literary dimension of Renaissance culture. This is proved by the considerable production of texts specifically focused on contemporary conspiracies written in Italy in the second half of the Quattrocento: an output that reveals the pivotal significance that this political matter also acquires as a literary theme. It is in light of the literary prominence of this subject, which is closely interlaced with the historical and cultural momentousness of plots in the same period, that this study is dedicated to fifteenth-century and early sixteenth-century Italian literature on this particular topic. The focus is placed on the most important humanist texts that provide accounts of conspiracies and on the evolution of this political issue in Machiavelli’s work in the early Cinquecento. This output, which has not been previously identified and systematically analysed, consists of texts belonging to different literary genres. It enjoyed considerable diffusion in the second half of the fifteenth century, when the development of this literary topic in a substantial group of works is closely connected with both the emergence of a centralized political ideology in most Italian states and, from a cultural point of view, the growing centrality of narrative of contemporary history as the linchpin of political literature. One of the main threads that binds all these works together is their literary nature, but this component is intertwined with, and at the same time nurtures, the historiographical foundations of these texts, inasmuch as they deal with, though in different forms, the historical representation of contemporary plots. The fertile interplay between purely literary

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

2

     

components and historiographical elements, emerging especially in the concrete narrative strategies that frame these different texts, is what produces a polychrome but consistent corpus informed by a prominent political character, which is able to convey a coherent ideological message. One of the defining aspects of this literary output is the pivotal role played by the classical legacy in all these texts. The employment of both traditional rhetorical genres and specific classical sources reveals a sophisticated and complex procedure of reworking manifold literary elements. This affects multiple textual aspects and involves classical symbols, narrative techniques, stylistic tools, and interpretative categories of political phenomena. The multiform operation of recasting classical auctoritates, typical of humanist culture, in this strand of literature matches and, at the same time, underpins the political and ideological principles that, either implicitly or more openly, underlie all the texts. Because of the heterogenous literary character of this output, the interchange between political and rhetorical ingredients takes different shapes according to the specific literary forms used and, from a political point of view, turns out to reflect the historical background and the ideological standpoint of each work. The main classical model is predictably Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae, which had already circulated widely and had been extensively used in the previous centuries especially as a historical source.¹ Nevertheless, now the revival of the classical world in these works is much more wide-ranging and multifaceted than the mere adoption of one chief classical auctoritas as the exclusive prototype. This eclectic approach appears in both the multifunctional reworking of Sallust’s work (on a structural, thematic, stylistic, and conceptual level) and in the combination of this main model with other multiple sources. Thanks to the process of reappropriation of the classical world that was enhanced in the fifteenth century, new classical authors, also of the Greek tradition, started to circulate again more widely and to be translated, becoming now an integral part in the construction of humanist political literature and joining the already more influential auctoritates (such as Sallust himself ). However, even the more canonical models now are reworked

¹ On the reception of Sallust in the Middle Ages and Renaissance: La Penna, Antonio, ‘Brevi note sul tema della congiura nella storiografia moderna’, in La Penna, Antonio, Sallustio e la ‘rivoluzione’ romana (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1968), pp. 432‒52; Skinner, Quentin, ‘The Vocabulary of Renaissance Republicanism: A Cultural longue durée?’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, edited by Alison Brown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 87‒110; Osmond, Patricia J., ‘ “Princeps Historiae Romanae”: Sallust in Renaissance Political Thought’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 40 (1995), pp. 101‒43; Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Fiesole and Florence: The After-Life of a Roman Conspirator’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 7, 1 (2000), pp. 3‒38; Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Renaissance Conspiracy Histories: Hero or Villain? The case of Stefano Porcari’, in Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013, edited by Miriam Chiabò, Maurizio Gargano, Anna Modigliani, and Patricia J. Osmond (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 203‒15.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



3

through a more eclectic and original perspective of adaptation to the contemporary cultural dimension. Additionally, the re-elaboration of the classical tradition is not only crucial from a purely literary perspective, concerning mainly rhetorical, thematic, and narrative aspects, but also from the point of view of the function of exemplarity, on a more conceptual level that displays even more explicit political implications. In consideration of the centrality of the classical legacy in these works, in this volume specific attention is paid to the role of this defining component in this literary output. The remarkable expansion of this literature on plots after the middle of the fifteenth century has to be contextualized in the historical scenario of this period, when many conspiracies took place in the Italian states, so that this epoch can be rightly defined as the ‘age of conspiracies’. This periodization was coined by the eminent historian Riccardo Fubini to label the precise time span between the 1460s and 1470s and it is based on historical evidence.² Nonetheless, more generally, the striking diffusion of conspiracies in the broader Renaissance age, especially in Italy, has been noted by several scholars. It was already implicitly pointed out by Jacob Burckhardt in the first part of his very famous and foundational work The Civilization of the Renaissance, entitled The State as a Work of Art, where many political plots that occurred in the Italian states in the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries are mentioned.³ Also, the contemporary historian Lauro Martines underlined the large number of conspiracies in the Italian peninsula between the Trecento and Quattrocento.⁴ He brought backwards the expansion of this specific practices to the fourteenth century and put it in relation to the consolidation of the powers of the signori, which in the fifteenth century became even more centralized and, consequently, led to the failure of most of the attacks plotted in this later period, characterized by the lack of support by ‘strategic sectors of the community’ (while some of the previous enterprises were still successful). However, the historical categorization that pinpoints an ‘age of conspiracies’ in the Renaissance, especially Fubini’s periodization which is more specifically focused on the fifteenth century, can also be considered from a literary perspective. Indeed, it is in the second half of the Quattrocento that a large number of works on contemporary conspiracies were composed. Hence, Fubini’s more restricted ‘historical periodization’, which encompasses the years ² Fubini, Riccardo, ‘L’Età delle congiure: i rapporti tra Firenze e Milano dal tempo di Piero a quello di Lorenzo de’ Medici (1464‒1478)’, in Fubini, Riccardo, Italia quattrocentesca: politica e diplomazia nell’età di Lorenzo de’ Medici (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1994), pp. 220‒52. ³ Burckhardt, Jacob, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, translated by Samuel George Chetwynd Middlemore (Kitchener: Batoche, 2001), pp. 5‒105. ⁴ Martines, Lauro, ‘Political Conflict in the Italian City States’, Government and Opposition 3, 1 (1968), pp. 69‒91. See also Fubini, Riccardo, ‘Congiure e stato nel secolo XV’, in I re nudi: congiure, assassini, tracolli ed altri imprevisti nella storia del potere. Atti del convegno di studio della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini (Certosa del Galluzzo, 19 novembre 1994), edited by Glauco Maria Cantarella and Francesco Santi (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1996), pp. 143‒61.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

4

     

between 1464 and 1478, can be extended to the realm of literature and, in this case, to the whole of the second half of the century, starting from the early 1450s, so as to incorporate the parallel widespread production of several literary texts on this issue. This broader ‘literary periodization’, in particular, accounts for the numerous works that deal with Stefano Porcari’s plot against Pope Nicholas V in 1453, an historical episode that attracted the interest of several intellectuals. This study identifies the most significant works that can be regarded as milestones in the development of this particular kind of literature during this crucial period. The focus is placed on four Quattrocento texts which have been examined as case studies (and which allow us to trace the evolution of the issue of political plots across different literary forms, political centres and historical phases) and on Machiavelli’s main works where the topic of conspiracy turns out to be particularly important (Il principe, the Discorsi and the Istorie fiorentine), marking a continuity, but also a fundamental turning point, with respect to the preceding authors. The first two texts examined are Orazio Romano’s epic poem Porcaria and Leon Battista Alberti’s epistle Porcaria coniuratio, both written in 1453 and devoted to Stefano Porcari’s conspiracy against Pope Nicholas V of the same year. The third text is Giovanni Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano (1465‒1503), the historiographical account on the so-called ‘first conspiracy of the barons’ (1459‒65) against the king of Naples Ferdinando of Aragon (now defined in modern historiography as a ‘war of succession’): a lengthy work, which includes the narrative of the military conflict that followed the barons’ rebellion and was composed by the humanist through a long process of revision, from 1465 to his death, in 1503. The progress of this fifteenth-century literature culminates with Angelo Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, the famous literary account of the Pazzi conspiracy written immediately after the attack against Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici, in 1478: a refined narration that was the cornerstone of proMedici propaganda and can be regarded as a climax in the trajectory of humanistic literature on plots.⁵ These texts belong to different genres and subgenres (epic poetry, epistolography, historiography, etc.) and, although all of them retain a historical core, can be ascribed to various literary domains, also revealing, in some cases, the hybrid nature of most fifteenth-century literature in terms of the rhetorical canon. Some of the main features that closely connect all these different works allow us to classify them as a consistent literary category. These traits are their literary nature (although all texts focus on historical facts) and their monographic character; the key and multidimensional role played by the re-elaboration of classical literature; the secular, political approach in dealing with historical matters and the parallel ideological standpoint emerging in all these works; and, most of all, the strong

⁵ Extensive bibliography on these works is provided in the chapters devoted to them.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



5

thematic connection represented by the subject, that is, the narrative of a recent conspiracy. For this reason, it is possible to coherently define this fifteenth-century literary output as a ‘thematic’ genre: a ‘monographic’ literature on a specific theme, which enjoyed remarkable fortune in a precise chronological period and is informed by a marked political character in the narration of crucial attempts at overthrowing systems of power. The identification of this new ‘thematic’ genre establishes a precise literary category within Renaissance literature, in which the complex interaction between historiographical, political, and literary factors stands out as a distinguishing trait. In this corpus of works, in particular, the narrative of history, in its different literary arrangements and entwined with the purely literary constituents of texts, becomes the core around which a new political ideology rotates, a view perfectly consistent with the burgeoning of the new system of political powers. The development of this output in the second half of the fifteenth century is closely associated with the emergence of a new centralized political thought (or better, a partially new political thought that will also influence the groundbreaking theories of statecraft in the following century). These new political perspectives reflect the simultaneous process of consolidation of autocratic governments throughout Italy. Albeit in a few cases these accounts of plots cannot be directly traced back to the mere intention of celebrating and upholding the current rulers threatened by the conspiracy, in all these works a princely ideology emerges as the bedrock of the humanists’ political standpoint. This politically driven narrative retains and enhances the classical interpretation of the idea of ‘conspiracy’ and of the word itself, which, starting from Cicero’s denunciation of Catiline onwards, acquires the unavoidable negative connotation of seditio and insidia. This semantic evolution of coniuratio shows an irrevocable shift from the neutral meaning of ‘an act of taking an oath’ (especially a soldier’s oath of allegiance) to the negative significance of political crime, coinciding with subversion and treachery.⁶ Humanist literature intensifies this interpretation: the image of a political regime jeopardized by the conspirators appears as a fair and just political power, the only one able to keep the state in concord and prosperity. But the analysis of the texts shows that this outlook assumes more complex undertones and results in different outcomes in each work. From a historical perspective, it is no coincidence that in the second half of the Quattrocento there had been a substantial concentration of political power in ⁶ On this evolution in the meaning of the term ‘conspiracy’, see Pagan, Victoria Emma, Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004), p. 7; for the semantic and conceptual definition of the term, with specific focus on the commentary to the Decretum Gratiani by Juan de Torquemada, a prominent figure in the intellectual, political, and juridical debate in the Renaissance, see Quaglioni, Diego, ‘La congiura dei canonisti. Coniuratio e conspiratio nel commento al Decretum di Juan de Torquemada (1457)’, in Congiure e conflitti, pp. 21‒38. For the definition of ‘conspiracy’, see also Sbriccoli, Mario, Crimen laesae maiestatis. Il problema del reato politico alle soglie della scienza moderna (Milan: Giuffre, 1974), pp. 71‒2, 339‒42.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

6

     

the hands of newly established leaders. This phenomenon took place not only in the kingdom of Naples with the Aragonese monarchy, but also in the signorie and aristocratic governments throughout Italy, and even in Florence, where, although the republican framework was officially maintained, the Medici gradually became more and more powerful and were the actual rulers of the state. This general historical transition brought about a kind of reduction in republican ideologies, which had been predominant, at least in Florence, between the late 1300s and early 1400s, although they were characterized by a prominent oligarchic essence and had been adapted to the contemporary historical situation of a republican state committed to military expansion.⁷ Also, in light of these traits of the Florentine republic, as James Hankins has pointed out, the distinction between republican and monarchic government in the humanist age does not have to be interpreted as strictly as it was in previous years in relation to Baron’s theories on ‘civic humanism’.⁸ It is true that a contraposition between these two political forms was perceived and often expressed by humanists, especially with regard to the conflict between Florence and Milan in the early Quattrocento, which produced very well-known pieces of literature, such as the famous controversy between Poggio Bracciolini and Guarino Veronese (1435) just to mention one of these.⁹ Nevertheless the eulogy of the republic as the fairest form of government ⁷ Hankins, James, ‘Humanism and the Origins of Modern Political Thought’, in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, edited by Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 118‒41, 129. For a reassessment of the oligarchic and imperialistic character of Florentine politics in the early Quattrocento, see Hankins, James, ‘The “Baron Thesis” after Forty Years and Some Recent Studies of Leonardo Bruni’, Journal of the History of Ideas 56, 2 (1995), pp. 309‒38: 316‒23. Florentine Republicanism has been also defined ‘imperial Republicanism’ in Pedullà, Gabriele, Machiavelli in tumulto: conquista, cittadinanza e conflitto nei ‘Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 2011), p. 400; moreover, for an illuminating criticism of the traditional concept of Republicanism employed to label Florentine political thought in this age see the review of Pedullà’s volume by Guido Cappelli, in Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 20 (2013), pp. 354‒61: 359‒60. See also Cappelli, Guido, ‘Conceptos transversales: República y monarquía en el Humanismo político’, Res publica 21 (2009), pp. 51‒69. On the evolution of the government in Florence under the Medici see the classic volume by Rubinstein, Nicolai, The Government of Florence Under the Medici (1434 to1494) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966; second ed. 1997); Jones, Philip J., ‘Communes and Despots: The CityState in Late Medieval Italy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 15 (1965), pp. 71‒96; and now Black, Robert and Law, John Easton, eds., The Medici Citizens and Masters (Florence: Villa I Tatti, the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, 2015). ⁸ See in particular Baron, Hans, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), and now the important studies by Hankins, James, ‘Rhetoric, History and Ideology: The Civic Panegyrics of Leonardo Bruni’, in Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections, edited by James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 143‒78 (see also the whole collection of essays); Hankins, James, ‘Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic’, Political Theory 38, 4 (2010), pp. 452‒82; Hankins, James, ‘Machiavelli, Civic Humanism and the Humanist Politics of Virtue’, Italian Culture 32, 2 (2014), pp. 98‒109; Hankins, ‘The “Baron Thesis”; Cappelli, ‘Conceptos transversales’, pp. 51‒69; and Grafton, Anthony, ‘Humanism and Political Theory’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450‒1700, edited by James Henderson Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 7‒29. ⁹ On political ideologies in the humanist age: Nicolai Rubinstein, ‘Italian Political Thought, 1450‒1539’, in The Cambridge History, pp. 30‒65; Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); Pastore Stocchi, Manlio, ‘Il

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



7

was not always grounded on an institutional basis, and consequently was considered neither in rigid opposition to monarchic rule nor in relation to the disapproval of it as illegitimate. Since republican governments were essentially oligarchic and imperialistic, in this scenario the main dichotomy became that between a rightful and a despotic rule (although the antithesis between a just government and tyranny was also destined to evolve into a more intricate and ambiguous contrast).¹⁰ As Quentin Skinner also underlined, humanists were not much concerned about ‘constitutional arrangements’,¹¹ rather the central pillars of their political thought became the human spheres, in particular human virtues, which were regarded as the main attributes able to legitimize political power (even papal power) and were seen in close connection with the ancient philosophical tradition.¹² This complex and gradual process led to the affirmation of a new idea of secular and ‘individualized’ authority, which mainly coincided with the figure of the prince, or more often with his equivalent and more pristine image of the pater patriae. This highly verticalized system is rooted in a political ideology based on the management of consensus and, most of all, on the virtuous nature of the leader. This evolution was influenced by the more extensive recovery, circulation, and study of classical sources that deal with monarchical theory and in general monarchical rule, in particular Greek auctoritates such as Xenophon,¹³ Isocrates, pensiero politico degli umanisti’, in Pastore Stocchi, Manlio, Pagine di storia dell’Umanesimo italiano (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2014), pp. 26‒84; James Hankins, ‘Humanism’; and now Hankins, James, Virtue Politics. Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019). On the famous controversy between Poggio and Guarino on Scipio and Caesar see in particular Canfora, Davide, La controversia di Poggio Bracciolini e Guarino Veronese (Florence: Olschki, 2001). ¹⁰ On the issue of tyranny see Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 103‒52; Quaglioni, Diego, Politica e diritto nel Trecento italiano. Il ‘De tyranno’ di Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1314–1357) (Florence: Olschki, 1983); and Schadee, Hester, ‘ “I Don’t Know Who You Call Tyrants”. Debating Evil Lords in Quattrocento Humanism’, in Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance, edited by Nikos Panou and Hester Schadee (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 172‒90. Now see also Chapter 5, section 5.3 (in particular p. 203). ¹¹ Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 123; Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 36‒7. ¹² For a specific analysis of the system of virtues in humanist political though see Cappelli, Guido, ‘Introduzione’, in Giovanni Pontano, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003), pp. XI‒CXXI. For the concept of ‘moral legitimacy’ and the centrality of the notion of ‘virtue’ see Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 36‒45. ¹³ The recovery of Xenophon was particularly fostered in the cultural environment of Neapolitan humanism: the Latin translation of the Cyropaedia produced by Poggio Bracciolini in 1446 had been championed by Antonio Panormita and was offered to Alfonso of Aragon. See Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, p. LII, and Kristeller, Paul Oscar, Cranz, Ferdinand Edward, and Brown, Virginia, eds., Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translation and Commentaries. Annotated Lists and Giudes, vol. 7 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1960–), pp. 116‒21. Also Lorenzo Valla translated for Alfonso the Magnanimous and the young Ferdinando the first four chapters of the Cyropaedia in 1438, presenting Cyrus as a model of princely virtues: see Marsh, David, ‘Lorenzo Valla In Naples: The Translation From Xenophon’s Cyropaedia’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 46, 2 (1984), pp. 407‒20.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

8

     

and Plutarch,¹⁴ but also Latin sources that were revived and reworked with a new life force, such as Seneca’s De clementia and other texts.¹⁵ It is also thanks to these models that fifteenth-century political thought accommodated a pragmatic view informed by a personalistic idea of power. Some of these sources enjoyed for the first time a new revitalization, especially Greek models that were now translated, such as Isocrates’s orations; on the other hand, other auctoritates that already circulated in the previous centuries, such as Seneca’s work or even more recognized poetic models (e.g. Lucan), were adopted and recast through a fresh approach that made them functional to the formulation of a political theory able to adhere to contemporary historical needs.¹⁶ These sources were therefore deconstructed and reconstructed in a process of innovative re-elaboration, typical of the humanist attitude towards the classical legacy.¹⁷ This approach was never passive and one-dimensional, but, conversely, combined these models with the more traditional central pillars of the speculation on political thought—Aristotle, Plato, and, among the Latin authors, Cicero—so as to build an autonomous and original theory of power. Aristotle and Cicero, in particular, stand out as predominantly influential in humanist political theorization, also in political literature oriented towards princely viewpoints and, more indirectly, in the ideological perspective in texts on plots. Both authors were landmarks for political principles already in the previous centuries, but especially Aristotle enjoyed a novel circulation and fresh interpretations in the Quattrocento with the new Latin translations of the Ethics by Leonardo Bruni (1416) and by

¹⁴ On the re-discovery of Isocrates’s work by humanists, see Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, La fede nella ‘Paideia’: aspetti della fortuna europea di Isocrate nei secoli XV e XVI (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1984), and now Albanese, Gabriella, ‘L’esordio della trattatistica “de principe” alla corte aragonese: l’inedito ‘Super Isocrate’ di Bartolomeo Facio’, in Principi prima del Principe, edited by Lorenzo Geri [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 59‒115. On Plutarch, see Resta, Gianvito, Le epitomi di Plutarco nel Quattrocento (Padova: Antenore, 1962), and Pade, Marianne, The Reception of Plutarch’s ‘Lives’ in Fifteenth-century Italy, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007). For the contribution made by Francesco Filelfo to the translation and reception of these Greek authors within the gradual consolidation of monarchical political thought, see Resta, Gianvito, ‘Francesco Filelfo tra Bisanzio e Roma’, in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte. Atti del XVII Convegno di studi maceratesi (Tolentino, 27‒30 settembre 1981) (Padova: Antenore, 1986), pp. 1‒60: 24‒5. ¹⁵ For the source of Seneca, see Stacey, Peter, ‘Senecan Political Thought from the Middle Ages to Early Modernity’, in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, edited by Shadi Bartsch and Alessandro Schiesaro (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 289‒302, and Stacey, Peter, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). ¹⁶ The fundamental studies on the tradition of classical texts are still the classic volumes Reynolds, Leighton Durham, Marshall, Peter K., and Mynors, Roger Aubrey Baskerville, Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) (in particular, on Seneca’s De clementia, pp. 363–5); and Reynolds, Leighton Durham and Wilson, Nigel Guy, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). ¹⁷ For the originality of humanist political thought and its deconstructive and reconstructive approach towards the classical tradition, see Cappelli, Rev. Pedullà, Machiavelli, p. 360. More generally, on the recovery of the classical tradition and its role in the development of Humanism see the important volume by Witt, Ronald G., ‘In the Footsteps of the Ancients’: The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



9

Johannes Argyropoulos (1464) and of the Politics again by Bruni (1438), which had remarkable diffusion in the Renaissance, when new commentaries and vernacular translations were also produced.¹⁸ Additionally, also canonical sources conventionally employed principally in relation with republican ideologies, such as Sallust, the pivotal model in this literature on plots,¹⁹ were now revisited in a new amalgamation with other texts brought to new life and reinterpreted and readapted in accordance with an evolving idea of a centralized state. This new personalistic concept of authority that emerges in this developing theory appears, for example, in the evolution in the distinction between monarch and tyrant. This distinction is no longer founded on juridical criteria (or not just on them), but on the exercise and display of personal virtues by the ruler,²⁰ in an ethical perspective that, in some cases, ends up becoming essentially political, reflecting the unspoken translation of political considerations into moral terms. In this view, the idea of tyranny somehow lost its authentic significance and remained relevant only in relation to denunciation of attacks against established rulers. So, although early fifteenth-century republican ideologies were already marked by an ambiguous character, it is around the middle of the Quattrocento that centralized governments consolidated their authority still more and, consequently, had to face new problems of legitimacy and needed to change their cultural politics in order to maintain their power and stability. In the scenario of political equilibrium (though always unstable) brought about by the peace of Lodi in 1453,²¹ Italian states had to focus more on internal threats, rather than on external conflicts, and, in doing so, they also aimed to spread their powerful image to the outside. As in the first half of the century (but now with different purposes and outcomes), the humanists’ literary activity contributed to creating and strengthening a cultural ideology in support of political rulers, in accordance with the new political situation and, consequently, paying more attention to the issues related to maintaining power rather than conquering it. This fruitful

¹⁸ Lines, David, Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’ in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650): The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education (Leiden: Brill, 2002); Lines, David, ‘Aristotle’s Ethics in the Renaissance’, in The Reception of Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’, edited by Jon Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 171–93; Kraye, Jill, ‘Renaissance Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics’, in The Vocabulary of Teaching and Research between Middle Ages and Renaissance, Proceedings of the Colloquium: London, Warburg Institute, 11–12 March 1994, edited by Olga Weijers (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), pp. 96–117; Kraye, Jill, ‘The Printing History of Aristotle in the Fifteenth Century: A Bibliographical Approach to Renaissance Philosophy’, Renaissance Studies 9 (1995), pp. 189–211. On Bruni’s translation of the Politics and its wide diffusion see in particular Hankins, ‘Exclusivist Republicanism’; Hankins, James and Palmer, Ada, ‘The Recovery of Ancient Philosophy in the Renaissance: A Brief Guide’ (Florence: Olschki, 2008), p. 21. See also Lines, David and Refini, Eugenio, eds., ‘Aristotele fatto volgare’. Tradizione aristotelica e cultura volgare nel Rinascimento (Pisa: ETS, 2014 [but 2015]). ¹⁹ On the reception of Sallust, see n. 1. ²⁰ Hankins, ‘Humanism’, p. 128. ²¹ For the impact of the peace of Lodi as a turning point in the political scenario and a factor that led to the development of a new political ideology, see in particular Rubinstein, ‘Italian Political Thought’, p. 30; Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, pp. XXXV‒XXXVII.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

10

     

interaction between literature and politics comes to light clearly in two particular literary genres that developed considerably in this period: on the one hand, the ‘monographic’ works devoted to conspiracies, texts focused on events that had put in danger the political solidity of the state and intended to support centralized governments; on the other hand, the political treatises de principe, aimed at defining the ideal features of the ‘perfect prince’ and establishing the fundamental ethical and political values for social relationships. These two literary outputs are informed by the same political perspective and are linked by significant connections. In particular, the need for legitimacy by new regimes stands out as an even more crucial implication in literature on plots, since it originates from an actual crisis in states and deals with a concrete threat addressed to a specific ruler. Despite the less theoretical nature of this literary corpus, the political effort of producing and conveying an ideal model of both state and statecraft is implicitly embedded in all these works.

I.2 The prince in literature on plots: power and resistance in the literary realm The historical and cultural context that sees the growth of works on conspiracies in the Quattrocento accounts for the particular political dimension that surrounds and marks this thematic literature: this dimension can be identified in a princely ideology, though expressed in different forms depending on the various authors, texts, and their backgrounds. Fifteenth-century conspiracies prove to be always aimed at overthrowing a government that is embodied and encapsulated in the figure of the main target of the attack, the ruler, who is now depicted in all works on plots as an actual princeps. In particular, in humanist texts each plot appears as a ‘conspiracy against a prince’ and, most importantly, the ideological framework of these sources is deeply rooted in a princely political standpoint: a standpoint that, more generally, now informs both the political life of Italian states and the political outlook of literature produced in this milieu, and, at the same time, is strengthened and disseminated by these very same texts. Now a princeps is not only a temporal monarch such as the king of Naples, but also the pope, in particular Pope Nicholas V. He has been defined as the ‘first pope of the Renaissance’ in light of his aim of turning papal rule into a princely government: a papacy that overlaps with a signoria in terms of the political dynamics of the state and of the papal image that is built and projected outwards.²² And the inclusive figure of the princeps now can be associated also with Lorenzo de’ Medici. His power in Florence, although always formally ²² See Prodi, Paolo, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1982), p. 43; and the extensive analysis in Chapter 1 in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



11

circumscribed within the official boundaries of the republican institutions, gradually became more and more similar to that of an actual signore, especially in the images of himself and his own authority that he was able to convey through the well-articulated system of cultural politics erected with the collaboration of all humanists, artists, and intellectuals of his circle. This is the portrayal of rulers—in particular of the king of Naples, the pope, and the leader of Florence—that emerges in all texts on conspiracies, which seem to be intended to contribute to building this very image through their narratives. As far as politico-theoretical literature is concerned, a princely theory had already played a decisive part in the production of medieval specula principis, but it is only in the later Quattrocento that this humanist literature de principe reached a kind of peak, before developing with highly original results in Machiavelli’s work. Some of the most prominent treatises produced in this period are Giovanni Pontano’s De principe (1465); Bartolomeo Platina’s homonymous work (1470), which was reworked later in the De optimo cive with a less explicit princely perspective and was dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici; Diomede Carafa’s Memoriale sui doveri del principe (1476), Francesco Patrizi’s De regno et regis institutione (1484); and Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate (1492).²³ The development of the genre of mirrors for princes in the second half of the Quattrocento has been traced back to the necessity for tenets on which new established rulers could found their sovereignty.²⁴ Now, thanks to the identification of a substantial group of literary texts on conspiracies and to the analysis of their recurrent features and ²³ Bibliography in this field is huge: see the classic studies by Gilbert, Felix, ‘The Humanist Concept of the Prince and The Prince of Machiavelli’, in Gilbert, Felix, History: Choice and Commitment (Cambridge, Mass./London: Belknap Press; Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 91‒114; and Skinner, The Foundations, vol. 1, in particular the chapter ‘The Age of Princes’, pp. 113‒38; now see also Baker, Patrick, Kaiser, Ronny, Priesterjahn, Maike, and Helmrath, Johannes, eds., Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016); Stacey, Roman Monarchy; Canfora, Davide, Prima di Machiavelli: Politica e cultura in età umanistica (Milan: Laterza, 2005); Hankins, Virtue Politics (with a specific section on Patrizi: pp. 386‒422); Albanese, ‘L’esordio’; and the volume on political humanism in Naples by Cappelli, Guido, Maiestas: politica e pensiero politico nella Napoli aragonese (1443‒1503) (Rome: Carocci Editore, 2016). Fundamental contributions on humanist literature de principe are published as introductory essays to editions of texts: Ferraù, Giacomo, ‘Introduzione’, in Bartholomei Platinae De principe, edited by Giacomo Ferraù (Messina: Il Vespro, 1979), pp. 5‒33; Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, pp. XI‒LX; and for the relationship between princely ideology and official historiography see Resta, Gianvito, ‘Introduzione’, in Panhormitae, Antonii, Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis, edited by Gianvito Resta (Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1968), pp. 5‒58. Editions of other important works are: Carafa, Diomede, Memoriali, edited by Franca Petrucci Nardelli, Antonio Lupis, con un saggio introduttivo di Giuseppe Galasso (Rome: Bonacci editore, 1988); Maio, Giuniano, De maiestate, edited by Franco Gaeta (Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1956); Patrizi, Francesco, De regno et regis institutione (Paris: Aegidius Gorbinus, 1567). On Platina’s two works, see Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘The De optimo cive and the De principe by Bartolomeo Platina’, in Rubinstein, Nicolai, Studies in Italian History in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, vol. 1, edited by Giovanni Ciappelli (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2004), pp. 259‒72. ²⁴ Cf. Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, pp. XXXV‒XXXVII; and Rubinstein, ‘Italian Political Thought’, pp. 30‒1; on these treatises, see also Sapegno, Maria Serena, ‘Il trattato politico e utopico’, in Letteratura Italiana, edited by Asor Rosa, vol. 3, t. 2 (Torino: Einaudi, 1984), pp. 949‒1010, 985‒98.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

12

     

aims, it is possible to put these works into relation with the simultaneous diffusion of political treatises on princely theory and, more precisely, with the political perspectives and purposes that underlie them. The growth of this ‘thematic genre’ is indeed directly connected with the same crucial issues of the creation and organization of political unity, the containment of opposition, and, most of all, the legitimization of new types of authorities. The implicit but close interchange between these different textual categories, politico-theoretical treatises and historical-literary works on plots, can be perceived especially in the ideological overtones that imbue these texts. This composite ideological framework is built through the fruitful interaction between, on the one hand, the ideal and speculative components and, on the other, the historically based elements: an interplay that contributes to define the humanist model of ideal state. From a more general perspective, the link between these strands of works reflects the broader conceptual principle according to which the millennial history of the theories of political power has always run parallel, and have also continuously crossed, the history of the theories and forms of resistance to power.²⁵ This is one of the inspiring tenets of this study. If more attention has been paid by scholars to treatises on princely rule, this volume, by focusing on this literature on conspiratorial episodes, neglected so far, aims to make a contribution to the development of research in these two intertwined areas. With respect to this dual history of political power and resistance to it, the centrality of the issue of conspiracies in the Italian Quattrocento, also from a literary perspective, is implicitly due to the fact that in this period the opposition to governments found its main expression through the practice of plots. Conspiracies, indeed, emerge as the most frequent actions of insubordination displaying particular characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of rebellions (especially for their more restricted character and the smaller number of people directly involved). The relationship between literature de principe, corresponding to the sphere of theorization of political power, and texts on conspiracies, belonging to the area of the history of resistance to this power, appears clearly if we consider the works by important humanists active in Naples, Giovanni Pontano and Giuniano Maio.²⁶ In 1465 Pontano wrote the De principe and in the very same year started to compose the De bello Neapolitano: texts that, if read in conjunction, reveal the humanist’s intention to establish a coherent system of values for an ideal monarchy. In addition, his historiographical work proves to be also intertwined with the theory that Pontano presented in his other most important political work, the ²⁵ A formulation of this principle can be found in Coleman, Janet, Against the State. Studies in Sedition and Rebellion, introduced by Brian Redhead (London: Penguin, 1995), pp. 1, 12. Morevoer, on the interplay between political theorization and historiography in literature on plots see Chapter 5, sections 5.2‒5.3. ²⁶ On these authors and their works, see Chapter 3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



13

De obedientia, composed in 1470: the first treatise devoted to establishing the relationships among the different components of the monarchical state.²⁷ Another fundamental, though still almost completely overlooked, work that shows the central role played by the problem of conspiracies, and more generally insubordination, in the fifteenth-century debate on statecraft is Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate (1492). Here the definition of the perfect ruler, who is embodied in the king of Naples Ferdinando of Aragon, is extensively based on the illustration of the events of the barons’ rebellions against Ferdinando: a thematic centrality that is made evident not only by the literary vehicle, in the text, but also by the artistic means, in the numerous illuminations in the precious manuscript of the treatise put together for the Aragonese library between 1492 and 1493 (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. Italien 1711).²⁸ But the crucial implications that the problem of conspiracies had in the literary debate on princely authority will re-emerge evidently also in the following century in Machiavelli’s thought. In his view, the matter of political subversion is closely linked to the building of political consensus and the management of power. In particular, as is well known, he focused on this political subject in his long chapter Delle congiure in the Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio (III, 6), which can be considered a comprehensive treatise on plots. Significantly, this chapter also had an independent diffusion in manuscripts and printed editions throughout Europe in the sixteenth century, a circulation that proves the importance of this topic not only in Machiavelli’s work, but also in Renaissance European political thought.²⁹ Moreover, specific attention to this issue is paid in chapter XIX of Il principe, and in the Istorie fiorentine, where Machiavelli narrates many conspiracies that took place in Italy. Although there has been more research on Machiavelli’s interest in this matter,³⁰ now the analysis offered in this volume of the fifteenth-century corpus of works on plots also lays the ground for a more in-depth exploration of the relationship between Machiavelli’s work and humanist literature. In particular, if it is true that he mainly developed his reflections on the topic of conspiracy as a substantial theorization of a political phenomenon (which was never produced in the humanist age), this is based on concrete historical exempla that were

²⁷ For the connections between these texts by Pontano, see Chapter 3. ²⁸ On the interplay between the text and the illuminations in conveying Maio’s political theory see Barreto, Joana, La majesté en images: portraits du pouvoir dans la Naples des Aragon (Rome: École française de Rome, 2013), pp. 230‒49; Celati, Marta, ‘Teoria politica e realtà storica nel De maiestate di Giuniano Maio: tra letteratura e arte figurativa’, Medioevo e Rinascimento 29 (2018), pp. 203‒35; on this treatise, see also Celati, Marta, ‘La virtù e la storia: il principe nel De maiestate di Giuniano Maio’, Archivum Mentis 8 (2019), pp. 71‒102; Cappelli, Maiestas, pp. 188‒194; and Caracciolo Aricò, Angela Maria, ‘Giuniano Maio’, DBI, 67 (2006), pp. 618‒21. ²⁹ See Chapter 6 on Machiavelli; and Fasano Guarini, Elena, ‘Congiure “contro alla patria” e congiure “contro ad uno principe” nell’opera di Niccolò Machiavelli’, in Fasano Guarini, Elena, Repubbliche e principi. Istituzioni e pratiche di potere nella Toscana granducale del ‘500–’600 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010), pp. 155‒207, 158. ³⁰ See Chapter 6, n. 1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

14

     

mainly provided by historical narratives of the previous centuries, along with classical sources; and it is from fifteenth-century texts that he also drew information in order to write the frequent accounts of contemporary political plots included in his Istorie fiorentine. His investigation into conspiracies, which are seen as a specific practice of political strife with decisive implications for the dynamics of power in the political systems, proves to share significant perspectives with Quattrocento works on plots. So these texts, in some respects, can be regarded as a potential starting point for Machiavelli’s lucid interest in this issue. Yet, at the same time, he also ends up radically departing from the humanist tradition and, in doing so, he turns out to be, as in most of his work, half within but already half outside the conceptual horizon of the previous century.³¹ In order to get a deeper and objective insight of the development of fifteenthcentury political thought and of the intricate relationship between Machiavelli and this tradition, it is essential to adopt an approach that overcomes the conventional classification of humanist political views as merely abstract and utopian. This label would also prevent a genuine analysis of the connections and, most significantly, the deviations that Machiavelli’s thought had from previous positions. Quattrocento political beliefs have been too often cursorily looked at as the expression of a naive and simply ethically based ideological system, only founded on the pedagogical and unrealistic adoption of ancient exempla, too ‘immature’ in comparison with the theorizations of the following century. Nevertheless, recently this view has been partially reconsidered and humanist political thought has been rightly identified as a multifaceted but consistent expression of an actual political theory, distinctive of this period and of its cultural and historical characteristics, and showing specific aims, contradictions, and innovations.³² Despite the significant expansion of literature on conspiracies in the Italian fifteenth century, there are no comprehensive and systematic studies on this subject. The topic of resistance to power has been analysed either in more general and chronologically wide-ranging investigations, devoted to trace its evolution, from the antiquity to the contemporary world, as one of the unavoidable nucleuses of political life; or in volumes that consider this topic in relation to the modern age.³³ More attention has been paid to the classical tradition and to ³¹ For this general consideration, see Cappelli, Rev. Pedullà, Machiavelli, pp. 360, and more generally Cappelli, Guido, ‘Machiavelli e l’umanesimo politico del Quattrocento’, Res publica 20, 1 (2017), pp. 81‒92. ³² In particular a new critical study on Italian political humanism with a specific focus on the Neapolitan area is Cappelli, Maiestas; important observations of the necessity to adopt a new perspective in the assessment of fifteenth-century political theory are in Cappelli, Rev. Pedullà, Machiavelli, pp. 359‒60; and for a reconsideration of humanist political ideology see also Pastore Stocchi, ‘Il pensiero politico’, pp. 26‒84; and now Hankins, Virtue Politics. ³³ See in particular Ford, Franklin Lewis, Political Murder. From Tyrannicide to Terrorism (Cambridge, Mass/London: Harvard University Press, 1985): on Renaissance Italy, pp. 134‒45; Turchetti, Mario, Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2006): in particular, pp. 291‒318, 335‒65; and Coleman. On the modern age, see Bercé, Yves Marie and

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



15

different forms of political strive in the ancient world; nonetheless, only one volume by Victoria Emma Pagan, published in 2004, is dedicated to conspiracies in the classical age, with an analysis that concentrates on historiographical sources (more than literary), since this topic was not treated in more hybrid literary forms in that age, as, instead, it will be in the humanist age.³⁴ As for the Italian Renaissance, the diffusion of attempts at overthrowing power has been considered mainly from a historical, and sometimes more generally cultural, point of view;³⁵ but, as far as the literary field is concerned, only few studies have addressed this subject from the partial angle of the reception of the model of Sallust, without looking at the significance and development of the theme of plots in literature.³⁶ Only texts related to Porcari’s conspiracy have been more carefully examined from a historical perspective in a volume published in 2013.³⁷ On the basis of this previous research that highlights the centrality of the issue of conspiracy in the political history of the Quattrocento, this study now also explores the literary and cultural aspects of works on plots. It provides a critical examination of the ideological perspectives in the texts as interconnected with their rhetorical tools and investigates all components that frame this complex output: historical, political, literary, and stylistic elements, merged together by the solidifying and allembracing bond of the classical legacy. Thus the analysis of the classical sources employed by these authors does not focus exclusively on specific areas of the ancient tradition (such as the Roman republican tradition, mainly stressed by Quentin Skinner),³⁸ but on a wide range of models, genres, and contexts.

Fasano Guarini, Elena, eds., Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe moderne. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française de Rome, l’Institut de recherches sur les civilisations de l’Occident de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne et le Dipartimento di storia moderna e contemporanea dell’Università degli studi di Pisa, Rome, 30 septembre‒2 octobre 1993 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1996). ³⁴ Pagan, Conspiracy Narratives; Pagan, Victoria Emma, Conspiracy Theory in Latin Literature (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004). On the Greek tradition, see Roisman, Joseph, The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens (Berkeley/London: University of California Press, 2006). ³⁵ Besides the classic studies by Fubini and Martines mentioned at n. 2 and n. 3, see also the volume with a broader scope Villard, Renaud, Du bien commun au mal nécessaire: tyrannies, assassinats politiques et souveraineté en Italie, vers 1470-vers 1600 (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2008); and on tyrannicide, see Piccolomini, Manfredi, The Brutus Revival: Parricide and Tyrannicide during the Renaissance (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991). See also D’Elia, Anthony F., A Sudden Terror: The Plot to Murder the Pope in Renaissance Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009), on the conspiracy of the ‘accademici’ in Rome (1468); on this event see section I.4 in this chapter. ³⁶ Brief reflections on this matter were provided by La Penna, ‘Brevi note’; and more recently Patricia Osmond focused on the role of Sallust in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with specific attention to the figure of Catiline: Osmond, ‘ “Princeps” ’, and Osmond, ‘Catiline in Fiesole’. ³⁷ Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013); in 2014, a collection of contributions on political conflicts in (or related to) fifteenth-century Rome was published: Congiure e conflitti. ³⁸ Skinner, ‘The Vocabulary’; Skinner, The Foundations, vol. 1; Skinner, Visions.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

16

     

I.3 The classical tradition and crossovers between humanist historiography and political literature In both works on conspiracies and politico-theoretical treatises in the Quattrocento, the role played by the classical legacy is fundamental, not only from a literary perspective, but also from an ideological and political point of view. In particular the genre of humanist mirrors for princes has been prominently influenced by both classical and medieval sources.³⁹ However, the wide-ranging recovery of the classical tradition was not only at the heart of the gradual construction of humanist political thought but also at the basis of the foundation of the fifteenth-century canon of historiography: a multilayered genre of writing that acquired polychrome forms and enjoyed remarkable success in the Renaissance age, becoming deeply intertwined with political overtones and purposes. The intense critical fifteenth-century debate about the ‘theory of historiography’ and the classical models to be followed by humanists was carried out in a number of different texts, from Guarino Veronese’s De historiae conscribendae forma (1446) to Poliziano’s Praefatio in Suetoni expositionem (1482), to the ultimate comprehensive treatise on the ars historica composed at the end of the century by Giovanni Pontano, the Actius.⁴⁰ This lively discussion resulted in the gradual advancement of this genre towards modern historiographical forms in the following century. In the Quattrocento this theorization mainly focused on the modes of reappropriation of classical models: among Latin auctoritates, Livy and Sallust emerge as main sources (followed by Caesar, Tacitus, and by more ‘hybrid’ forms of historical writings, such as works by Suetonius and Valerius Maximus); while, among Greek authors, gradually rediscovered and circulating more extensively throughout the century, a crucial position is taken by Lucian of Samosata, as a prescriptive model, and Thucydides, as the chief prototype of political historiography.⁴¹ ³⁹ For political treatises see the editions and studies mentioned in n. 23. One of the major classic studies on Medieval political theory is still Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). ⁴⁰ Guarino’s text is published in Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Riflessioni umanistiche sullo “scrivere storia” ’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 3‒37; Poliziano’s Praefatio is published in Poliziano, Angelo, Praelectiones, edited by Giorgia Zollino, vol. 2 (Florence: Olschki 2016): on the text see Chapter 4, section 4.2. Pontano’s Actius is published in Giovanni Pontano, I dialoghi, edited by Carmelo Previtera (Florence: Sansoni, 1943), pp. 121‒239; on this treatise, see Monti Sabia, Liliana, Pontano e la storia. Dal ‘De bello Neapolitano’ all’‘Actius’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 1995). ⁴¹ On humanist historiography and its models, see in particular Black, Robert, ‘The New Laws of History’, Renaissance Studies 1, 1 (1987), pp. 126‒56; Regoliosi, ‘Riflessioni’; Albanese, Gabriella, ‘A redescoberta dos historiadores antigos no Humanismo e o nascimento da historiografia moderna: Valla, Facio e Pontano na corte napolitana dos reis de Aragao’, in Atti del Convegno Internazionale Antigos e Modernos: diálogos sobre a (escrita da) história (Universidade de Sao Paulo do Brazil, 2‒7 settembre 2007), edited by Francisco Murari Pires (São Paulo: Alameda Casa Editorial, 2009), pp. 277‒329. On Livy, see Billanovich, Giuseppe, Tradizione e fortuna di Livio tra Medioevo e Umanesimo (Padova:

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



17

In a rough classification, humanist historical writing can be divided into three main genres, or categories. The most important is the historia, generally devoted to the history of a city and mainly inspired by Livy (e.g. Leonardo Bruni’s Historiae Florentini populi, whose composition started in 1415). This can be divided into different subgenres, such as commentaries, or works that focus on specific historical events and are mostly related to the model of Sallust, the prototype of monographic history.⁴² Alongside historia we must place the general rhetorical category of biographical history (and its specific subcategories), represented by works that recall and celebrate the gesta of famous figures: this kind of writing had its main area of development in Neapolitan humanism and is best represented by Lorenzo Valla’s Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum (1444‒5), Bartolomeo Facio’s Rerum gestarum Alphonsi regis libri (1456) and Antonio Panormita’s Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis (1469).⁴³ Finally, the third main literary genre, although not purely historiographical, is historical-epic poetry that deals with contemporary events, such as Francesco Filelfo’s Sphortias:⁴⁴ a genre whose diffusion was closely related to its clear political undertones and its explicit propagandistic connotations. Among the classical models, a prominent position in Medieval and Renaissance literature is occupied by Sallust’s work, which was pivotal not only in the realm of historical writing but also in the elaboration of political views, especially those concerning the issue of ‘internal’ political conflict.⁴⁵ Needless to say, this Antenore, 1981); on Caesar see Brown, Virginia, ‘Caesar, Gaius Julius’, in Catalogus Translationum, vol. 3 (1976), pp. 87‒139. In general on Italian Renaissance historiography, see Cochrane, Eric, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1981); and the broader study on the European area by Grafton, Anthony, What Was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). On the role of historiography in fifteenth-century literature on plots see in particular Chapter 5, section 5.2 (and the analysis of the specific texts in the various chapters). ⁴² On humanist commentarii, see Ianziti, Gary, ‘Storiografia come propaganda: il caso dei Commentarii rinascimentali’, Società e storia 22 (1983), pp. 909‒18; Ianziti, Gary, ‘I Commentarii: appunti per la storia di un genere storiografico quattrocentesco’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150 (1992), pp. 1029‒63. ⁴³ On these works, see Chapter 3. The editions of the texts are Valla, Lorenzo, Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum, edited by Ottavio Besomi (Padova: Antenore, 1973); Facio, Bartolomeo, Rerum gestarum Alfonsi regis libri, edited by Daniela Pietragalla (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2004); Panhormitae Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis. See also Albino, Giovanni, De gestis regum Neapolitanorum ab Aragonia qui extant libri quatuor (Naples: apud Iosephum Cacchium, 1589); Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano, De bello Neapolitano, edited by Giuseppe Germano, Antonietta Iacono, Francesco Senatore (Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2019). On Facio’s work: Albanese, Gabriella, Studi su Bartolomeo Facio (Pisa: ETS, 2000). ⁴⁴ Filelfo’s poem is published in De Keyser, Jeroen, Francesco Filelfo and Francesco Sforza. Critical Edition of Filelfo’s “Sphortias”, “De Genuensium deditione”, “Oratio parentalis” and His Polemical Exchange with Galeotto Marzio (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015); see also De Keyser, Jeroen, ‘Picturing the Perfect Patron? Francesco Filelfo’s Image of Francesco Sforza’, in Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts, edited by Baker et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), pp. 391‒414. ⁴⁵ On the reception of Sallust in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see n. 1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

18

     

auctoritas had a considerable influence also on the expansion of fifteenth-century literature on political plots. In order to better contextualize the development of this output and analyse the particular use of the model of Sallust in it, it is also necessary to consider briefly the reception of this prominent model in the early Quattrocento, with a specific focus on Florentine humanism, which had a substantial impact on the growth of historical and political literature in the following decades. Already in the first half of the fifteenth century, Sallust was one of the foremost sources on which Florentine intellectuals grounded their cultural and political operation aimed at underpinning Florence’s government and its foreign policies. From this perspective, Florence was represented as the heir and guardian of the ancient values of the Roman republic. Coluccio Salutati, in particular, demonstrated that the foundation of Florence was carried out during the republican age, rejecting the medieval legend that claimed that it was due to Julius Caesar. He based his statement on Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae (28), placing a specific focus on proving this argument in his Invectiva in Antonium Luschum (1403).⁴⁶ After him, Leonardo Bruni in his proemium to the Historiae Florentini populi libri (begun in 1415) evoked Sallust’s thought to celebrate the libertas of Florence as a continuation of the Roman republic, although the political perspective that underlies the text conformed to the oligarchic and expansionistic principles at the basis of the Florentine state. The connection drawn by Bruni was aimed at showing that all states flourish and prosper under republican governments (as in the age of the city-state), while they decay if oppressed by despotic rulers (as during the imperial age of Rome).⁴⁷ This standpoint permeates still

⁴⁶ See Witt, Ronald G. , ‘Coluccio Salutati and the Origin of Florence’, Il pensiero politico 2 (1969), pp. 161‒72; and Osmond, ‘Princeps’, p. 107. In the second half of the fifteenth century, Poliziano placed the foundation of Florence in the time of Augustus, revealing the political implications that this new theory had, this time, for the legitimacy of Medici government, far from the republican ideology that had been predominant in early Quattrocento. He claimed this theory in the second letter of the first book of his Libro delle epistole, addressed to Piero de’ Medici: Poliziano, Angelo, Letters, books I‒IV, edited by Shane Butler, I Tatti Renaissance Library, 21, vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 8‒17; see Rubinstein, Nicolai ‘Poliziano e la questione delle origini di Firenze’, in Il Poliziano e il suo tempo. Atti del IV Convegno internazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, Firenze, Palazzo Strozzi, 23‒26 settembre 1954 (Florence: Sansoni, 1957), pp. 101‒10. ⁴⁷ This thought is emblematically shown by the simile in the prohoemium of Bruni’s Historiae, which represents the empire as a huge tree that ‘suffocates’ new plants and is inspired by Sall. Cat. 7: ‘Nam regibus boni quam mali suspectiores sunt semperque iis aliena virtus formidulosa est. Sed civitas incredibile memoratu est adepta libertate quantum brevi creverit: tanta cupido gloriae incesserat’; ‘For kings feel threatened more by good men than bad, and the merit of others always arouses fear in them. As for the state, it is unbelievable to relate how quickly it increased in size, once liberty had been won; such a craving for glory arrived on the scene’; translations of Sallust’s works are quoted from Sallust, The War with Catiline. The War with Jugurtha, edited by John T. Ramsey, translated by John Carew Rolfe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013). This passage is often quoted during the humanist period as a symbol of anti-tyrannical thought. Bruni’s work is published in Bruni, Leonardo, History of the Florentine People, edited and translated by James Hankins, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 2001‒7). See also Ianziti, Gary, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past (Cambridge, Mass/London: Harvard University Press, 2012); and Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 271‒88.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



19

more clearly Bruni’s Laudatio Florentinae urbis (1403‒4) and the Oratio in funere Iohannis Strozzae (1428).⁴⁸ These political ideas (very briefly summarized here) represent part of the fulcrum of political thought in early Florentine humanism and, in the following years, were retrieved and elaborated by other humanists who used even more extensively the model of Sallust, such as Poggio Bracciolini in his Historiae Florentinae (1459), and in the famous controversy with Guarino on Caesar and Scipio (1435).⁴⁹ Sallust was a prominent model also in Matteo Palmieri’s De captivitate Pisarum liber (1448), the account of the conflict between Florence and Pisa, in which the Latin historian is the source used to strengthen the celebration of the concordia civium of the Florentine state against the attempts at rebellion.⁵⁰ This principle was traditionally based on the very famous remark by Sallust, which states that ‘concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur’ (Sall. Iug. 10, 6, ‘harmony makes small states great, while the mightiest are undone by discord’) and was adopted as a conceptual cornerstone throughout the humanist age.⁵¹ Thus, in the first half of the Quattrocento, and already in the previous century and more generally in the late Middle Ages, although a specific literature on conspiracies had still to appear, many historical and political texts celebrated the value of political unity and condemned conflicts and subversion,⁵² mostly on the basis of Sallust’s work and the ideology put forth in it. Yet, it is only around the middle of the fifteenth century that the reappropriation of the Latin historian became complete and affected not only ideological aspects, but also the literary dimension and, therefore, gave birth to a corpus of works specifically devoted to political plots. This was also due to a broader gradual change in the historical and cultural background, where political ideas deriving from the classical republican tradition were evoked by the humanists mainly to denounce the threat coming from seditions. Now these attempts at subverting the political status quo are often represented in literature as provoked by the amorality of plotters, usually described with the traits of Sallust’s Catiline. Consequently the legacy of the

⁴⁸ The Laudatio is published in Bruni, Leonardo, Laudatio Florentine urbis, edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri (Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2000); the Oratio is published in Bruni, Leonardo, Opere letterarie e politiche, edited by Paolo Viti (Torino: UTET, 1996), pp. 720‒21. On the influence of Sallust in Bruni’s works: La Penna, Sallustio, pp. 432‒39; Osmond, ‘Princeps’, pp. 108‒10. See also Hankins, ‘The “Baron Thesis” ’; and ‘Rhetoric’. ⁴⁹ Bruni, Leonardo and Bracciolini, Poggio, Storie Fiorentine, introduction by Eugenio Garin (Arezzo: Biblioteca della città, 1984); Canfora, La controversia. ⁵⁰ On Palmieri’s historical work see Osmond, ‘Princeps’, p. 110; the text is published in Matthei Palmerii De captivitate Pisarum liber, edited by Gino Scaramella, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1904), vol. 19, part 2. ⁵¹ See in particular Pedullà, Machiavelli, pp. 11‒88. ⁵² A focus on these concepts in the analysis of Florentine works of the early Quattrocento is placed by Najemy, John M., ‘ “Civic Humanism” and Florentine politics’, in Renaissance Civic Humanism, edited by James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 75‒104.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

20

     

classical tradition relating to this topic resulted in a new, or more precisely ‘renewed’, ‘monographic’ genre of literary texts on contemporary conspiracies (like the De coniuratione Catilinae itself). Nevertheless, alongside the predictable source of Sallust, which takes specific forms and results in different outcomes in each work, manifold classical models are employed and all texts display a complex process of imitation.⁵³ Despite the conflation of multiple sources and the adoption of various literary genres, the cornerstone of all these texts is history. This emerges in both the use of classical historical auctoritates and the historiographical and political interpretation of the episodes. The growth of humanist political historiography, as the foremost component of fifteenth-century historical writing, has been pointed out and extensively illustrated by scholars with regard to the cultural areas of Florence, at least for the first half of the century, and, most importantly, of Milan and Naples.⁵⁴ It is within the political systems of the princely governments of Naples and Milan that a particular genre of official political historiography was brought forth. This output is the expression of a well-articulated operation of cultural politics involving the most distinguished intellectuals, who were appointed as ‘official’ historians and were committed to providing new rulers with an authoritative support.⁵⁵ Evidently this political historiography was closely associated with eulogistic and propagandistic aims, but it was also grounded on well-thought-out historiographical tenets that were discussed and gradually established through the lively fifteenth-century debate on the theory and practice of historia. The production of this political historiography within Neapolitan humanism is interconnected with the significant development, in the very same area, of a theoretical literature de principe (from the first ‘hybrid’ work by Bartolomeo Facio, who wrote in 1444 the rhetorical triptych Super Isocrate, to more canonical

⁵³ On imitation in the Renaissance, see in particular McLaughlin, Martin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1995). ⁵⁴ On Florentine historiography and its development in the sixteenth century: Gilbert, Felix ‘The Theory and Practice of History in the Fifteenth Century’, in Gilbert, Felix Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), pp. 203‒36. See also, Ianziti, Writing History. On Milanese political historiography the fundamental study is Ianziti, Gary, Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas. Politics and Propaganda in 15th Century Milan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); while on Neapolitan historiography, see in particular Ferraù, Giacomo, Il tessitore di Antequera. Storiografia umanistica meridionale (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2001). On official historiography: Ferraù, Giacomo, ‘La storiografia come ufficialità’, in Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, 1. Il Medioevo latino, edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, Claudio Leonardi, and Enrico Menestò, vol. 3, La ricezione del testo (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1995), pp. 661‒93. On humanist historiography in general see also the studies mentioned in n. 41 and Miglio, Massimo, Storiografia pontificia del Quattrocento (Bologna: Patron, 1975); Tateo, Francesco, I miti della storiografia umanistica (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990); Fubini, Riccardo, L’Umanesimo italiano e i suoi storici. Origini rinascimentali, critica moderna (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2001); Fubini, Riccardo, Storiografia dell’Umanesimo in Italia da Leonardo Bruni ad Annio da Viterbo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003). ⁵⁵ On Neapolitan works, see Chapter 3, section 3.2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



21

treatises).⁵⁶ Both these literary strands were intended to enhance monarchs’ authority and to define an ideal rule by looking at the concrete political issues of the kingdom. Hence, the strong relationship between politics and historiography emerges as one of the distinctive traits of fifteenth-century literature, not only in the area of pure historical writing, but also in other literary texts (treatises, poems, epistle, dialogues, etc.), and in particular in the multiform ‘thematic’ genre of literature on conspiracies.

I.4 Texts on political plots: a multifaceted corpus Besides the most important texts selected as case studies in this volume, many works on the topic of conspiracy were composed in the same period throughout Italy, disclosing the remarkable fortune enjoyed by this kind of literature (not to mention the numerous narratives of these events included in more general historiographical works). In 1453, Stefano Porcari’s attempt at overthrowing papal government attracted the interest of several intellectuals and can be regarded as the event that inaugurated to this literary output. In addition to Alberti and Orazio Romano’s works, the conspiracy was narrated in other literary texts (as well as in several historical documents): the De coniuratione Porcaria (1453c.),⁵⁷ a dialogue by the jurist Pietro Godi, mainly focused on the issue of the legitimacy of ecclesiastical power; an epistle written some years after the plot, in 1459, by Alamanno Rinuccini, the famous Florentine humanist who was an upholder of republican tenets and therefore interpreted the events from this specific political outlook, producing the only text in this corpus that sympathizes with the conspirator;⁵⁸ and the Conformatio Curie Romane (1453c.), a poem in hexameters composed by the humanist Giuseppe Brivio and aimed at both condemning Stefano Porcari and celebrating Pope Nicolas V.⁵⁹ If we consider Orazio Romano’s Porcaria and Brivio’s poem, it is noteworthy that the poetic genre—and in particular its subcategories of epic and eulogistic short poems—is used as the literary vehicle for dealing with the political issue of conspiracies, and it will be employed by other authors in the following years. More

⁵⁶ Facio’s work consists of three orations: two eulogies of king Alfonso and his son Ferdinando, and the translation into the vernacular of Isocrate’s Ad Nicoclem; the texts are preserved in the manuscript of the University Library in Seville (ms. 443) and are published now in Albanese, ‘L’esordio’, pp. 59‒115. ⁵⁷ Lehnerdt, pp. 4‒34. ⁵⁸ Rinuccini, Alamanno, Epistole e orazioni, edited by Vito R. Giustiniani (Florence: Olschki, 1953), pp. 39‒46. ⁵⁹ The text is published in Tommasini, Oreste, ‘Documenti relativi a Stefano Porcari’, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 3 (1880), pp. 63‒133, 111‒23; see Miglio, Massimo, ‘Giuseppe Brivio’, DBI, 14 (1972), pp. 355‒8.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

22

     

generally, epic poetry was traditionally linked with propagandistic intentions, and this political overtone was further enhanced in the fifteenth century, when historical-epic poems were mostly focused on celebrating signori or princes. Another significant example is the poem Tarentina (1464) written by Fosco Paracleto Malvezzi, a little-known humanist bishop of Acerno.⁶⁰ This work deals with the first conspiracy of the barons against Ferdinando of Aragon, the same event to which Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano is devoted, but from a completely different literary perspective. The purpose of the poem, which is informed by several imaginary and fantastic motives distant from a realistic historical narrative, is to exculpate the king of Naples from the allegation of having murdered Giovanni Antonio Orsini, prince of Taranto, the leader of the rebel barons. Significantly, some elements seem to connect this text with the Porcaria, which was composed about ten years earlier and could have influenced this late bizarre epic work: in particular, both have an infernal setting and rotate around the figure of a negative hero, the conspirator, on whom the title of both texts is similarly based.⁶¹ The connection between poetry and the historical topic of conspiracy does not end with the Porcaria and the Tarentina. Even if this study does focus on the Quattrocento, it is worth mentioning that in the sixteenth century Ludovico Ariosto wrote an eclogue in the vernacular on the conspiracy hatched in Ferrara, in 1506, by Giulio and Ferrante d’Este against their brothers, the Duke of Ferrara, Alfonso d’Este, and Cardinal Ippolito.⁶² In Ariosto’s eclogue, composed immediately after the conspiracy in 1506, the historical events are dealt with in an imaginary and poetic perspective, by means of the creation of the bucolic setting. The conspiracy is narrated through the dialogue of two shepherds, Melibeo and Tirsi, who meet in a pastoral location, and all real characters are called by fictional pastoral names, yet under these concealing pseudonyms it is still possible to recognize the actual identities of the historical figures. Epic had been the main poetic vehicle for the topic of conspiracy in the fifteenth century, nonetheless bucolic poetry achieves the same stylistic results of placing the contemporary historical episode in an imaginary and distant setting, which allows the author to treat this thorny political issue. Although since the classical age the bucolic background stands for a peaceful retreat from war and civic involvement, politics frequently creeps into the Arcadian world. This intrusion is conventional in the literary tradition and it is amplified in fifteenth-century pastoral poetry,

⁶⁰ Martucci, Giovanni, Un poema latino inedito del sec. XV sulla tentata restaurazione angioina (Rome: Giovanni Balbi, 1899). ⁶¹ On these works and, more generally, the use of the poetic genre: Chapter 1, section 1.3. ⁶² The eclogue is published in Ariosto, Ludovico, Le opere minori, edited by Giuseppe Fatini (Florence: Sansoni, 1961), pp. 313‒29. See also Bacchelli, Riccardo, La congiura di Don Giulio d’Este, (Milan: Mondadori, 1983).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



23

especially in the eclogues composed in the cultural environment of Ferrara.⁶³ Ariosto seems to follow this model, since his work is fully imbued by a political dimension, though veiled by the pastoral disguise. His ultimate aim is to celebrate Alfonso, the Duke of Ferrara, and to condemn the conspirators, whose plans are described as an attempt to put in danger the peaceful conditions that the current government has secured. Thus the eclogue turns out to be to some extent connected with humanist works on plots, in terms of eulogistic aim, literary transfiguration of history, and political intents. From this perspective, Ariosto’s poem and humanist texts should be regarded as works composed by committed letterati, who were willing to support their patron’s cultural politics, but could also maintain a space for intellectual freedom. This autonomy emerges either in the personal way in which they decide to treat political issues, or, in some cases, in the evolution of their personal political thinking in relation to a specific historical event. For instance, some years after writing the eclogue, Ariosto would mention the conspiracy in the Orlando furioso (III, 60‒2), presenting the episode in a more conciliatory perspective and urging the duke to be merciful. More generally, Ariosto’s eclogue, in light of several links with humanist literature on plots, can be placed in the tradition of texts related to this political issue, and, along with Machiavelli’s works (in the area of prose and historical writing) it represents the sixteenth-century development of this political literature in the vernacular. Going back to the Quattrocento, the papal state faced many conspiracies, or supposed plans of conspiracy in this period. Only seven years after Stefano Porcari’s plot, between 1459 and 1460, a revolt was carried out in Rome against the city’s governing bodies and Pius II’s rule, and significantly it was led (mainly in its second stage) by Stefano Porcari’s nephew, Triburzio di Angelo di Maso.⁶⁴ One of the main sources for this rebellion is a group of letters by the humanist George of Trebizond, which provide an account of the events and are mostly aimed at exculpating his son, Iacopo, from the possible allegation of being part of this uprising.⁶⁵ However, this episode cannot be considered exactly a conspiracy, but rather it has been more rightly defined as an actual revolt, because of the wider ⁶³ Beside Ariosto’s work, another eclogue was composed on the same conspiracy in Ferrara: the author is Antonio Valtellino, chancellor of Niccolò da Correggio, who was one of the main political advisors of Alfonso d’Este. This eclogue is published in Dionisotti, Carlo ‘Documenti letterari d’una congiura estense’, Civiltà moderna 9 (1937), pp. 327‒40. On this text and, more in general, on the bucolic literature produced in the North of Italy: Bacchelli, pp. 6, 8. ⁶⁴ On this revolt see in particular Farenga, Paola, ‘La rivolta di Triburzio nel 1460’, in Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013, edited by Chiabò et al. (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 167‒86. ⁶⁵ These letters are published in Cessi, Roberto, Saggi romani (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1956), pp. 153‒185. On Trapezuntius, see Monfasani, John, George of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: Brill, 1976); Monfasani, John, Collectanea trapezuntiana. Texts, Documents and Bibliographies of George of Trebizond (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies in conjunction with the Renaissance Society of America, 1984).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

24

     

popular participation and its less secret character. In addition, it did not have a proper treatment in specific literary works, but mainly in more general histories of the city, or memoriali.⁶⁶ Eight years later, in 1468, a further conspiratorial event in Rome was the so-called conspiracy of the ‘accademici’. A group of humanists who were part of the Accademia romana were accused by Pope Paul II of plotting against him and, for this reason, in February 1468 were captured and jailed, although they always proclaimed their innocence.⁶⁷ Some of the intellectuals arrested were Bartolomeo Platina, Lucio Fosforo, Antonio Maffei, and Pomponio Leto (at a second stage); while others, such as Callimaco (Filippo Buonaccorsi), the allegedly leader of the plot, managed to flee from Rome. The humanists in jail did not stop their literary activity and wrote a sizable number of works: some of these texts concern more directly their own experience of detention, others are more distant from their situation.⁶⁸ Yet, despite these features, this corpus of works cannot be included in the category of works on plots, because they do not contain any account of seditious events (which actually never took place), nor deal with this political topic, apart from the writings aimed at claiming the humanists’ innocence and providing their defence (such as the Defensio in carceribus by Pomponio Leto).⁶⁹ However, among the numerous conspiracies of these decades, other events can be regarded as contributing more directly to the literary definition of the ‘age of conspiracies’. One of these episodes, this time concerning the history of Florence, is the political plot planned in 1465‒6 by Dietisalvi Neroni, Agnolo Acciaiuoli, and Niccolò Soderini, against Piero de’ Medici, Cosimo’s son, who succeeded his father in 1464. This conspiracy was narrated by the Florentine humanist Benedetto Colucci da Pistoia in the De discordiis Florentinorum in 1468:⁷⁰ the historical account results in an accolade and tribute to the Medici regime and is entirely focused on eulogizing Cosimo, his son Piero and his grandson Lorenzo. One year later, in 1469, a further literary work devoted to another conspiracy was composed in Ferrara: the Commemoratione del tradimento facto verso il clarissimo

⁶⁶ In particular see Infessura, Stefano, Diario della città di Roma di Stefano Infessura scribasenato, edited by Oreste Tommasini (Rome: Forzani, 1890), pp. 64‒5. ⁶⁷ On this event, see Medioli Masotti, Paola, ’L’Accademia romana e la congiura del 1468’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25 (1982), pp. 189‒204; D’Elia, A Sudden Terror; and Vecchia, Damiana and Bianca, Concetta, ‘Riflessioni sulla “congiura” degli Accademici’, in Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013, edited by Chiabò et al. (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 187‒202. ⁶⁸ All these works are listed in Medioli Masotti, pp. 191‒2. ⁶⁹ Carini, Isidoro, La difesa di Pomponio Leto (Bergamo: Istituto italiano d’arti grafiche, 1894). ⁷⁰ Colucci, Benedetto, De discordiis Florentinorum liber nunc primum ex ms. cod. in lucem erutus a Laurentio Mehus Etruscae academiae Cortonensis socio (Florentiae: apud Ioannem Paullum Giovannelli, 1747). Cf. Ristori, Renzo, ‘Benedetto Colucci da Pistoia’, DBI, 27 (1982), pp. 494‒8. On this plot, see Martines, Lauro, La congiura dei Pazzi: intrighi politici, sangue e vendetta nella Firenze dei Medici, translated by Nadia Cannata (Milan: Mondadori, 2005), pp. 47‒56.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



25

et excellentissimo principe duca Borso.⁷¹ The text, in the vernacular, was composed by a little known humanist, Carlo di San Giorgio (called Polismagna), in order to denounce the abortive attack plotted in 1469 against Borso d’Este, the Duke of Ferrara and Modena, by Giovanni Ludovico Pio—son of Galasso, one of the rulers of Carpi together with his brothers, Alberto e Giberto—with the support of Galeazzo Maria Visconti, the Duke of Milan, and Piero de’ Medici. Carlo di San Giorgio was the secretary of the Ferrarese court and the librarian of the ducal library. As the prologue of his work states, the text had been previously written in Latin, but since the dedicatee, the duke, was not familiar enough with the classical language, it was translated and reworked in the vernacular (this is the only version still extant today and is contained in the manuscript of the Estense Library in Modena, α.G.6.12). This choice is also due to the purpose of reaching out to an audience that was as wide as possible. The need for a pro-ruler account of the events was urgent especially if we consider that the revenge against whoever was believed to be a plotter was ruthless: not only was Giovanni Ludovico Pio beheaded in the public square, but his sons were deprived of their properties and his brothers, unaware of the plan, were detained in jail for many years.⁷² Yet the narration, although wholly oriented to support the duke’s standpoint and to present his rule as being under the auspices of God, seems not to have had a wide circulation. This is probably attributable to the rather naive political approach that underlies the text in some crucial passages. For example, the author openly mentions the foreign political forces involved in the attack, in particular Florence and its leader Piero de’ Medici, while reference to the ‘external’ instigators of the conspiracies is usually prudently avoided by humanists in their texts on plots. Therefore these rather incautious observations might account for the work’s restricted diffusion. Another text in the vernacular in this corpus is the Lamento in morte di Giuliano, a poem on the Pazzi conspiracy written by an anonymous author in 1478, which reveals that, although most works on plots were composed in Latin, the vehicle of the vernacular was also employed by writers, especially in the texts marked by a more popular character. However, in the context of the Pazzi conspiracy, the allembracing system of pro-Medici propaganda was mainly built by humanist works. In particular, besides Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, the most explicitly political documents were produced by both Bartolomeo Scala, the chancellor of ⁷¹ Carlo di San Giorgio, Commemoratione vel tractato del tradimento facto verso il clarissimo et excellentissimo principe duca Borso per li sceleratissimi homini Ioan Ludovico Impio et Andrea da Varegnana, in Cappelli, Antonio, ‘La congiura dei Pio signori di Carpi contro Borso d’Este signore di Ferrara duca di Modena e Reggio’, Atti e Memorie delle Reali Deputazioni di Storia patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi 2 (1864), pp. 3‒52. See Mastronardi, Maria Aurelia, ‘Una congiura alla corte di Borso d’Este’, in Confini dell’Umanesimo letterario. Studi in onore di Francesco Tateo, vol. 2, edited by Mauro De Nichilo, Grazia Distaso, and Antonio Iurilli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2003), pp. 921‒35. ⁷² On the whole event, see Chiappini, Luciano, ‘Borso d’Este’, DBI, 13 (1971), pp. 134‒43.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

26

     

Florence, who wrote the Excusatio Florentinorum (1478), and Gentile Becchi, the bishop of Arezzo, who composed the Florentina synodus (1478), both based on juridical interpretations of the event and aimed at underpinning the Medici’s defence against Pope Sixtus IV, one of the main instigators of the assault in Florence. Thanks to the new revolutionary invention of the printing press, all these texts devoted to the burning political issue of a conspiracy, for the first time were immediately published in printed editions and circulated more widely. Also the Lamento in the vernacular was printed at once, in order to let it have the same far-reaching dissemination as the other texts oriented towards a more educated public: it was published in autumn of 1478 and was edited by Bartolomeo Fonzio, another humanist of Lorenzo’s entourage.⁷³ Only two years before the Pazzi conspiracy, one of the most famous fifteenthcentury plots took place in Milan: the attack against Galeazzo Maria Sforza, fatally stabbed on 26 December 1476 in front of the Church of Santo Stefano. This episode in some ways bears a resemblance to the murder of another duke of Milan, Giovanni Maria Visconti, in 1412.⁷⁴ The assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza is a rare example of a successful conspiracy, but the plotters were not able to achieve their political purposes and were eventually condemned and executed. The leader of the plot was Giovanni Andrea Lampugnani, a Milanese noble who had also involved in his plan Gerolamo Olgiati and Carlo Visconti, along with supporters belonging to the town’s aristocracy.⁷⁵ Although this was a crucial historical episode in the history of the Quattrocento, the texts related to it did not enjoy much success. The most important was Gian Mario Filelfo’s Consolatoria dedicata alla duchessa di Milano Bona di Savoia (by the son of the more famous Francesco Filelfo), a work in the vernacular written in 1477 as a consolatory oration-treatise that significantly includes as its third and last section a sort of theory of princely government viewed from the perspective of a female ruler, in this case Bona of Savoy, the regent after her husband’s murder.⁷⁶ Another work on the same event is a poem in terzine, the Capitolo per lo illustrissimo duca Galeazzo de Milano, composed by the humanist Antonio Cornazzano,⁷⁷ who, after living in Milan for many years, had moved to Ferrara and had already written a poem on ⁷³ On all texts on this conspiracy, see Chapter 4. ⁷⁴ See Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Giovanni Maria Visconti’, DBI, 56 (2001), pp. 352‒57. ⁷⁵ On this conspiracy: Belotti, Bortolo, Storia di una congiura (Olgiati) (Milan: Dall’Oglio, 1965); Riccardo Fubini, Italia quattrocentesca, pp. 107‒35, 220‒52, 327‒50; Vaglienti, Francesca M., ‘Anatomia di una congiura. Sulle tracce dell’assassinio del duca Galeazzo Maria Sforza tra scienza e storia’, Atti dell’Istituto lombardo. Accademia di scienze e lettere di Milano 136, 2 (2002), pp. 237‒73; and Vaglienti, Francesca M., ‘Giovanni Andrea Lampugnani’, DBI, 63 (2004), pp. 272‒5. ⁷⁶ Filelfo, Gian Mario, Consolatoria: dedicata alla duchessa di Milano Bona di Savoia, per la morte del duca Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1477), edited by Anne Schoysman Zambrini (Bologna: Commissione per i Testi di Lingua, 1991). ⁷⁷ The text is published in the edition Opera Nova de Miser Antonio Cornazano in terza rima (Venetia: Zorzi di Rusconi, ad instantia de Nicolo dicto Zopino et Vincentio compagni, 1517), which was also reprinted the following year.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi



27

the conspiracy plotted in this city by Niccolò d’Este against his uncle Ercole, a few months earlier, the De Herculei filii ortu et de urbis Ferrariae periculo ac liberatione:⁷⁸ both works are aimed at condemning the conspiratorial attacks. Moreover, in Milan, Bonino Mombrizio, a humanist who was part of the entourage of the Sforza’s court, commemorated the assassination of Duke Galeazzo Maria Sforza in his Threnodia (1476), a poem in Latin.⁷⁹ But the most comprehensive narratives of the events can be found in more extensive and wide-ranging historical texts, such as Bernardino Corio’s Historia Patria⁸⁰ (whose composition started in 1485, but it was published in 1503) and the Diari of Cicco Simonetta (1473‒9), the secretary of the dukes of Milan and the ruler in charge pro tempore together with Bona of Savoy, though not officially, after Galeazzo’s death.⁸¹ This conspiracy has a substantial bearing on the general affirmation of the fifteenth-century cultural and political viewpoint in the interpretation of plots. The conspirators against Galeazzo hoped to gain legitimacy for their political action by presenting themselves as followers of the anti-tyrannical classical tradition and clearly intended to adopt the model of the assassination of Julius Caesar. In the same years, this ideology rooted in the ancient culture had been celebrated by the Bolognese humanist Nicola Capponi, called Cola Montano, professor of Latin in Milan, whose lectures were attended by the conspirators themselves.⁸² Montano did not only praise Roman virtus and anti-tyrannical thought, but in his speeches he also associated the image of Duke Galeazzo with the negative figure of Tarquinius Superbus, while the most famous conspirators of the classical tradition, Brutus, Cassius, and Catiline, were celebrated as positive models to follow. Significantly, the relationship between the classical republican tradition and Montano’s anti-despotic ideals was underscored in Machiavelli’s Istorie fiorentine (VII, 33), where the narration of this plot has a pivotal position. What is most noteworthy is that the interpretation of this event that prevailed in the aftermath, not only in the state of Milan but more broadly in Italy, was totally opposite to the conspirators’ views and intentions. Although they tried to justify their actions in the anti-tyrannical ideology deriving from the classical tradition, the standpoint that generally ended up triumphing coincided with an autocratic view, and was focused on bringing to the fore the principles of political unity. Conversely, the stance that looked at this act of rebellion as driven by the disapproval of a despotic ⁷⁸ This work is published in Zancani, Diego, ‘Il De Herculei filii ortu et de urbis Ferrariae periculo ac liberatione di Antonio Cornazzano’, Bollettino storico piacentino 74 (1979), pp. 66‒76. On this conspiracy, see Trevor, Dean, ‘Ercole d’Este’, DBI, 43 (1993), pp. 97‒107. ⁷⁹ Mombrizio, Bonino, Threnodia, edited by Alessandro Minuziano (Milan, 1504). ⁸⁰ Corio, Bernardio, Storia di Milano, edited by Anna Morisi Guerra, vol. 2 (Torino: UTET, 1978), pp. 1370‒413; see also Meschini, Stefano, Uno storico umanista alla corte sforzesca: biografia di Bernardino Corio (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1995). ⁸¹ I diari di Cicco Simonetta, edited by Alfio Rosario Natale (Milano: Giuffrè, 1961). On Milanese historiography: Ianziti, Humanistic Historiography. ⁸² On Cola Montano, see Orvieto, Paolo, ‘Nicola Capponi detto Cola Montano’, DBI, 19 (1976), pp. 83‒6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 3/11/2020, SPi

28

     

regime was not fostered by the political and intellectual circuits and was in the end suppressed and defeated. Hence, more generally, the reading of these subversive events that prevailed was focused on condemning the attacks presenting the plot as a dangerous threat against a legitimate government. The major contribution to the predominance of this pro-ruler political outlook was made by literature and, in particular, by the narrative of the facts produced and disseminated in humanist works. This study is carried out in six chapters, the first four of which are devoted to the analysis of the most important humanist works on conspiracies that are examined as case studies: Orazio Romano’s epic poem Porcaria (Chapter 1); Leon Battista Alberti’s epistle Porcaria coniuratio (Chapter 2); Giovanni Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano (Chapter 3); and Angelo Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium (Chapter 4). These texts allow us to explore at length the growth of this literary subject, across different literary genres and the most prominent political and cultural centres, through an in-depth examination of each work conducted from philological, historical, stylistic, and critical perspectives. This investigation, paying specific attention to the influence of the classical tradition and the process of imitatio performed by the authors, also discloses the political perspectives that match the specific rhetorical strategies adopted by the humanists to represent the historical events. Chapter 5 provides a comparative analysis and traces the overall evolution of the issue of conspiracies in humanist literature and points out the recurring literary patterns, classical sources, narrative approaches, and political angles that characterize the literary transfiguration of this topic. Particular focus is placed on the significant interaction between historiographical, political, and literary elements in these texts and on the links with literature de principe. The purpose is also to define more precisely the complex facets of fifteenth-century political thought and its connection with the cultural and literary dimension, with specific reference to the treatment of the theme of conspiracy. The final section of this volume (Chapter 6) considers the sixteenth century, and in particular Machiavelli. This analysis investigates how the topic of conspiracy is addressed in Machiavelli’s works and concentrates on the relationship between his reflections on this political practice and fifteenth-century literature on plots. It looks at the perspectives that he has in common with this previous corpus of works, but also, more significantly, at how he, at the same time, radically departs from it in producing an overall lucid theorization of this political phenomenon.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

1 Orazio Romano’s Porcaria Humanist Epic as a Vehicle for Papal-Princely Ideology

1.1 Orazio Romano and the composition of the poem The Porcaria is the first epic poem in the fifteenth century that deals with the topic of conspiracy. It represents one of the most important literary works related to Stefano Porcari’s plot against Pope Nicholas V, which took place in 1453. This original and sophisticated poem was composed by Orazio Romano, a relatively unknown humanist who lived in the little city of Viterbo. While Porcari’s conspiracy against Nicholas V has been more extensively studied from a historical point of view,¹ less attention has been paid to the literary works devoted to this plot, in particular to the Porcaria and its author. Thanks to the new analysis that has been conducted on the manuscript of the text, the codex of the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), which is the only copy of the Porcaria still extant, it has been possible to outline more precisely the circumstances of the composition of the poem and its tradition.² Unfortunately, little information is available on Orazio Romano’s biography. He lived and worked around the middle of the fifteenth century in the cultural and political environment of the Roman Curia (and he probably died before 1467). He worked as a magister in Viterbo, as shown by archival documents relating to the year 1448, and he was also assigned the role of papal secretary, as recounted by Enea Silvio Piccolomini in his De Europa written in 1458.³ More generally, from ¹ See in particular Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013). ² The poem is published in Lehnerdt, pp. 4‒34. On the manuscript see p. IX of this edition; Landrobe, Horacio Silvestre, ‘Horatius Romanus. Un poeta en la corte papal renacentista’, Helmantica 40 (1989), pp. 445‒51: 448–9; and Oliva, Anna Maria, ‘Orazio Romano’, Roma nel Rinascimento (1994), pp. 23‒9: 26, which is the most complete, although brief, study on Orazio Romano so far. ³ For the date of death and for Piccolomini’s reference to Orazio Romano see Oliva, ‘Orazio Romano’, p. 23. Cf. Aeneae Sylvii Pii II Pontificis Maximi, In Europam sui temporis varias continentem historias, in Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis Opera Omnia (Basileae 1571), p. 459. See now the edition Enee Silvii Piccolominei postea Pii II De Europa edidit commentarioque instruxit Adrianus van Heck (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 2001). On Orazio Romano and the documents in the Archive of Viterbo cf. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Cultura umanistica a Viterbo nella seconda metà del Quattrocento’, in Cultura umanistica a Viterbo, Atti della giornata di studio per il V Centenario della stampa a Viterbo (Viterbo 12 novembre 1988), edited by Teresa Sampieri and Giuseppe Lombardi (Viterbo: Associazione Roma nel Rinascimento, 1991), pp. 11‒46: 14‒21.

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

30

     

the pontificate of Pope Nicholas V (1447‒55) to that of Pope Pius II (1458‒64), Orazio was one of the humanists who took an active part in the cultural politics of the Curia and collaborated with the clergy. He carried out official commitments and composed literary texts mostly dedicated to Nicholas V and Pius II. The role of teacher in Viterbo given to Orazio is also significant as a telling example of the close relationships between the Curia and intellectuals in that period. Humanists were often assigned important positions (as officials, chancellors, or teachers) in the territories of the papal domain, in particular in Viterbo, a town that had a key function as an administrative and cultural centre in the papal state under Nicholas V. During his pontificate, this connection between Rome and Viterbo became stronger: so, in this peripheral city, many literati started to have a considerable commitment to papal cultural politics, supporting it both with their official and artistic activity and by collaborating in the creation and reinforcement of papal political ideology.⁴ Orazio Romano was a refined humanist and he had a noteworthy familiarity with classical authors, not just the most established auctoritates but also with less predictable sources that were not circulating widely yet in this time. In particular he is also known as the author of a translation of the Iliad from Greek into Latin, carried out for Nicholas V: this work was appreciated by several humanists, such as Pius II,⁵ but unfortunately only fifty-eight autograph lines of this translation are still extant nowadays, in a manuscript of the Vatican Library (Vat. Lat. 3908) originally owned by the humanist Giovanni Tortelli, the librarian of the Vatican Library under Nicholas V.⁶ This ambitious work demonstrates Orazio’s deep knowledge of both classical languages and prosody. He had been a pupil of the elder humanist Porcelio de’ Pandoni, who recalled him in a couplet in one of his poems: ‘Huc ades, Orati, veterem qui vertis Homerum,/ Pegaseos latices cui mea Musa dedit’ (‘Come here, Orazio, you who translate old Homer, to whom my Muse gave Pegasus’s poetic water’).⁷ Orazio Romano’s literary work mainly ⁴ Miglio, ‘Cultura umanistica’, pp. 23‒4. ⁵ He claims that Orazio Romano started the ambitious enterprise of translation of the Iliad into a ‘heroico carmine’ in Latin which is worthy of the admiration of people of that age: Aeneae Sylvii Pii II, p. 459. ⁶ See Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli. I. Il Vaticano latino 3908’, Italia Medievale e umanistica 9 (1966), pp. 123‒89: 124‒5; Fabbri, Renata, Nuova traduzione metrica di Iliade, XIV da una miscellanea umanistica di Agnolo Manetti (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981), p. 16: here are also mentioned Carlo Marsuppini’s translation of the Iliad (made around 1452) and the recusatio of Basinio Basini, who was asked to translate the Greek epic by Nicholas V but declined. The fifty-eight lines of Orazio Romano’s translation are published in Lehnerdt, pp. 39‒40. On Tortelli see also Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli. II. La vita di Giovanni Tortelli’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 12 (1969), pp. 129‒96; and Manfredi, Antonio, Marsico, Clementina, and Regoliosi, Mariangela, eds., Giovanni Tortelli primo bibliotecario della Vaticana (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016). ⁷ The quotation is in Avesani, Rino, ‘Epaeneticorum ad Pium II, Pont. Max. Libri V’, in Enea Silvio Piccolomini. Papa Pio II. Atti del Convegno per il quinto centenario della morte e altri scritti, edited by Domenico Maffei (Siena: Accademia Senese degli Intronati, 1968), pp. 15‒97: 25 (my translation). See also Mariotti, Scevola, ‘Note su alcuni epigrammi di Orazio Romano’, in Scevola Mariotti, Scritti

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

31

consists of eulogistic and occasional poems, mostly related to historical issues. Besides the texts transcribed in the Utrecht manuscript along with the Porcaria,⁸ Orazio’s work includes four epigrams dedicated to pope Pius II⁹ and a longer poem in hexameters, entitled Persuasio contra Turchum (1456) and addressed to the Aragonese king Alfonso the Magnanimous: another poem on a burning political issue and one that was aimed at urging the king to wage a crusade against the Ottomans.¹⁰ Although Orazio Romano’s life is still mostly obscure, it is possible to deduce more about him and the cultural scenario in which he composed the Porcaria by a careful analysis of the manuscript of the poem, taking into consideration also the historical context of that period and the network of relationships within the Curia. Firstly, it is worth highlighting that all the texts transcribed in the manuscript are Orazio Romano’s works, among which the Porcaria is the main text (it covers twenty-four folios out of thirty-two, ff. 5r‒29r). Besides the poem on the conspiracy, the codex includes three elegies: the first is dedicated to Nicholas V and can be regarded as a preface to the Porcaria, focused as it is on celebrating papal politics and his renewal of the architecture of Rome (ff. 3r‒4v); the second is a short poem called Venus aurea (ff. 29v‒31r); and the last is again a eulogistic work, devoted to Francesco Sforza and intended to encourage him to protect the pope and maintain Italy in peace (ff. 31v‒32v; this poem was probably written between 1451 and 1452).¹¹ However, the most significant text in the manuscript to be considered in relation to the Porcaria is the dedicatory epistle transcribed on the first folio of the codex (f. 2r–v): this is a letter written by Orazio Romano to Pietro Lunense, the dedicatee of Orazio’s literary works (see Figure 1.1). Pietro Putomorsi from Fivizzano, also known as Pietro Lunense, was a humanist who lived and worked in Viterbo and had a close relationship with the Curia.¹² He was assigned the role of papal secretary by both Eugene IV and Nicholas V, and he was a loyal collaborator of Nicholas V, from whom he received several privileges, due probably to their common origin from Luni, a little village in the territory of medievali umanistici, edited by Silvia Rizzo (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2010), pp. 153‒6; Oliva, ‘Orazio Romano’, p. 28; Lehnerdt, p. IX. ⁸ On these works see the following part of this section. ⁹ On these poems, published in Lehnerdt, see Avesani, ‘Epaeneticorum ad Pium II’, pp. 25, 34, 49, 68‒9. ¹⁰ The edition of this poem is in Nuovi documenti per la storia del Rinascimento, edited by Tammaro De Marinis and Alessandro Perosa (Firenze: Olschki, 1970). On humanist literature devoted to this historical topic see La caduta di Costantinopoli, edited by Agostino Pertusi, vol. 1, Le testimonianze dei contemporanei, vol. 2, L’eco del mondo (Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1976); and James Hankins, ‘Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), pp. 111‒46. ¹¹ Lehnerdt, pp. VI, IX‒X. ¹² Cf. Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, ‘Pietro Putomorsi da Fivizzano, detto Pietro Lunense: un corrispondente di Leonardo Bruni a Viterbo’, in Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta, vol. 2, edited by Vincenzo Fera and Giacomo Ferraù (Padova: Antenore, 1997), pp. 1057‒82.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

32

     

Figure 1.1. Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), f. 2r; dedicatory epistle by Orazio Romano to Pietro Lunense.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

33

Lunigiana.¹³ Moreover, Lunense was given the permanent post of chancellor of Viterbo by Nicholas V, and this official commitment sheds light on the bond between him and Orazio Romano. Putomorsi was also a correspondent of some of the chief Italian humanists of that period, such as Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and Antonio Panormita. In particular Panormita wrote Putomorsi a metrical epistle and asked him for a ‘recommendation’ in order to obtain emoluments from the pope.¹⁴ This is a significant letter to be read in conjunction with the dedicatory epistle in the manuscript of the Porcaria, since it shows the influential position that Pietro Lunense had in the Curia, and therefore, it makes clearer that Orazio Romano’s intent in offering his own works to him was to reinforce his relationship with one of the leading figures in the papal environment. Hence, it is not surprising that Orazio opted to dedicate his poems, as a homage, to the secretary of Nicholas V. In his letter, he celebrates Lunense’s talent as a writer and asks him to read and correct, if necessary, his own works, the Porcaria and the elegies: Vereor ne summi pontificis aures offenderim, qui fulgorem suae maiestatis actingere ausus sim . . . Nihil enim tam altum, nihil tam spectatae virtutis, quod summi pontificis meritum possit equare. Verum otiosus pudoris fines volui preterire et ex arenti ingenio versiculos cudere, quos ad te destinare decrevi, ut illos tuo iudicio damnares, ex parte saltem vel honestiores redderes. Tantum etenim tibi lumen eloquentiae ac litterarum doctrina refulget, ut natus ille tuus ex tuo fonte liquores habunde potuerit haurire.¹⁵ [I hope I will not offend the Pontifex Maximus’s ears as I dared to approach the splendour of his majesty . . . For nothing is so high, nothing of such proven virtue that it can equate the Pontifex’s merits. However, in my leisure I wanted to overcome the limits of this modesty and compose some small verses from my arid intellect, which I decided to offer to you [scil. Pietro Lunense], so that you can criticize them with your judgement, or keep at least some of them and make them more honourable. For the light of your eloquence and your erudition in literature are so brilliant that your son can draw abundantly the nectar from your source.]

¹³ For instance, the papal bull promulgated by Nicholas V to assign him the role of papal secretary, in 1448, exempted him from tax payments: on this humanist and his relationship with the pope see Miglio, ‘Cultura umanistica’, pp. 20‒1. For Nicholas V’s relationship with the area of Luni, see Petti Balbi, Giovanna , ‘L’ambiente culturale a Sarzana’, in Niccolò V nel sesto centenario della nascita. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Sarzana, 8‒10 ottobre 1998, edited by Franco Bonatti and Antonio Manfredi (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2000), pp. 473‒92. ¹⁴ Gualdo Rosa, ‘Pietro Putomorsi’, p. 1060. ¹⁵ The quotation is taken from the manuscript of the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), f. 1r. (original spelling has been maintained; punctuation and capitalization have been modernized). All translations of Orazio Romano’s texts are mine. Cf. Lehnerdt, p. 1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

34

     

It is easy to recognize in these words a conventional topos modestiae, but it is also noteworthy that Orazio Romano declares that his ultimate aim is to offer his literary works to Pope Nicholas V. So, the letter confirms the flattering intentions of Orazio’s dedication and his purpose of getting closer to the papal environment and more involved in the Curia, where Lunense was one of the chief humanists: for this reason, he decided to address his texts to Putomorsi and, through him, to Nicholas V, for whom Orazio had composed the ambitious epic poem on the conspiracy. Thus, Lunense was likely to be seen as an intermediary between the less famous letterato and the pope himself. As already mentioned, Orazio Romano and Putomorsi were probably linked because of their activities in Viterbo, as magister and chancellor respectively; but an additional connection can be revealed by Putomorsi’s son, Battista Lunense, who was a pupil of Orazio Romano. It is also worth underlining the fact that the relationship between the poet and Lunense’s son provides us with important information concerning the date of composition of the Porcaria. Indeed, Battista Lunense gave a speech for his graduation, which probably took place in 1453, and in this oration he mentioned Orazio Romano and quoted almost literally some passages of the dedicatory letter to his father included in the Utrecht manuscript.¹⁶ Thus, such a direct reference (although it was not made explicit by Battista Lunense) proves that the Porcaria was composed by the end of 1453 (the terminus ante quem), soon after the conspiracy, which was thwarted at the beginning of January of the same year (the terminus post quem). This speed composition is not unusual, since most humanist texts on plots, in particular those dedicated to Porcari’s conspiracy, were written immediately after the historical events, when the need for propagandistic works, or more generally accounts of the episodes, was more urgent. It is not possible to know if Nicholas V owned a copy of Orazio Romano’s work. Some scholars argued that the corpus of texts does not seem consistent with the author’s purpose of bestowing a gift on the pope, since the manuscript also contains the transcription of the elegy dedicated to Francesco Sforza.¹⁷ Nevertheless, it seems not too surprising that Orazio chose to include this text in the corpus, since the elegy is an exhortatio to the Duke of Milan to protect the pope, who is still celebrated, although indirectly, in this short poem. In addition, while we do not know if Nicholas V eventually received the collection of Orazio Romano’s poems, the preface-letter in the manuscript shows clearly that his works, and above all the Porcaria, were offered to Pietro Lunense in the first instance. The letter addressed to Lunense states that Orazio Romano presented his poems to him, seeing Putomorsi as a sort of intermediary between him and the ¹⁶ On Battista Lunense see Parroni, Piergiorgio, ‘Il codice Oliveriano 23 di Marziale e il suo copista Battista Lunense’, Studia Oliveriana 11 (1963), pp. 15‒22; the text of the graduation speech is published as an appendix in Parroni, Piergiorgio, ‘Altri contributi alla conoscenza di Battista Lunense’, Studia Oliveriana, 13‒14 (1965‒6), pp. 151‒70. ¹⁷ In particular see Oliva, ‘Orazio Romano’, p. 26.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

35

pope. Furthermore, according to the account of the conspiracy given by the historian Nicola della Tuccia, Pietro Lunense had been himself one of the targets of Porcari’s plot, since he was one of the principal assistants of the pope, together with his brother-in-law Pietro da Noceto, the personal secretary of Nicholas V (secretarius secretus).¹⁸ So the dedication to Lunense reveals Orazio Romano’s main purpose of celebrating both the pope and his right-hand man, by writing a poem aimed at condemning the conspiracy against the Curia. Moreover, the manuscript in Utrecht is likely to be the same codex sent by Orazio Romano to Pietro Lunense. We know that the Lunense family certainly got a copy of Orazio Romano’s texts that were introduced by the dedicatory letter to Pietro Putomorsi, since Battista Lunense quoted some passages of this epistolary dedication in his graduation speech. Moreover, the codex in Utrecht displays some characteristics typical of dedicatory manuscripts. It is in parchment, an expensive and precious material that usually was not employed in books produced for personal use. Moreover, it is written in a very elegant fifteenth-century humanist hand, so the polished character of the script is perfectly consistent with the conventional features of gift manuscripts (see Figure 1.2). Although the volume does not contain any notes of possession written by Pietro Lunense or his son and does not display the emblem of the Lunense family, this element does not disprove this hypothesis, since we know that all manuscripts still extant that bear the symbol of this family are only a few exemplars copied by Battista himself:¹⁹ so probably the emblem, as an identification mark, was added only on copies assembled by a member of the family (in particular Battista) and not on all copied preserved in their library. Despite the fact that the manuscript in Utrecht is the only copy of the poem still extant and that it was not published in printed editions until the beginning of the last century (in the aforementioned volume edited by Maximilian Lehnerdt), what is most remarkable is that the story of this codex of the Porcaria, and consequently the history of the reception of the poem, actually ends neither in the area of Rome nor even in Italy. It must be connected with Dutch humanism and thus considered in relation to the spread of Italian culture in northern Europe in the sixteenth century, revealing that the circulation of this work was wider than we might have predicted from its restricted tradition. Indeed, one of the owners of the manuscript was Aernout Van Buchel (1565‒1641), a humanist and collector of ancient books who lived in Utrecht and bought the volume in the auction of the ‘noble

¹⁸ Cf. Cronache di Viterbo e di altre città, scritte da Niccola della Tuccia, in Cronache e statuti della città di Viterbo, edited by Ignazio Ciampi (Firenze: con i tipi di M. Cellini, 1872), p. 226; cf. also Gualdo Rosa, ‘Pietro Putomorsi’, p. 1070. On Pietro da Noceto see Gualdo, Germano, ‘Pietro da Noceto, segretario particolare di Niccolò V (1447‒1455)’, in Papato, Stati regionali e Lunigiana nell’età di Niccolò V (Atti delle giornate di studio, La Spezia-Sarzana-Pontremoli-Bagnone, 25‒28 maggio 2000), edited by Eliana M. Vecchi (La Spezia: Accademia lunigianese di scienze, 2004), pp. 73–83. ¹⁹ On these manuscripts see Parroni, ‘Il codice’, and Parroni, ‘Altri contributi’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

36

     

Figure 1.2. Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit in Utrecht, ms. 826 (5 M 22), f. 5r; incipit of Orazio Romano’s Porcaria.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

37

family of Saint Aldegonde in 1599’, as a note in the manuscript states.²⁰ Thanks to this detail, it was possible to discover that the previous owner of the codex was Philippe de Marnix of Saint Aldegonde (1540‒98), one of the most important figures in Dutch humanism, who was the secretary to William I of Orange (leader and founder of the independent state of the Netherlands) and was also active in the spread of the Protestant Reformation in Europe.²¹ It is noteworthy that his own library, which consisted of more than 1,600 volumes, included a considerable number of works by Italian authors, especially historical and political texts, such as Bartolomeo Platina’s Vitae pontificum, Marco Antonio Sabellico’s Historiae rerum Venetarum, Machiavelli’s, and Guicciardini’s works. In particular, he had a deep interest in the history of Stefano Porcari’s conspiracy, since he quoted on his manuscript the account of this historical event from Sabellico’s Historiae rerum Venetarum and he also referred to the description of the plot given by Platina in his Vita Nicolai V:²² a curiosity that can be traced back not only to the intellectual’s religious and political commitment in his country but also to his interest in literature.²³ More generally, the story of this manuscript is a telling example of the diffusion of Italian humanist culture and political ideology in Europe during the sixteenth century. In particular, the tradition of the Porcaria reveals that the most famous conspiracy against popes of the Renaissance received attention both from a historical and literary perspective, not only in Italy but also in Europe, in a period when religious and doctrinal conflicts had crucial importance in the political scenario. So, the Porcaria, composed by a little-known humanist from the small town of Viterbo, should be considered in the broader cultural dimension of European humanism, focusing on its connection with political beliefs developed in that age.

1.2 Stefano Porcari and the conspiracy against Nicholas V Stefano Porcari’s conspiracy was thwarted before the conspirators could carry out the plot, which had been planned to take place on 6 January 1453, during the ²⁰ In the handwritten note on the last folio of the manuscript the name ‘Arnoldus Buchiellus’ is mentioned: Lehnerdt, p. IV. ²¹ In the catalogue of Philippe de Marnix’s books, the manuscript of Orazio Romano is mentioned in the list with a brief description, ‘Oratij Carmina ad Q Pontificem Maximum et alios’: Catalogue of the Library of Philips Van Marnix Van Sint-Aldegonde, sold by auction (July 6th), Introduction by G. J. Brouwer, Librarian of Netherlands Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Association (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1964). Philippe de Marnix probably came into possession of the manuscript during a journey to Rome. In 1558 he moved to Italy with his brother to study in Padua, and during this period he probably travelled to Bologna and Rome (Catalogue, p. 10). ²² The quotation is transcribed on folio 1r‒v. ²³ Philippe de Marnix’s literary activity also accounts for his specific curiosity for this episode, since he wrote a satirical poem on the Catholic Church: Philippe of Marnix of Sainte-Aldegonde, De Biënkorf der H. Roomsche Kercke (Emden 1569).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

38

     

religious celebration of the Epiphany. In spite of its early discovery, this was a crucial event in the history of the papal state of the Quattrocento. The harsh reaction of the pope, which led to the public executions of the plotters (they were hanged in Castel Sant’Angelo and the Campidoglio on 9 January), reveals his determination to suppress any threats to the papacy and reinforce his political power, discouraging, at the same time, future attackers. This episode also shows Nicholas V’s consciousness of both the actual political instability of his government in Rome and the tangible danger that a conspiracy could bring about, in a period when, as we shall see, the pope’s attempt to strengthen his political power had been more decisive than in previous years. This historical event and the reactions to it—both political and ‘artistic’— should be considered briefly in the broader historical context of the first half of the fifteenth century, in which popes had to confront several conflicts. They had to tackle internal opposition, conciliaristic positions, and frequent rebellions in Rome, often stirred up by the most powerful noble families in the city, such as the Colonna. Less than twenty years before Porcari’s conspiracy, in 1434, an uprising forced Pope Eugene IV to escape on a boat from Rome to Florence.²⁴ Ultimately, this rebellion was suppressed and papal government was re-established, but it was a shocking event for the ecclesiastical community, which made clear that the papacy was extremely insecure. In this critical scenario, Eugene IV tried to strengthen his political position, laying the foundation for a more solid papal state. This political purpose, which was characteristic of papal policy in the Renaissance, was pursued even more decisively by the next pope, Nicholas V.²⁵ Nonetheless, Nicholas V himself was also endangered by the conspiracy plotted by Porcari, a noble knight from an ancient Roman family. Stefano Porcari had been in Florence from 1427 to 1428, when he worked as capitano del popolo, and thanks to this role he came into contact with the ²⁴ Plebani, Eleonora, ‘Una fuga programmata. Eugenio IV e Firenze (1433‒1434)’, Archivio storico italiano 170 (2012), pp. 285‒310; Plebani, Eleonora, ‘La “fuga” da Roma di Eugenio IV e la Repubblica Romana del 1434: questioni economiche, conflitti politici e crisi conciliare’, in Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013, edited by Miriam Chiabò, Maurizio Gargano, Anna Modigliani, and Patricia J. Osmond (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 89‒108; D’Elia, Anthony F., ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy against Pope Nicholas V in 1453 and Republican Culture in Papal Rome’, Journal of the History of Ideas 68, 2 (2007), pp. 207‒31: 209; and more generally on Eugene IV’s pontificate, see Gill, Joseph, Eugenius IV, Pope of Christian Union (London: Burns & Oates, 1961); Hay, Denys, ‘Eugenio IV’, DBI, 43 (1993), pp. 496‒502. ²⁵ On this political scenario see in particular Prodi, Paolo, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino,1982). On Nicholas V’s pontificate, see Miglio, Massimo, ‘Niccolò V umanista di Cristo’, in Umanesimo e Padri della Chiesa. Manoscritti e incunaboli di testi patristici da Francesco Petrarca al primo Cinquecento (Catalogo della mostra, Firenze, febbraio‒agosto 1997), edited by Sebastiano Gentile (Rome: Rose, 1997), pp. 77–84; Miglio, Massimo, ‘Niccolò V’, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, vol. 2 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2000), pp. 644–58; Coluccia, Giuseppe L., Niccolò V umanista: papa e riformatore. Renovatio politica e morale (Venice: Marsilio, 1998). See also the collaborative volumes: Bonatti and Manfredi, eds., Niccolò V; and Vecchi, ed., Papato, Stati regionali.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

39

Florentine cultural and civic movement. In this period he delivered several speeches that are shaped around republican ideology and characterized by the celebration of ancient Roman virtue.²⁶ In the following years he was appointed to official roles in Bologna, Siena, Orvieto, and Trani, and in 1434 he was in Rome as a mediator between Eugene IV and the rebels during the uprising against the pope. His first actual revolutionary attempt took place after the death of Eugene IV, before the election of his successor, in 1447, when Porcari declaimed the famous speech in the church of Santa Maria in Ara Coeli in Rome, inciting the Roman people to put an end to the popes’ and priests’ domination. However, the uprising was quelled and, when Nicholas V was elected, he decided not to punish Porcari but to nominate him ‘rettore della provincia di Campagna e Marittima’. In 1451, during the carnival celebration, Porcari tried again to spur the people to rebellion, delivering a speech in Piazza Navona in Rome: he, once more, urged the Romans to get rid of the unfair papal power, but the revolt failed again. This time, Nicholas V exiled Porcari to Bologna, where he was monitored every day by Cardinal Bessarione. Yet, the pope showed again a merciful approach and decided to pay him a salary. The lenient behaviour of Nicholas V towards Porcari in both these circumstances has been considered in some historical sources as evidence of the clement attitude of Nicholas V (although most of these texts are written in support of the pope). Nevertheless, as suggested rightly by Anna Modigliani, the decisions taken by the pope can also be regarded as influenced by his fear of alliances of either conspirators and rulers of other Italian states, or conspirators and Roman barons. This is probably the reason why he decided not to exacerbate the conflict with Porcari.²⁷ Porcari plotted the conspiracy during his exile in Bologna, together with some of his relatives in Rome: his nephew Battista Sciarra (who recruited other conspirators) and his brother-in-law Angelo di Maso, who was married to one of Stefano’s sisters and was father of Clemente di Maso, another plotter involved in the plan. Porcari escaped from Bologna (pretending to be sick to avoid Bessarione’s daily check) and arrived in Rome on 3 January. He was greeted by his relatives Battista Sciarra and Angelo di Maso, who arranged a meeting in Porcari’s house where all the conspirators gathered on the evening of 4 January. There, Stefano declaimed one of his most well-known speeches, reported by many

²⁶ This overview of Porcari’s biography is based on the historical study by Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 23‒36. See also Modigliani, Anna, I Porcari: storie di una famiglia romana tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 1994); D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, pp. 207‒31. Porcari’s speeches delivered in Florence are published in Prose del giovane Buonaccorso da Montemagno, inedite alcune, da due codici della Biblioteca Capitolare di Verona, edited by Giovanni Battista Carlo Giuliari (Bologna: G. Romagnoli, 1874): the attribution is wrong, since the speeches were by Porcari, not by Buonaccorso. On his speeches see Miglio, Massimo, ‘ “Viva la libertà et populo de Roma”. Oratoria e politica: Stefano Porcari’, in Palaeographica diplomatica et archivistica. Studi in onore di Giulio Bertelli, vol. 1 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1979), pp. 381‒428. ²⁷ For these remarks on Nicholas V’s clemency cf. Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 34.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

40

     

historical sources, urging his fellows to rebel against papal rule. According to some accounts he dressed in a golden cape that made him look like an emperor. But Nicholas V had already been informed about the plot and the arrival of Stefano. So, the following morning papal troops were dispatched to Porcari’s house to catch the conspirators. Some of them fled and others were seized, such as Angelo and Clemente di Maso, while Porcari took refuge in his sister’s house. Later he tried to convince Cardinal Latino Orsini to hide him in his palace (sending one of his accomplices to speak to Orsini), but the Cardinal refused and, after discovering Porcari’s hiding place, he informed the pope. Stefano was arrested in his sister’s house on the night between 5 and 6 January: he was found hiding in a chest (upon which his sister and another woman were sitting) and was taken to the papal palace. After being tortured, he confessed his crime and on 9 January he was hanged in Castel Sant’Angelo, while his brother-in-law Angelo di Maso, his nephew Clemente, and another seven conspirators were hanged on the Campidoglio.²⁸ Porcari’s original plan was revealed in his confession and later recounted in several sources. Porcari declared that he had considered different options and that he would choose the best strategy according to the actual circumstances of events. Though, the most likely plan was to have three different stages: to assault the pope and cardinals in the basilica during the Epiphany mass; to seize them and occupy Castel Sant’Angelo; and finally, to declare Rome free from papal dominion. Most historical sources state that Porcari was prepared to kill the pope, if circumstances required that, and they also suggest that the conspiracy had a good chance of success.²⁹ Porcari and his accomplices relied on the Roman people who, according to their suppositions, would follow them in a general rebellion. But in this case, as in many other plots in the same period, the conspiracy failed. A significant number of monographic works were devoted to this historical event, as observed in the Introduction, and Porcari’s plot can be regarded as the starting point of this specific genre of humanist literature on the topic of conspiracy. Moreover, several historical sources (letters, orations, histories, biographies) contain accounts of this plot, such as the two biographies of Nicholas V composed respectively by Giannozzo Manetti and Bartolomeo Platina (the latter in the Vita Christi ac omnium pontificum, dated to 1474).³⁰ All these texts were composed by humanists in some way engaged in papal cultural politics and are to be considered as the product of this link between literature and politics, shedding light on the crucial implications that this conspiracy had in the broader scenario of papal politics.

²⁸ Cf. Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 38‒41, 46‒7. ²⁹ On the different options of the plan cf. Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 42‒5. ³⁰ Manetti, Giannozzo, De vita ac gestis Nicolai quinti summi pontificis. Edizione critica e traduzione, edited by Anna Modigliani (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 2005); Platina, Bartolomeo, Lives of the Popes, edited and translated by Anthony F. D’Elia (Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 2008–). On the other texts relating to this conspiracy, see Introduction, section I.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

41

1.3 Poetry as literary transposition of the topic of conspiracy Orazio Romano’s Porcaria is a sophisticated literary transposition of the historical events.³¹ The poem, divided into two books of roughly 500 lines each, is shaped by some typical motifs and patterns that marked the epic genre in both the classical and medieval tradition. Nonetheless, it is possible to recognize many elements of novelty and literary experimentalism: some of these traits are characteristic of the strand of humanist epic that developed in the fifteenth century, others appear as distinctive of this innovative poem. Some of these peculiarities can be related to Orazio Romano’s inventive choice of employing the epic genre to narrate the historical events of the conspiracy. In particular, the interplay between political matters and poetic frame results in an unusual literary work, characterized by a fictitious setting. The imaginary dimension prevailing in the poem, along with the classical atmosphere and the epic tone, is modelled by stylistic and verbal references to the major classical epics. But what is more striking is that for the first time the political topic of conspiracy is treated through the rhetorical devices and structures of poetry, in the traditional form of the epic genre, whose development in the Quattrocento has received little attention from scholars so far.³² Unlike historiography, but similarly to other literary genres, epic poetry was not theorized by humanists and, therefore, the canon of epic was not established in any theoretical treatise, nor in any other kind of text (conversely, the theory of historical writing was discussed in a number of works during the fifteenth century—epistles, orations, and so on—even though the only real treatise devoted to this topic, the Actius by Pontano, was composed only towards the end of the century).³³ Nonetheless, epic had a significant spread in the fifteenth century, most notably in connection with accounts of contemporary historical events. ³¹ Sections 1.3 and 1.5 are based in part on a shorter critical study that was published as a contribution to a collective volume and that has been considerably revised, changed, and expanded here, with substantial variations and additions: Celati, Marta, ‘Humanist Epic between Classical Legacy and Contemporary History: Orazio Romano’s Porcaria (1453)’, in Making and Rethinking Renaissance between Greek and Latin in 15‒16th century Europe, edited by Stephen Harrison and Giancarlo Abbamonte (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, Series Trend in Classics: 2019), pp. 231‒49. ³² The classic studies on humanist epic are Belloni, Antonio, Il poema epico e mitologico (Milan: Vallardi, 1912); Zabughin, Vladimiro, Vergilio nel Rinascimento italiano. Da Dante a Torquato Tasso: fortuna, studi, imitazioni, traduzioni e parodie, iconografia, vol. 1, Il Trecento ed il Quattrocento (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1921). More general studies on the epic genre in the Italian Renaissance are Everson, Jane E., The Italian Romance Epic in the Age of Humanism: The Matter of Italy and the World of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Kallendorf, Craig, In Praise of Aeneas: Virgil and Epideictic Rhetoric in the Early Italian Renaissance (Hanover/London: University Press of New England, 1989). ³³ The most popular treatise on poetic writing in the Renaissance is Girolamo Vida’s Poeticorum libri tres (1520), an ars poetica devoted to Virgil’s model that had a significant diffusion in the sixteenth century, in a period when the need for established rhetorical canons in different literary genres was stronger than in the past: The ‘De arte poetica’ of Marco Girolamo Vida, translated with commentary, and with the text of c. 1517 edited by Ralph G. Williams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976). For fifteenth-century debate on historiography, see Introduction, section I.3. On Pontano’s work, see Chapter 3, sections 3.1 and 3.2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

42

     

Despite the lack of an established epic canon, it is possible to recognize some recurrent features in humanist epic production. Furthermore, the lack of a theoretical written debate on this specific kind of poetry might also be due to the fact that the classical models of Vergil, Lucan, and Statius had already emerged as the chief epic auctoritates in the Middle Ages. Orazio Romano’s poem in particular can be placed in the trajectory of the literary evolution of historical-epic poetry, one of the main subgenres of epic since antiquity. This genre, dealing with contemporary events rather than ancient history, enjoyed widespread diffusion in the Middle Ages. However, in the Trecento, Petrarch recovered and reworked classical epic sources and employed them to compose poetry on classical history, as his Africa shows.³⁴ Yet, despite Petrarch’s decision to turn to antiquity for his theme, fifteenth-century humanists shifted the focus to contemporary historical events. While relying on classical models in framing stylistic and structural textual elements, from a thematic perspective they continued the tradition of medieval poems, which were mainly devoted to present-day historical reality. In humanist poems, the chief connection with ancient epic can be identified in the ‘epic disguise’ of both episodes and characters. This particular feature emerges especially in the humanists’ adoption of epic patterns and topoi, or in some cases in the characters’ names. Moreover, another key component that humanists draw from classical sources, with the aim of producing an overall epic atmosphere, is lexis. Indeed, wording is usually modelled on the language of the most canonical Latin epic authors: Vergil, Lucan, and Statius, the main models used by Orazio Romano as well. The adoption of contemporary history as the principal thematic source for humanist epic links this genre with political topics and often with propagandistic purposes. So, this particular branch of poetry was one of the main literary channels used for immortalizing rulers and supporting their government. Most humanist epic is devoted to the narration of the main character’s feats: he can be either a signore, such as Francesco Sforza in Francesco Filelfo’s Sphortias (1451‒72), or an actual king, as Alfonso of Aragon in Matteo Zuppardo’s Alfonseis (1455‒7).³⁵ In general, the goal was always that of celebrating the political leader who was portrayed as a hero. However, in the Porcaria the eulogistic strategy is different. Contrary to the previous examples, this poem is inspired by the story of a negative hero, the leader of the conspiracy, Stefano Porcari. He is condemned by Orazio Romano but, actually, the author’s primary purpose is to extoll the ‘hidden positive hero’ of the poem, Nicholas V: the symmetrical opposite pole in the narrative. So, ³⁴ The Africa is published in the Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Francesco Petrarca, edited by Nicola Festa (Florence: Sansoni, 1926). ³⁵ Zuppardo, Matteo, Alfonseis, edited by Gabriella Albanese (Palermo: Centro di Studi filologici e umanistici siciliani, 1990); De Keyser, Jeroen, Francesco Filelfo and Francesco Sforza. Critical Edition of Filelfo’s ‘Sphortias’, ‘De Genuensium deditione’, ‘Oratio parentalis’ and His Polemical Exchange with Galeotto Marzio (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

43

also in this text, the flattering and encomiastic dimension is predominant and the poem is ultimately oriented to the celebration of papal government. Almost ten years later the composition of the Porcaria, another epic poem was written on a conspiracy: Fosco Paracleto Malvezzi’s Tarentina.³⁶ This poem deals with the historical events of the first conspiracy of barons (1459‒65) against Ferdinando of Aragon, king of Naples, and is aimed at exculpating him for the assassination of Giovanni Antonio Orsini, prince of Taranto and leader of the plot, who was killed in obscure circumstances in 1463. Both the infernal setting of this poem and the linguistic structure of the title, created from the name of the conspirator, show substantial connections with the Porcaria. To be sure, titles shaped by the name of the main character are very common in both classical antiquity and humanism, but they are less frequent if the main character is a negative hero. Additional correlations between the two texts might lead us to believe that the author of the Tarentina knew Orazio Romano’s poems. In particular, both the works mention the mythological figure of Tisiphone as the nurse of the conspirators: in the Tarentina she feeds the plotter, Orsini,³⁷ while in the Porcaria she is recalled as the figure who attends Porcari’s birth (I, 88‒90). Furthermore, both poems include the speech of the leader of the conspiracy delivered to his accomplices (Tarentina, book II) and his confession to the infernal judge (Minos in the Porcaria, Pluto in the Tarentina). These textual parallels shed light on the influence that the Porcaria could have had on this later poem, which, like Orazio Romano’s text, was intended to condemn the plotter and commemorate the political rulers attacked. These works are also emblematic examples of how the political theme of conspiracy can match some of the defining characteristics of humanist epic: the re-elaboration of classical models to produce a poem on contemporary history; the transposition of historical events into a fantastic dimension; the propagandistic and eulogistic function of historical-epic works as a backing for political power. In Orazio Romano’s text the imaginary dimension prevails, and this is one of the most original features of the Porcaria. Because of both the fantastic setting and the refined stylistic tone predominant in the poem, this work was defined by Vladimiro Zabughin as an epic that was arcaizzante.³⁸ Unlike the Porcaria, most fifteenth-century historical epics (such as Filelfo’s Sphortias) are characterized by a more realistic setting and the narration adheres more closely to the historical episodes, though they are adorned with mythological elements. Conversely in ³⁶ Martucci, Giovanni, Un poema latino inedito del sec. XV sulla tentata restaurazione angioina (Rome: Giovanni Balbi, 1899). ³⁷ Martucci, vv. 186‒7. An allusion to the relationship between the two poems in Corfiati, Claudia and Sciancalepore, Margherita, ‘Per un ritratto del congiurato nella Napoli Aragonese: scritture di parte’, in, Congiure e Conflitti, pp. 255–74, 265. On the historical character of Giovanni Antonio Orsini and his representation in Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano, see Chapter 3, sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4. ³⁸ For the definition of these categories and an analysis of humanist epic poetry, see Zabughin, Vergilio, vol. 1, p. 280.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

44

     

Orazio’s work the historical events are narrated only in Stefano Porcari’s confession to Minos, which represents the actual account of the plot (I, 232‒319). Apart from this section, the poem includes only scattered allusions to ‘real’ history. Moreover, most humanist poems are distinguished by other typical features that are absent from the Porcaria: firstly, the historical characters are often called with epic names, based on classical models; secondly, the plot is characterized by the massive presence of classical gods, who play a major role as causes and driving forces of the events in the narration. These recurring epic ingredients are missing in the Porcaria. Deities are recalled only as a mythological element either in similes or in descriptions, displaying the same role as other figures of classical mythology (not gods)—such as Hercules, Typhoeus, and so on—whose presence in the text is aimed at placing emphasis upon some specific passages. Thus, gods and mythological figures have stylistic and rhetorical functions in the poem, but not narrative ones. From this point of view, Orazio Romano seems to follow the classical model of Lucan, who is one of the main sources of the Porcaria. Lucan, unlike his predecessors, did not assign to a deity a concrete narrative function in the development of the storyline in his Pharsalia, but placed gods in the background. Besides, in the Porcaria, mythological characters are evoked much more often than gods. They are enlisted to confer on the poem a vivid classical and epic atmosphere and are assigned the conventional roles they usually play in the literary tradition, with the main purpose of ennobling the text and creating an intense classical colouring. This intention surfaces in the depiction of the underworld, which is inhabited by the typical figures of the classical and medieval tradition: Charon, Cerberus, and Minos. A similar function is played by the historical figures of Roman history: some of them, such as Catilina and Cato, appear in the poem as proper characters, others are simply mentioned in historical digressions, such as Brutus, Tullia Minor, and so on. But historical figures also acquire a further meaning: they are recalled not only as classical literary icons but also as symbols that convey an ideological meaning, as we shall see. Hence, they should also be regarded from the perspective of exemplarity, since they play in the Porcaria an important and complex symbolic role, whether positive or negative. As for these classical figures, this dimension of exemplarity is traditionally an integral part of the connotation ascribed to them in humanist literature. It is also remarkable that contemporary historical figures are only referred to obliquely in the Porcaria, and this choice enhances the classical and fantastic atmosphere of the text. These characters are neither identified by their actual names nor veiled under classical names. Even Nicholas V is generally called pater, ‘father’, in the poem: the only exception can be found in the eulogy of the pope in II, 424, where he is addressed as Divus Nicolaus. The only other characters who are called by their names are Beltramus (II, 253; he is Beltramo di Martino da Varese, who was in charge of some important projects in the architectural restoration of

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

45

the city commissioned by the pope) and Aretinus Iohannes (II, 307, Giovanni Tortelli, the humanist who was appointed as the librarian of the Vatican Library). Both the conspirators and the women who cry over the death of the plotters are recognizable only by the textual context: in particular the woman who delivers the funeral lament at the outset of the first book is identifiable as Porcari’s sister—who was at the same time Angelo di Maso’s wife and Clemente di Maso’s mother— only because she addresses the men as ‘brother’, ‘husband’, and ‘son’. All these factors contribute toward creating a distant and imaginary dimension, where the historical events are represented through the filter of classical lenses. Another noteworthy feature of the Porcaria is that the slight storyline lacks a solid and orderly structure. The poem is built through the juxtaposition of single episodes, descriptions, and monologues, with quick and brusque transitions. Thus, the descriptive component seems to prevail over the narrative one. Besides, there are only two main settings in the Porcaria: the foremost is the underworld, where book I and the first 150 lines of book II take place, then the poem shifts to Rome, where the figure of Scipio Africanus meets the pope. The only proper narrative section in the text is Stefano Porcari’s account of the conspiracy (I, 228‒319), couched in a lively poetic tone. Other additional narrative passages can be recognized in both the representation of the punishments inflicted on the conspirators and in the depiction of Scipio’s reincarnation and return to Rome. However, even in these sections what prevails is a descriptive style. The scenes in the underworld are shaped by lively and expressionistic images; while Scipio’s visit to Rome is recounted through his own words and thoughts, by means of his emotional reactions to the sight of the city, his reflections on the epoch of ancient Rome, and his speech to Nicholas V. Hence, the interplay of imaginary components and actual historical events turns out to be unbalanced. But, thanks to the prevalence of fantastic ingredients, the poet is able to produce an effective poetic transfiguration of the events that helps him in conveying his political message. Orazio Romano’s ideological views subtend the whole Porcaria, since all classical characters and symbols enlisted in the poem play a precise literary function in the political perspective of the text. This complex and carefully studied poetic architecture is aimed at condemning the conspiracy and celebrating papal power, by presenting the papacy, in particular Nicholas V’s pontificate, as being connected with ancient Roman values. Thus, the bond between the classical world and the historical background emerges in the combination of every specific constituent of the poem: the thematic elements, the rhetorical structure, and the stylistic modulation.

1.4 Classical legacy and Latin sources in the Porcaria The classical atmosphere that permeates the Porcaria, both in its rhetorical framework and style, is produced mainly by the substantial presence of

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

46

     

intertwined classical references throughout the poem. These eclectic allusions reveal the author’s sophisticated approach to the reuse of ancient texts and his familiarity with a variety of classical authors. The chief epic auctoritates of the Latin tradition are constantly echoed in the Porcaria, not only by recalling epic motifs and topoi, but above all by imitating whole verses, half-lines, poetic wording, and, more in general, quoting verbal expressions from classical works. Thus, as regards style and lexis, the epic tone of the Porcaria is created mostly by the widespread use of a classical epic vocabulary, which is extensively deployed to frame the epic diction.³⁹ In doing so, Orazio Romano draws on the major Latin models that influenced most medieval and humanist poetry, Vergil, Lucan, and Statius,⁴⁰ but he goes further and produces a more eclectic imitation, relying also on less expected sources. If these epic authors were already very well known and extensively used in the previous centuries, Orazio Romano is the first to recast them in the original context of a historical-poetic work specifically focused on a contemporary conspiracy. So the reception of these models, with deep roots already in ancient and medieval poetry, is now enhanced and renewed through a new ideological and literary perspective, which brings to the forefront the burning political issues emerging from a shocking historical episode of those days. This poetic process is carried out by revisiting these already widely circulating models and interlacing them with different sources in an unanticipated conflation. One of these innovative ingredients added by Orazio Romano is Claudian’s poetry, which is abundantly redeployed in the Porcaria. Although this late-antique author was already very well known in the Middle Ages and was also employed as a source by Petrarch,⁴¹ his works still had a more partial reception and reuse in the early fifteenth century in comparison with the foundational classical epic auctoritates. Additionally, in the second half of the century Poliziano adopted the model of Claudian extensively in his works, especially in the Stanze. Nevertheless, what is most remarkable is that Orazio Romano turns out to have a direct and very close knowledge of

³⁹ This pluralistic imitation is what Conte and Barchiesi define ‘imitazione fortemente lessicalizzata’, which is described as a poetic framework where metrical and phonetic patterns are duplicated to create a poetic memory based on the repetition of words. Cf. Conte, Gian Biagio and Barchiesi, Alessandro, ‘Imitazione e arte allusiva. Modi e funzioni dell’intertestualità’, in Conte, Gian Biagio and Barchiesi, Alessandro, Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 1, La produzione del testo (Rome: Salerno, 1989), pp. 81‒114, 101. On imitation in Italian Humanism, see McLaughlin, Martin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). ⁴⁰ On the use of these auctoritates in Italian Renaissance epic, see Everson, Italian Romance Epic, pp. 61‒80. ⁴¹ See Chines, Loredana, ‘Per Petrarca e Claudiano’, Quaderni petrarcheschi 11 (2001), pp. 43‒73. More generally on the tradition of Claudian’s works see Reynolds, Leighton Durham, Marshall, Peter K., and Mynors, Roger Aubrey Baskerville, Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 143‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

47

several works by Claudian, quoting them with literal citations and embedding them harmoniously in the body of his poem. It is probably not a coincidence that in the humanist cultural circles of Rome, in the same period, Claudian’s works were studied philologically with particular thoroughness. This in-depth study of the late-antique poet could be correlated in some ways with the sophisticated re-elaboration of this source carried out by Orazio Romano, who was an integral part of the same cultural context.⁴² In the Roman intellectual environment around the middle of the Quattrocento a new boost was given to the study and reception of Claudian especially by Pietro Odo and Pomponio Leto.⁴³ Odo in particular, who was committed to the philological analysis of manuscripts of classical authors also in light of the creation of Nicholas V’s library, devoted specific studies to Claudian’s texts. So, Orazio Romano’s deep knowledge of Claudian’s different works may be connected with, and placed within, this new and more accurate philological interest for this author that arose in the papal city. But the humanist takes this new reception a step further, experimenting with the use of Claudian in a new political and literary context, that of a bizarre historical-fantastic work on a recent political conspiracy. Orazio Romano’s specific political topic allows him to refer also to historiographical models: Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae is unsurprisingly the main one, but is combined with Livy’s work, from which the author draws some references to episodes and characters from Roman history, especially in the historical digression at the end of the first book. Also, these sources, which had already circulated widely in the previous centuries and were the most wellestablished auctoritates in the field of historical writing, are now reinterpreted in Orazio Romano’s original process of reception. The humanist places them alongside the most illustrious epic models in his poem, producing an eclectic fusion of classical landmarks that is able to renovate the reuse of these works through a pioneering imitative approach. Yet, notwithstanding this significant political use of historiographical sources in a text focused on a crucial contemporary episode, the core of imitatio in the Porcaria remains based on classical epic poems. As usual in humanist poetry, verbal expressions, verses, and half-lines are also quoted to recreate metrical structures, or to produce specific sound effects. The most important classical source in the Porcaria is predictably Vergil’s Aeneid. In particular Orazio draws from book VI of the Aeneid the majority of literary quotations deployed in his poem, with the aim of depicting the infernal

⁴² On the use of this source, see the following part of this section. ⁴³ On Pietro Odo’s and Pomponio Leto’s philological activity, see Gionta, Daniela, ‘Il Claudiano di Pomponio Leto’, in Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta, vol. 2, edited by Vincenzo Fera and Giacomo Ferraù (Padova: Antenore 1997), pp. 987‒1032L; Donati, Gemma, Pietro Odo da Montopoli e la Biblioteca di Niccolò V. Con osservazioni sul De orthographia di Tortelli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2000).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

48

     

setting as close as possible to the katabasis in Vergil’s work.⁴⁴ Apart from a few echoes of Dante’s Inferno,⁴⁵ Orazio Romano’s underworld is completely shaped by references and motifs derived from the Aeneid, and, more generally, the Virgilian model permeates the whole poem, as a source both of poetic patterns and lexical expressions. While it is evident that the influence of Vergil is prevalent, the incipit of the Porcaria is modelled on the first lines of Lucan’s Pharsalia, a source used by Orazio on several occasions in his text. The opening is structured as a classical epic proemium, with presentation of the topic and the invocation to the Muse. In particular, as in Lucan’s prologue, the initial verse introduces immediately the vivid image of the civil war, with the very first words ‘insidias patriae’ (‘threats against the fatherland’) being a counterpart to Lucan’s ‘Bella . . . plus quam civilia’ (I, 1; ‘wars more than civil’): Insidias patriae qui struxit et arma parenti/ Ipse parens refer et sceleri si Roma nefando/ Annuerit, tenues nam si fragor impulit auras,/ Romuleos iterum formidat curia raptus./ Tu potes obscuris fulgorem et lumina coecis/ Incertisque fidem, levibus dare pondera rebus,/ Tu mea Musa, pater, virtus mihi numen et aura . . . (Porcaria I, 1‒7) [Of the man who plotted threats against the fatherland and wars against his father, you holy father, sing, and if Rome had approved this infamous crime, for the tumult so shook the refined air of heaven, the Curia would again be fearing Romulus’s abduction. You can give clarity to obscure deeds, light to secrets, credence to uncertainties, weight to levity, you father, are my Muse, my strength, my god and favouring breeze . . . ]⁴⁶

In addition, the invocatio is not conventionally addressed to the Muse, but to the pope himself, the author’s patron (1, 7 ‘Tu, mea musa, pater’), tracing a further connection with the Pharsalia and Lucan’s invocation to Nero (1, 66).⁴⁷ So, the incipit of the Porcaria shows from the very beginning that the classical sources employed by Orazio Romano are chosen in relation to the specific historical subject of the poem and in accordance with the different thematic contexts in ⁴⁴ On this aspect see also Zabughin, Vergilio, vol. 1, p. 289. ⁴⁵ For these specific allusions, see the following analysis in this section. ⁴⁶ All translations of Orazio Romano’s work are mine; the text is quoted from Lehnerdt. Luc. 1, 1‒4 ‘Bella per Emathios plus quam civilia campos,/ iusque datum sceleri canimus, populumque potentem/ in sua victrici conversum viscera dextra,/cognatasque acies, et rupto foedere regni . . . ’ (‘Of war I sing, war worse than civil, waged over the plains of Emathia, and of legality conferred on crime; I tell how an imperial people turned their victorious right hands against their own vitals; how kindred fought against kindred; how, when the compact of tyranny was shattered . . . ’). The translations of passages from Lucan’s Pharsalia are quoted from Lucan, The Civil War (Pharsalia), translated by James D. Duff [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928). ⁴⁷ Lucan. 1, 66 ‘Tu [Nero] satis ad vires Romana in carmina dandas’ (‘You alone are sufficient to give strength to a Roman bard’).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

49

the text. By the allusion to Lucan’s work, the author immediately represents the conspiracy as a cruel and savage civil war, cause of grief and death. So Porcari’s rebellion is seen as an unreasonable uprising that brings about suffering to the Roman people, an attempt to threaten the fatherland, rather than an attack on the pope himself. This thematic dimension pervades much of the Porcaria and is produced not only by means of echoes of Lucan, but also through references to Statius’s Thebaid, the third main epic source used by Orazio Romano. In particular, the prominent role played by the Thebaid emerges at the outset of the poem. Immediately after the prologue, the Porcaria opens with the funeral lament of Porcari’s sister (I, 10‒108): this character has an important iconic value since she cries over three deaths, as the sister of the leader of the plot and also as the wife and the mother of the other two conspirators, Angelo and Clemente di Maso (Anthony D’Elia wrongly identified Porcari’s nephew with Battista Sciarra).⁴⁸ She therefore embodies in the poem the general concept of grief and sorrow caused by the conspiracy. The threnody, which starts with the weeping for the woman’s son, is shaped on the classical model of the funeral laments in Statius’s Thebaid, where images of women who cry for their relatives who had died in the Theban war are recurrent. The overall framework of the threnody seems to be inspired by the long speech of Ide (Theb. 3, 151‒68), while in the first section of the speech (I, 14‒22) Orazio Romano makes specific reference to the threnody of Argia, borrowing specific lexical expressions from Statius’s lines (Theb. 12, 318‒21).⁴⁹ These laments, both in the classical model and consequently in the Porcaria, have the function of representing the symbolic image of human misery amid the atrocity of war. If this idea is mainly evoked by hinting at Statius’s threnodies, other references to Lucan help to achieve the same effect. In the lengthy lament we can find assembled several echoes of mythological female characters that are aimed at placing emphasis on the tragic image of the woman mourning the death of her relatives. Orazio Romano recalls again figures from Thebaid: Eriphyle (I, 76‒8; Theb. 2, 265‒305 and 4, 187‒95), Iocasta (I, 85‒98; Theb. 1, 56‒70 and 7, 475‒527), and Agave (I, 102‒4; Theb. 11, 318‒19). But he also evokes Phaedra (I, 94) and Hecuba (I, 105‒8), whose stories are recounted with specific reference to Ovid’s Heroides (4, 125‒6) and

⁴⁸ For this wrong identification: D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, p. 213. According to a historical source, after the conspiracy Angelo di Maso’s wife was confined to a monastery; another source states that she was found dead a few days after the events and that she was expecting a child: Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 48. ⁴⁹ In particular Porcaria, I, 14‒15 ‘Inclusit lacrimas oculis et corpore toto / Sternitur . . . ’ (‘She held tears in her eyes and laid with her whole body’); Stat. Theb. 12, 318‒319 ‘inclusitque dolor lacrimas; tum corpore toto/ sternitur in voltus . . . ’ (my emphasis; ‘grief held her tears in check. Then with her whole form she lies over his face . . . ’). The translations of passages from Statius’s Thebaid are quoted from Statius, Thebaid, edited and translated by David Roy Shackleton Bailey [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

50

     

Metamorphoses (13, 535‒44), respectively.⁵⁰ Thus, besides the classical sources already mentioned, Ovid’s works turn out to be an additional model that influences the humanist’s poem and gives a more lyrical tone to it. Finally, the lament ends with a lengthy consolatory speech delivered by Aletes (I, 110‒44), again inspired by a passage of the Thebaid (Stat. Theb. 3, 178‒252), where the character plays the same comforting role, but probably influenced also by Vergil’s portrayal of the consoling counsellor (Aen. 9, 246). Then the poem shifts to the infernal setting, which is structured on the model of the Virgilian underworld. Quotations from Vergil’s Aeneid occur in several lines: for instance, the evil personifications in the entry-way of Minos’s place (I, 221‒7) are depicted recalling the description of the entrance to Hades in book VI of the Aeneid (6, 273‒81); moreover, the infernal mythological figures of Charon and Cerberus are drawn from the same Vergilian book (Porcaria I, 149‒50, 207‒16).⁵¹ Besides a number of references to the Aeneid, Orazio Romano alludes also to Dante’s Inferno in the description of Angelo di Maso’s death, in the passage where the conspirator falls from the boat into the Acheron river (I, 163‒74): an image that recalls the punishment of Filippo Argenti, Inf. VIII, 31‒63 (this episode in the Porcaria also evokes Palinuro’s fate in book V of the Aeneid). As Anthony D’Elia contended, the implicit parallel with the figure of the damned soul in the Commedia, who was wasteful of his wealth and also irascible, ‘suggests the greed and wastefulness of the conspirator’.⁵² Apart from this allusion, the katabasis in the Porcaria is mainly influenced by classical sources, rather than by Dante, and therefore turns out to be permeated by an intense classical tone. Besides quotations from Vergil, the model of Statius is still present as a source of lexical expressions and motifs in this section of the poem. In particular the mythological figure of Minos (I, 221, 228‒9) is depicted by references from both Vergil (Aen. 6, 432) and Statius (Theb. 8, 102‒3). Furthermore, the very first words addressed by Stefano Porcari to Minos (I, 233‒4), ‘male cuncta ministrat/ Impetus et finis tantum laudatur in actis’ (‘Ardour leads us to do everything in a bad way and the ends are the only things praised in actions’) are literally quoted from Statius’s Thebaid (10, 704‒5), from a passage where Menoeceus’s father exhorts his son—one of the mythological heroes—not to give vent to his fervent spirit and not to sacrifice himself for the Theban war. However, only the first half of the sentence is cited from Statius, while the second ‘Machiavellian’ part is added by Orazio. By recalling Statius’s words the poet implicitly places emphasis upon the evil passion of the conspirators that drive them to the crime, causing tragic consequences (even though he quotes a

⁵⁰ The episode of Hecuba, mother of Polydorus, derives from Ovid’s version (Met. 13, 535‒44) and not from Vergil’s Aeneid (3, 8‒72). See also the parallel with Dante, Inferno, XXX, 16‒21. ⁵¹ For Charon see Verg. Aen. 6, 298‒304; 385‒97; for Cerberus see Verg. Aen. 6, 417‒23. ⁵² On these references to Dante see D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, p. 214; Lehnerdt, p. IX.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

51

passage concerning a noble action). Statius’s Thebaid also inspires the entire questioning of Porcari by Minos (I, 228‒31), an episode which seems derived from the section where Pluto interrogates Amphiaraus in the underworld (Theb. 8, 84‒5). The questioning of Porcari allows the author not only to narrate the events of the conspiracy, but also to introduce, in direct speech, the harangue delivered by Porcari to his accomplices. It has been argued that this oration, by presenting the conspirator’s point of view and his accusations against papal rule, reveals Orazio Romano’s sympathy toward the plotters (the same has been asserted about Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio).⁵³ Nonetheless, an in-depth analysis of the classical sources used in this speech reveals that the author’s intention is quite different. More broadly speaking, despite the fictional medium of direct speech, the author’s propagandistic standpoint and his disapproval of the conspiracy are clearly displayed throughout this section of the poem, which is shaped as a kind of a confession by the conspirator and as a continuous admission of guilt. In the very beginning of his speech, by mentioning his exile in Bologna and the salary provided by Nicholas V, Porcari immediately underlines the pope’s clemency (I, 237‒8). Then, in the whole account, not only does he reveal the criminal and deceptive nature of the uprising (I, 241‒50), but he also emphasizes his own cowardice, since he admits that he avoided the conflict with the papal guards (I, 302‒6) and he hid away in his sister’s home (I, 311‒15). Orazio Romano’s historical account in the conspirator’s words is concise but quite complete and it follows the main historical events: the escape of Porcari from Bologna, the meeting with the conspirators, the discovery of the plot by the pope, the refuge of Porcari in his sister’s house, his capture, and finally the executions. Orazio Romano continues to use in this section all the chief classical epic models, mostly as sources of verbal expressions and poetic motifs. Nevertheless, a considerable portion of this historical account consists of Porcari’s harangue, which is based on Catiline’s oratio to his accomplices in Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae (20). The rhetorical question that opens the speech in the Porcaria (I, 252‒3), ‘Quonam usque feremus/ Exitiale iugum?’ (‘How much longer are we still going to endure this terrible domination?’), reminds us of Catiline’s famous words (Sall. Cat. 20, 9): ‘Quae quousque tandem patiemini, o fortissumi viri?’ (‘How much longer are we still going to endure this, o bravest of men?’). However, it recalls even more closely Claudian’s poem In Rufinum, since it is a direct quotation from a passage of this more sophisticated source: ‘Quonam usque feremus/ exitiale iugum?’ (In Rufinum 5, 2, 88‒9).⁵⁴ This manifest borrowing reveals the crucial role played by Claudian in the Porcaria, as confirmed also by several allusions ⁵³ In particular D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, p. 215, but see also Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 64. ⁵⁴ In Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 64, it was suggested that Orazio Romano could have been influenced by Cicero, Cat., 1, 1, but here the most direct sources for the humanist seem to be Sallust and Claudian.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

52

     

throughout the text. In particular this quotation occupies a key position in the poem, namely the outset of the famous oration by the protagonist. The employment of Claudian’s works by Orazio Romano enhances the refined nature of the Porcaria, which is the result of the conflation of manifold classical models. More specifically, the literary genre of historical-eulogistic poetry of late antiquity provided the humanist with a relevant prototype that could impeccably fit his poem. Claudian’s works, indeed, have many traits in common with Orazio Romano’s Porcaria: the historical contemporary subject, the political and propagandistic aims, and the encomiastic perspective. Nevertheless, after the erudite echo that evokes both Sallust and Claudian, Sallust emerges as the main model of Porcari’s speech. After the initial rhetorical question, the conspirator denounces the condition of oppression that the Roman people had to suffer because of the autocratic papal rule (I, 253‒9), a statement that is inspired by Catiline’s words (Cat. 20, 7‒8): Clero servire coactis/ Continuo vitam in tenebris et tempora luctu/ Deplorare licet: postrema per omnia ducti/ Vivimus imperio, quorum producere pompas/ Est amor et spoliis culti ditantur et auro/ Viribus obnixis et nostro sanguine partis./ En haec barbaries! (Porcaria I, 253‒9) [It is right to deplore a life in gloom and a condition of grief due to the never-ending submission to the clergy: we are dragged by their power to live in poverty; their wish is to enhance their showy riches; they become richer and richer with booty, money and earnings derived from our sterling effort and blood. This is barbarity!] Nam postquam res publica in paucorum potentium ius atque dicionem concessit, semper illis reges, tetrarchae vectigales esse, populi, nationes stipendia pendere; ceteri omnes, strenui, boni, nobiles atque ignobiles, vulgus fuimus, sine gratia, sine auctoritate, iis obnoxii, quibus, si res publica valeret, formidini essemus. Itaque omnis gratia, potentia, honos, divitiae apud illos sunt aut ubi illi volunt; nobis reliquere pericula, repulsas, iudicia, egestatem. (Sall. Cat. 20, 7‒8) [For ever since the state fell under the jurisdiction and sway of a few powerful men, it is always to them that kings and petty rulers are tributary, to them nations and peoples pay taxes. All the rest of us, energetic, good—nobles as well as nobodies—have been a common herd, without influence, without prestige, subservient to those to whom, if the state were healthy, we would be an object of dread. Accordingly, all influence, power, office, and wealth are in their hands, or wherever those individuals wish them to be; to us they have left threats of prosecution, defeats in elections, convictions, and poverty.]⁵⁵

⁵⁵ Translations of Sallust’s work are quoted from Sallust, The War with Catiline. The War with Jugurtha, edited by John T. Ramsey, translated by John Carew Rolfe [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

53

Orazio Romano, following Sallust, fills the conspirator’s speech with several rhetorical questions that enhance the oration’s force and liveliness. In particular the two pressing questions that immediately follow in the Porcaria (I, 259‒60), ‘Quando haec mutabitur aetas? Nonne viri sumus?’ (‘When is this life going to change? Are we not men?), hint at a similar passage in Sallust’s text, where Catiline claims that men should not undergo unfair abuse of power (Cat. 20, 11). As in the humanist poem, the classical plotter makes a specific allusion to the condition of ‘real men’: ‘Etenim quis mortalium, cui virile ingenium est, tolerare potest . . . ?’ (‘Indeed, what mortal with a manly heart can endure it . . . ?’). Needless to say, Sallust was the most seminal model for a literary work on the topic of conspiracy, but what is most interesting is to consider how Orazio Romano applies this historical source to the poetic genre. He decides to refer to Sallust’s work almost only in a specific section of the poem, namely the historical account of the events given by the conspirator and the quotation of his harangue. This choice is mainly due to stylistic reasons and it appears to be in accordance with rhetorical prescriptions concerning the poetic genre, which traditionally was to be based on poetic diction, rather than historiographical prose (this canon, although not formally established in humanism, had been conventionally respected since antiquity). Consequently, this specific section of the Porcaria was one where Sallust’s text could be employed most appropriately and extensively by the poet. In particular Porcari’s speech is almost exclusively inspired by Catiline’s oratio. This process of imitatio makes clear that the aim of the author is not that of sympathizing with the conspirator, either openly or implicitly. The plotter’s standpoint is presented in the very same way as in the classical source, where Catiline’s speech does not have the function of portraying the conspirator in a positive light. Orazio Romano’s purpose is to depict his character through the parallel with Catiline, by ascribing to Porcari the same evil political intentions and the same negative features of the classical exemplar. It is no coincidence that Porcari, like Catiline, entices his accomplices with the promise of money and wealth. Moreover, it is not surprising that Porcari’s political plan is described as an authoritarian and despotic attempt driven by the yearning for political power.⁵⁶ This perspective contributes to the presentation of the conspiracy in a propagandistic light, condemning it as an attempt to threaten all Roman people, making them lose the peace and wealth obtained under papal rule. This implicit connection with an autocratic view is created also by recalling the figure of Caesar as a symbol of tyrannical domination and connecting him with Porcari himself: Caesar is evoked both in Porcari’s speech (I, 266‒7 ‘Ego solus in urbe/ Caesar’; ‘Only myself, Caesar, in the city’) and in the next part of the poem in the speech

⁵⁶ On the representation of Porcari’s conspiracy as driven by authoritarian aims, see section 1.5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

54

     

given by the soul of Catiline (I, 329‒30, ‘At Caesar totis fortuna est viribus usus/ Successuque meos ausus meliore sequutus’; ‘But Caesar enjoyed favourable fortune and more strengths, and he was brave enough to achieve better results with my enterprises’). Immediately after Porcari’s account, the figure of Catiline appears in the underworld as an actual character and addresses his words to the fifteenthcentury plotter. In this section of the poem, unlike the previous one, it is not possible to pinpoint one major source that influences Orazio Romano, but it is noteworthy that the poet displays a different use of the classical tradition, resting on ‘exemplarity’⁵⁷ rather than direct ‘imitation’. Catiline in particular plays a prominent function as a negative exemplar, epitomizing the classical iconic image of the conspirator. The symbolic value of this character, which derives from the conventional role he has acquired in the literary tradition,⁵⁸ is made even more significant in the Porcaria, since the poet makes him condemn Porcari (I, 343‒9), by describing the infernal punishment that he should suffer.⁵⁹ So, the author enlists Catiline to denounce the viciousness of the conspiracy against the pope and depicts it as more cruel than Catiline’s own plot. In this case, the modern conspirator has surpassed the classical exemplar. Similarly, a function of exemplarity is displayed in the employment of the character of Cato, who appears after Catiline. Cato is enlisted to ask Minos to punish Porcari, whose name is represented as an arrogant attempt to offend Cato’s family name, Porcius (I, 352‒8): . . . virum quo non iactantior alter/ Ad superos vixit voveo, qui Portia finxit/ Nomina de porcis titulique ascripsit honorem/ Gentibus obscuris. Unde hic sceleratior extat:/ Num puduit claram prolem virtutibus olim,/ Unde tot illustres fulsere ad sidera cives,/ Offendisse hominem et rigidos lusisse Catones? [I swear to Gods that nobody ever lived who was more arrogant than him, who counterfeited the name of ‘Porcia gens’ for his original name which meant ‘swine’, and by means of this noble title bestowed honour upon obscure people. Hence, he is very wicked: was this man ever ashamed of insulting such an illustrious and virtuous lineage, whose outstanding members all shone in the sky, and mocking the honest Catones?]

The link between the surname of Porcari and the name of the Latin family Porcia is recalled with the aim of emphasizing the conspirator’s pretension and ⁵⁷ On exemplarity in Renaissance literature, see Hampton, Timothy, Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). ⁵⁸ See Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Fiesole and Florence: The After-Life of a Roman Conspirator’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 7, 1 (2000), pp. 3‒38. ⁵⁹ This punishment can be seen as characterized by a contrapasso: cf. D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, p. 219.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

55

irreverence.⁶⁰ Again, the figure of Cato plays a symbolic role, but, unlike Catiline, he is a positive exemplar. He represents the classical iconic image of ancient virtus and one of the preeminent symbols of the Roman Republic. This period of Roman history is recalled in the Porcaria as the golden age of Rome and Orazio Romano’s ultimate aim is to celebrate papal political power as being connected with the most illustrious epoch of classical antiquity. The very same exemplary function is played in the next book by Scipio, enlisted as a leading actor to bestow on Nicholas V his approval and blessing for papal political rule. In this respect, Orazio Romano’s literary strategy can be regarded as problematic in many aspects, especially if we consider that papal authority was extremely distant from the republican ideals recalled by the exemplary characters in the Porcaria. Nevertheless, even though the humanist wants to commemorate the centralized power of the papacy, he achieves this purpose by evoking the most illustrious classical symbolical figures conventionally used in humanist culture. These icons perform a role as cultural and literary vehicles, rather than as actual historical and political characters, embodying both the ideal image of the classical world and the notion of civic virtus. In this regard, this conception of civic virtue has to be interpreted in a broader sense rather than referring merely to republican ideology. Hence, these exemplars are employed by Orazio Romano to transfigure the political subject into a lofty dimension and stand for traditional figures of the classical republican epoch, which is regarded as the most prosperous age of Rome, but is deprived of a concrete institutional value. This approach shows that the importance of classical works in the humanist age goes well beyond their reuse as specific political or ideological models, and rather informs the mindset of their readers, who were subsequently authors in their own right, providing the argumentative backbone of their works. Here in the Porcaria the ennobling link with the classical world functions as the main means by which the poet confers legitimacy on papal government, on a level that eclipses the strict political interpretation of characters, events, and symbols in rigid constitutional terms. The same perspective noticeably characterizes the final section of the first book, where Orazio Romano inserts an intricate historical digression. After the damnatio of Porcari, the poem shifts to Rome, where some Romans look at the hanged conspirators’ corpses and comment on this scene of death, mocking and calling ironically Porcari a ‘new Brutus’ who wanted to achieve freedom from despotism. This brief remark leads to the historical excursus wherein the author describes Roman political history as divided into four periods. Once more he turns to exemplary figures of classical antiquity, whom he mentions as traditional symbols of each specific period of Roman history. The first status urbis is the epoch of the Roman kings, portrayed as an age of brutal violence; the second one

⁶⁰ Cf. Modigliani, I Porcari, p. 44.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

56

     

is the period of the Roman Republic, represented as the time when civic principles were established; the third stutus urbis coincides with the Roman Empire, depicted as the epoch of decadence; finally, the last phase corresponds to papal domination, which is regarded as the most prosperous period. This age is considered as the fusion of classical civic values with Christian principles, and this unification is possible thanks to the government of the pope, who is seen as both a just prince and the incarnation of the Christian religion. In portraying this evolution, the author draws on the main sources of the poem: for instance, the image of Lucius Junius Brutus (I, 424‒6) is taken from Vergil’s Aeneid (6, 817‒21), while Gaius Fabricius Luscinus and Marcus Attilius Regulus (I, 435‒6), two symbols of the republican age, are recovered from Claudian’s In Rufinum (3, 1, 200‒1).⁶¹ In particular this final section of book I is very much indebted to Claudian’s works. Indeed, Orazio Romano employs several verbatim quotations from Claudian’s poems to build numerous verses: I, 458‒9; 465‒6; 520‒1; 529; 547.⁶² In this section the humanist makes use of another chief model, this time an historical source, Livy, from whose work (Liv. 1, 48, 7) he derives, for example, the image of Tullia Minor, Servius Tullius’s daughter and wife of Tarquinius Superbus (Porcaria I, 418‒21). She is the legendary figure who killed her father and ran over his corpse with a carriage. So, this scene represents the symbolic image of the violent and cruel power of Roman kings, which was eventually overturned and evolved into new forms of power. Through these references to Roman antiquity, the poet shapes his historical digression and, above all, conveys his political message. The first book ends with the celebration of papal government, depicted as the ultimate and most glorious stage of Rome’s history. Here, in the explicit, the ennobling connection between the classical world and the papal state is traced more decisively and will be strengthened even more emphatically in book II. This second section of the Porcaria is characterized by the same distinctive features as the first. Again, it is not possible to identify a single classical auctoritas employed in full as a structural archetype. It is true that the main model can still be ⁶¹ Porcaria, I, 435‒7 ‘Tunc rudis imposito vivebat consul aratro,/ Fabricius parvo contentus munera regum/ Despexit’ (‘Then the rustic consul, Fabricius, lived with his plough, happy in his poverty despised the gifts of monarchs’); Claud. Carm. (In Rufinum.) 3, 200‒2 ‘contentus honesto/ Fabricius parvo spernebat munera regum/ sudabatque gravi consul Serranus aratro’ (‘Fabricius, happy in his honourable poverty, despised the gifts of monarchs; the consul Serranus sweated at his heavy plough’). All translations of Claudian’s works are quoted from Claudian, translated by Maurice Platnauer [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014). Although Claudian is the more direct source, these lines recall also Verg. Aen. 6, 842‒5. ⁶² The most significant examples are: Porcaria I, 458‒9 ‘Exitium quod Roma tulit! Communia Caesar/ Iura ferox in se leges’ (‘Rome brought this destruction! The proud Caesar dissolved the people’s power in himself ’): Claud. Carm. (De bello Gildonico) 15, 49‒50; Porcaria I, 465‒6 ‘Nil adeo insigne est, quod non exacta vetustas/ Laeserit et longi labes madefecerit aevi’ (‘Nothing is so distinguished that the passing of time has not wiped out and the ruin of long centuries has not worn away’): Claud. Carm. (In Eutropium) 18, 1, 287‒8. Porcaria I, 547 ‘Mitior ex alta mortalia despicit aula’ (‘He, gentler, he looks down upon the world from a lofty palace’): Claud. Carm. (Paneg. Mallio Theodoro) 17, 6. My emphasis.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

57

identified in Vergil’s Aeneid, but the Virgilian poem, along with the other classical epic works, is exploited mostly as a source of wording, verbal-metric patterns, and clichés, so as to bring to life the epic landscape and the classical intonation of the poem. An intense epic atmosphere is immediately evoked at the outset of the second book, which opens with the classical mythological image of Aurora who leaves her lover’s bed (II, 1‒2), a personification inspired by the opening of book XI of the Aeneid.⁶³ Straight after this mythological incipit (followed by a brief evocation of the giant Typhoeus—II, 8‒10—based on the Georgicae, I, 279‒8), Orazio Romano depicts the dark landscape in Rome after the conspiracy, full of images of death and grief. As in the first book, he creates this grim tone by elaborating a lengthy funeral lament, delivered by Porcari’s mother (II, 31‒108). So, the two books show a symmetrical structure, both starting with a female threnody and then moving to an infernal setting. Again, the threnody is created by employing the main classical poetic auctoritates: Vergil, Lucan, Ovid, and Statius, with the significant addition of Claudian. Among these sources, as in the funeral lament in the first book, the role of Statius’s Thebaid is predominant. In particular, the quotations deployed by Orazio Romano, though merely linguistic, recall passages of the Thebaid that may be connected with the idea of human suffering that the humanist wants to evoke.⁶⁴ Hence, as in the previous section, but with a less emphatic tone, the threnody fulfils the function of hinting at the general concept of grief brought about by the conspiracy, seen as a thoughtless war. The process of combination of different sources is again extremely sophisticated, with the introduction of lengthy literary quotations aimed at exhibiting the author’s erudition and refined style.⁶⁵ After the lament, the setting shifts again to Hades, where an unusual tumult takes place involving dead souls (II, 109‒19): again, this scene is inspired by a parallel infernal uproar represented in a passage of Statius’s Thebaid (8, 14‒20). It is in this tumult that the figure of Scipio appears in the Porcaria. He is shocked by the fight and worried that a new war is impending, so he resumes his mortal body and goes back to Rome. This scene (II, 142‒61) recalls the similar episode in book VI of Lucan’s Pharsalia (6, 750‒62), in which Erichtho, the legendary Thessalian sorceress, makes a dead soldier come back to life by means of a morbid magic ritual. The representation in the Porcaria shares the same vivid tone as the classical source, although less macabre: a descriptive style that is achieved by means of lively images that recall the vigorous colour of Lucan’s depiction.

⁶³ This image also recurs in Verg. Aen. 4, 584‒5; 11, 459‒60. ⁶⁴ For instance, lines II, 47‒8 are shaped on a verse in the passage of the death of Eurydice’s son, Opheltes (Theb. 6, 163); while, other quotations (II, 81‒7) are drawn from the speech of Menoeceus’s father (Theb. 10, 702‒12). ⁶⁵ This is the case in II, 91, where the verse is built with a lengthy quotation from Claudian’s De Raptu Proserpinae, 2, 50: ‘Nondum luce graves et pubescentibus annis’ (‘too young as yet to vex with his light’).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

58

     

When Scipio goes back to Rome, he is shocked by the decline of the city, which is full of ruins and people who look very different to what he remembered. He is so stunned by this sight that he starts to cry and to recall nostalgically the ancient glory of Rome; but, after his lament, he comes across Castel Sant’Angelo, St Peter’s and the new architectural buildings of the city, and suddenly is astonished by the magnificence of papal constructions. The Roman hero also sees people working to build new edifices, under their supervisor, who can be identified with Beltramo di Martino da Varese, the leader of the architectural works planned by Nicholas V.⁶⁶ So, through Scipio’s eyes, Orazio Romano represents the ambitious renovation of the city and evokes Nicholas V’s architectural plan as a symbol of papal power. The description of the city (II, 154‒305) is mostly framed by means of references to Vergil’s Aeneid. In particular, the allusion to one of the most famous iconic places of ancient Rome, the Tarpeias rupes (II, 154), is modelled on a Virgilian line (Aen. 8, 347); while the symbolic depiction of the entrance to the papal palace (II, 278‒98) is based on the picture of the entrance to Vergil’s Hades (Aen. 6, 273‒81), the only difference being that the evil personifications of the infernal setting are converted into virtues that stand in front of the papal seat. In this section, the pervasive use of descriptive motifs derived from Vergil is mainly aimed at conveying an ideal image of the classical Roman world. But it is remarkable that beside the model of Vergil, Orazio Romano recalls Martial’s first epigram to compare hyperbolically the architectural works built under Nicholas V and the most magnificent buildings of antiquity (II, 271‒5), creating the same comparison that Martial made in relation to the Amphitheatrum Flavium (Mart. I, 1, 1‒6).⁶⁷ These elements demonstrate that the classical dimension in the Porcaria, especially in this section, has a double nature, symbolic and verbal. On the one hand, it is linked with the symbolic evocation of iconic images belonging to the classical Roman tradition (building, places, and characters); on the other hand, it is produced by the deployment of verbal expressions derived from classical poetry and immediately perceivable as related to the most glorious classical literature. The following section consists of a historical account of Scipio’s biography. The Roman hero meets the humanist Giovanni Tortelli, the librarian of the Vatican Library, and he finds him reading aloud a book about his own heroic deeds: a narrative passage that reminds us of Petrarch’s Africa. This metaliterary episode allows the author to introduce another historical digression, in which Scipio himself narrates his biography (II, 315‒413). This account is based on Livy ⁶⁶ On this historical character, see Burrough, Charles, From Signs to Design: Environmental Process and Reform in Early Renaissance Rome (Cambridge/London: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 252‒3. ⁶⁷ Porcaria, II, 271‒5 ‘Pyramidum sileat celebris fastigia Memphis/ Mauseolique labor, cedat Babylonia moles/ Et quae marmoreis late suffulta columnis/ Tot simul ingentes Asiae struxere labores/ Templa solo Triviae penitus fundata palustri’ (‘Let famous Memphis stay silent about the high peaks of the pyramids, and let the labour that went into the Mausoleum and the majestic buildings of Babylon give way, along with those temples extensively supported by marble columns, and the temple that the mighty labours of Asia erected to Diana, with its foundations in a marshy soil’).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

59

(XXXIII, 31‒5; XXXV‒XXXVII), Orazio Romano’s main source in his references to Roman history.⁶⁸ More generally, the adoption of Scipio as the main character and the re-evocation of his deeds might lead us to suppose that Silius Italicus’s Punica could also be one of the sources for the Porcaria, the classical epic poem that had been recently rediscovered by Poggio Bracciolini in 1417.⁶⁹ However, regardless of the diffusion that this source could already have had in the 1450s— when, for example, Pietro Odo was the first to lecture on the Punica in the Studio in Rome⁷⁰—the linguistic analysis of Orazio’s poem proves that the humanist did not employ this model directly, which therefore was not among his major and better known sources. Significantly in this excursus on Africanus’s life, the humanist introduces a poetic simile in which Scipio’s deeds are compared to the labours of Hercules (II, 339‒47), a parallel that is instead inspired by the long section on this myth in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (IX, 98‒272) and, less directly, by the passage on Hercules in Vergil’s Aeneid (8, 285‒305). This simile produces a more recherché tone in the historical digression and more elegant poetic diction.⁷¹ The conflation of classical models belonging to, on the one hand, historiographical prose and, on the other hand, the loftiest poetry comes to light again as a distinctive trait of this epic work. This reveals that, although Orazio Romano resorts to the most renowned poets of the classical tradition, he always pursues an original imitation enriching his textual tapestry through this amalgamation of different threads. The celebration of ancient Rome in connection with the contemporary government of popes, which is mainly carried out through this refined use of the classical legacy, emerges plainly in the closing section of the poem, where Scipio meets Nicholas V and glorifies his political power. So, the exemplary role of Africanus as an ennobling link between past and present appears clearly at the conclusion of the Porcaria and demonstrates the multifunctional symbolic dimension created by classical antiquity. It is worth dwelling on the symmetrical structure of this short epic, divided into two books. Both books open with a funeral lament, then shift into the underworld, and finally end with a symmetrical conclusion. In the first book the excursus on Roman history presents papal domination as a glorious age of Rome, a passage that can be seen as recalling the prophecy in book VI of Aeneid; while the second book ends with Scipio visiting Rome and seeing with his own eyes the ⁶⁸ On the use of Livy in Renaissance epic, see Everson, The Italian Romance Epic, p. 85. ⁶⁹ See Reynolds, Marshall, and Mynors, Texts and Transmission, pp. 389‒90; and Bigi, Emilio, ‘Poggio Bracciolini’, DBI, 13 (1971), pp. 640‒6. ⁷⁰ He also studied and commented the poem: cf. Avesani, Rino, ‘Appunti per la storia dello Studium Urbis nel Quattrocento’, in Roma e lo Studium urbis: spazio urbano e cultura dal Quattro al Seicento, edited by Paolo Cherubini (Rome: Quasar, 1989), pp. 69‒87: 79. ⁷¹ In the Roman age this myth circulates widely, conveying the image of gravitas, and the figure of Hercules was deified under Augustus: Fedeli, Paolo, ‘Le intersezioni dei generi e dei modelli’, in Fedeli, Paolo, Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 1, pp. 375‒97, 397. One of the most important works in Italian humanism on Hercules is Colucii Salutati De laboribus Herculis, edited by Berthold Louis Ullman (Turici: In aedibus Thesaurimundi, 1951).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

60

     

magnificence of papal power. The image of Scipio who sees the golden future of Rome can also be regarded as a parallel to Scipio’s dream in Petrarch’s Africa, where Scipio’s father takes him up to the stars and from there he points out the walls of Carthage, and foretells his son’s great victory. This poetic section, as is well known, is inspired by Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis in book VI of De republica, where the heroic ancestor Scipio Africanus appears to his grandson Scipio Aemilianus while he sleeps, and shows him the earth and the universe, predicting him a glorious future. This episode was famous in the Middle Ages thanks to Macrobius’s commentary on Cicero, De republica. But if in Petrarch’s Africa the golden future of Rome is predicted to Scipio in his dream, in Orazio Romano’s Porcaria, Scipio himself goes to Rome to see the city with his own eyes. This representation, in which the classic hero is directly transferred to the prosperity of fifteenth-century Rome, is aimed again at conveying effectively the poet’s propagandistic view.

1.5 The ‘papal prince’ and the political perspective in the poem One of the most striking features of the Porcaria is that it is permeated by a secular dimension. Although the ideological core of the poem is the celebration of Nicholas V’s pontificate, the political perspective of the text is not directly related to religious issues concerning papal power. In particular, with the development of humanist culture, the juridical problem of the legitimacy of the popes’ government, which had been crucial in the medieval debate (and in some cases was still relevant in the fifteenth century), was placed under a different light and became interlaced with new political issues. Unlike the Porcaria, this religious sphere has a prominent position in another text written on the same conspiracy: Pietro Godi’s De coniuratione Porcaria (1453), a dialogue that is mainly devoted to legitimizing papal rule from a religious and juridical point of view. It displays a political analysis mostly influenced by medieval ideologies, which considered papal dominion in terms of a universalistic institution (such as the Roman Empire), rather than an actual political state.⁷² On the other hand, Orazio Romano’s poem turns out to be more centred on a secular conception of the papacy. This is a standpoint that also characterizes Alberti’s epistle and other literary works produced by humanists in the same period, although with different outcomes. The divide between the Porcaria and Godi’s dialogue also emerges in the employment of utterly different sources: Orazio Romano draws on classical texts, while Godi supports his argument with a widespread use of quotation from the Bible.

⁷² On this work see Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 176‒88; D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, pp. 227‒8.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

61

So, the multifunctional use of the classical legacy in the Porcaria is essential in creating the secular dimension of the text. Here, the extensive recovery of classical symbols and characters is aimed at evoking political and ethical principles that had become pivotal in humanist culture. From this perspective, Quattrocento political theories are based on a new personalistic idea of authority and start to become distant from the religious conception of power prevailing in previous centuries, when the legitimization to rule was mainly regarded as conferred by God. Now, in a new historical context, rulers (and even popes) founded their legitimacy mainly in the concept of human virtue, which became the chief attribute in which princes could entrench their sovereignty.⁷³ And it was also thanks to the considerable support provided by the humanists’ literary activity that this new ideological outlook prevailed and that rulers could reinforce their authority. Indeed, fifteenth-century literature made a substantial contribution in eternalizing virtues and deeds of political leaders and, through this celebration, legitimized them. Orazio Romano’s poem can be recognized as part of this broader literary production, but it is also characterized by some distinguishing traits that make it a product of the mid-fifteenth-century papal environment, and, more specifically, of Nicholas V’s cultural politics. The political perspective in the Porcaria is a reflection of the new centralized ideology that emerged around the middle of the Quattrocento in most Italian states and that also informed papal politics, especially under Nicholas V’s pontificate. Therefore, in Orazio Romano’s poem, the plot against the pope is represented not as a menace addressed to the chief religious authority but as an attack on the papal state and its people. Consequently, the figure of the pope is portrayed as a prince and it is continuously associated with the image of princely power, as revealed by this significant example (I, 535‒6): ‘Illa mihi visa est digno sub principe vera/ libertas’ (‘True liberty is that which you can find under a just prince’). Orazio Romano in his poem ascribes all characteristic traits of monarchical power to the papacy, which is depicted as a just single-man rule, the only kind of government that can maintain the state in a condition of peacefulness, wealth, and concordia. This viewpoint overlaps with the traditional promonarchic principles and is shown by an encomiastic depiction of Nicholas V’s regime, where these values are emphasized (I, 487‒90): . . . legum quo principe virtus,/ Quo tranquilla quies fulget, quo paxque piumque/ Iustitiaeque decus, qualem non pertulit aetas/ Nostra nec antiquis potuit conferre vetustas.

⁷³ Cf. Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 122‒3; Hankins, James, Virtue Politics. Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019), pp. 36‒45.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

62

      [ . . . in him, our prince, the virtue of the law lies, in him the calm quietness, the peace and the pious honour of justice shine: all this is brought to us for the first time in our epoch, and was never brought in the past to our forefathers.]

This perspective emerges again plainly in a significant comparison between the papal state, where people live in freedom and peace, and the rest of Italy, racked by wars (I, 514‒21). Here the pope is once more represented as a ‘papal prince’, as revealed by the words: ‘Felicem tanto vitam sub principe tuti/ ducimus’ (I, 518–9, ‘We live a happy life under the government of a great prince’). The final section of book I, as we have seen, presents Nicholas V’s rule as the new flourishing age of Rome. This celebration is achieved through an uneasy correlation between the papacy and the ancient Roman Republic. The papal era is seen as a continuation of the city’s golden age, with the essential acquisition of the Christian religion. In this view, papal government brought to Rome not only a thriving state but also the ‘true religion’. According to Orazio Romano’s interpretation of the evolution of Roman history, the main drawback in the republican period was the faith in pagan gods (I, 443‒51) and it was removed only by the affirmation of the Christian religion through papal domination. Significantly, an intense eulogy of the popes’ power as the origin and continuous protection of this ‘pious faith’ and of the whole of Christendom is put into Scipio’s mouth, in his speech addressed to Nicholas V (II, 488‒92): Fidei manet alta supernae/ Hic pia religio verum caput orbis et omne/ Imperii decus et Petri, cui sanguine primus/ Partus honos templi caeloque infusa potestas./ Ergo iterum altricem mundi pater aspice terram. [Now the noble religion of our pious faith can survive, as the true head of the world and all glory of the Empire, as well as the glory of Peter’s power, from whose blood the first office of the Church was generated and whose power was instilled from the sky. So once more, father, behold the land that nourishes the whole earth.]

However, despite the sporadic observations on religious matters, the ideology subtending the whole poem is entirely secular and is an expression of the centralized political thought prevailing in those years. From this point of view, the reuse of classical characters and symbols of the Roman Republic in a work aimed at celebrating the papal state can be undeniably recognized as inconsistent.⁷⁴ It could also be possible to regard the contradictions in this poem as the reflection of an unresolved position in the author himself. In this case, he would not appear to be intimately sharing the celebration of the pope’s government that he put

⁷⁴ This inconsistency was highlighted by D’Elia, ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy’, pp. 218‒23.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

63

forward and would seem to adopt classical republican symbols as rhetorical artifices to communicate to the reader a double interpretation of the historical situation and his unspoken support to anti-princely values. This contradictory position would appear in a twofold strategy in the text: on the one hand, in a eulogistic literary representation aimed at backing papal rule and clearly recognizable in the surface layer of the poem, and, on the other hand, in a more critical and uneasy outlook on the events and on Nicholas V’s pontificate, which is only cryptically conveyed and identifiable in an internal layer of the text. Nevertheless, this interpretation that admits the coexistence in the poet of a double viewpoint on the political scenario, on both an explicit and oblique level,⁷⁵ although plausible, does not seem to be completely compelling, especially if we ponder what we know about Orazio Romano’s biography and his work. He was very much close to the curial environment and for some years he himself was an integral part of it, proving to have direct relationships with many distinguished officials. Consequently, he was a minor but perfectly integrated component of the system of cultural politics erected by the popes around the middle of the Quattrocento. In particular he was always committed to supporting the papacy throughout his literary activity, since the large majority of his works are coherently oriented towards these celebratory and political aims. In light of this, it seems difficult to believe that he could oppose Nicholas V’s rule neither openly nor obliquely in such a delicate and dangerous situation, particularly considering that he offered his work directly to one of the pope’s right-hand men, Pietro Lunense, as the dedicatory epistle in manuscript of the poem reveals. Additionally, Orazio Romano was certainly a minor figure in the cultural and political circles of the papal city—definitely not as prominent and intellectually independent as Alberti—and his own fortune was probably entirely due to the favour of popes and influential curial members. So, this subaltern position would have left him even fewer possibilities of developing heterodox thoughts, even unconsciously. Besides these biographical considerations, it is fundamental to consider that the contradictions that the Porcaria displays in the employment of classical republican icons as directly linked with papal rule prove to be less relevant if we focus again on how these classical images are used in the poem. These characters, as already observed, are adopted as symbolic literary figures, rather than the embodiment of exclusivist political ideologies. This function emerges clearly if we concentrate on the role that the exemplar of Scipio plays both in the Porcaria and in coeval humanist literature, where his image is not always seen as the embodiment of a specific political institution, but becomes the epitome of an idea of virtue relevant to any kind of rule. For example, Scipio is recalled as an icon of virtue in

⁷⁵ This standpoint has been attributed to Alberti too in his work on the same plot, on this text see Chapter 2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

64

     

Giovanni Pontano’s De principe (1465)⁷⁶ and in Francesco Patrizi’s De regno (1481‒4),⁷⁷ two treatises devoted to princely government. However, one of the most famous works on the Roman hero in the Quattrocento was the controversy on Scipio and Caesar between Poggio Bracciolini and Guarino Veronese (1435).⁷⁸ It is true that this dispute was not just a rhetorical exercise, but an actual political discussion that involved the two humanists as representatives of different governments. Nevertheless, the exemplary role of Scipio is more multifaceted and is not a pure icon of Republicanism: he is celebrated by Poggio mainly as a symbol of the safeguard of civic institutions and loyalty to the fatherland. From this perspective, he is shaped to evoke the figure Cosimo de’ Medici, who was implicitly celebrated as a pater patriae, when in 1434 he returned to Florence after his exile and was able to consolidate and centralize his power. These examples demonstrate how the literary image of Scipio was not used as a univocal political symbol, but, conversely, as the personification of classical virtues recalled to evoke a parallel with current rulers. In Orazio Romano’s Porcaria in particular both Scipio and Cato are clearly employed to legitimize the rule and authority of Nicholas V, who is described by Cato as ‘the bishop who gave to Rome the most valued freedom’ (I, 359‒60), and by Scipio as a ‘happy prince, higher than any power and greater than any wealth, population or arms’ (II, 496‒7). Moreover, the section in the poem where Scipio is shocked by the ruins of Rome and cries over the decadence of his ancient fatherland is not to be seen as an ‘unflattering portrait’ of Nicholas V’s Rome, but it coincides with literary motif that is recurrent in humanist literature: the description of ancient ruins (a famous example is in Poggio Bracciolini’s De varietate fortunae). Scipio’s negative depiction of the new Rome is a mere rhetorical device, by means of which the author leads to the celebration of Nicholas V’s restoration of the city. This encomiastic image of the architectural works in Rome (as we shall see) is described by Scipio himself, so that, again, the link with the past is used by Orazio Romano to commemorate his patron. The poet’s standpoint is also confirmed by the fact that the conspiracy itself is represented as a tyrannical attempt to subvert the fair regime of the pope, as proved by the direct connections traced in the Porcaria with Catiline’s conspiracy through the employment of Sallust work. This outlook is shown through the use of the image of Caesar, recalled as a negative exemplar of a dictator and associated with the conspirator (I, 266‒7; I, 329‒30). If we contextualize the role of Caesar’s image in the poem, it reveals that Porcari’s plot is condemned as a despotic plan ⁷⁶ Pontano, Giovanni, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003), §§ 5, 14. For a more general analysis, see Canfora, Davide, ‘Riflessioni di Giovanni Pontano su Cesare e Scipione’, in Confini dell’Umanesimo letterario. Studi in onore di Francesco Tateo, edited by Mauro De Nichilo, Grazia Distaso, and Antonio Iurilli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2003), pp. 187‒99. ⁷⁷ Patrizi, Francesco, De regno et regis institutione (Paris: Aegidius Gorbinus, 1567): the specific passages are mentioned in Pontano, De principe, note to § 14. ⁷⁸ Canfora, Davide, La controversia di Poggio Bracciolini e Guarino Veronese (Florence: Olschki, 2001).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

65

aimed at subverting a just monarchical government.⁷⁹ Conversely, despite the frequent employment of classical republican icons, the papal-princely state is not criticized as an autocratic regime, but is eulogistically praised as a fair rule. In this princely political perspective, the plotter is now seen as the tyrant who illegitimately threatens the monarchical state and it is no accident that this centralized political standpoint has a close connection with the cultural politics that Pope Parentucelli developed in the same period. This developing model of statecraft was at the heart of Nicholas V’s policy throughout his pontificate. Paolo Prodi described him as the first pope who encapsulated fully in his pontificate the new political perspective of the Renaissance, since his whole government was oriented towards reinforcing his power by seeking to erect a state similar to a signoria, and making it a ‘secularecclesiastical principality’.⁸⁰ In Prodi’s compelling analysis, Nicholas V’s papacy is considered as a form of princely rule and his figure is defined as that of a ‘papal prince’. His predecessor, Eugene IV, had already undertaken this process of centralization of power, but it is only with Nicholas V that all aspects of papal policy were coordinated and directed to attain this specific goal. For example, with regards to administrative policy, his effort was oriented at strengthening his authority through a wide-ranging administrative reform aimed at creating a new class of trustworthy and loyal bureaucrats. In addition, he tried to make the Curia similar to a court by introducing a strict official protocol and a new system of relationships, transforming the baronial aristocracy, often too independent and unreliable, into a court society. Beside these measures, this centralized ideology also decisively permeates the curial cultural environment, since under Nicholas V several humanists were engaged in official positions and made contributions to politics. Orazio Romano’s Porcaria represents a striking literary example of this broader scenario. A crucial component of this political phenomenon was the foundation of new cultural principles and strategies conceived as a backing to papal power. Intellectuals, artists, and humanists took an active part in constructing an ideal image of the pope and his rule. It is mainly thanks to their contribution that the new princely values ascribed to the papacy did not remain purely theoretical and abstract, but were concretely incarnated in the figure of the pontifex and, most importantly, in his artistic and literary representations. In particular Orazio Romano’s Porcaria reflects and, at the same time, conveys some of the ideological

⁷⁹ Other historical texts also presented the conspiracy as a tyrannical attempt aimed at creating a signoria ruled by Porcari, instead of a political action inspired by republican ideologies; nevertheless, this seems to be a biased opinion, spread by the pope’s propagandistic channels: Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 73. See also Chapter 2. ⁸⁰ Prodi, Paolo, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino,1982), p. 43. The following brief overview on Nicholas V’s policy is mainly based on Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice, pp. 91‒126.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

66

     

cornerstones on which Nicholas V’s cultural politics was based, becoming one of the most representative expressions of propagandistic literature produced during this pontificate. The pope’s portrayal in the text reveals how the image of papal power was shaped in this age: this authority is now devoid of medieval attributes related to the religious sphere, but it is mainly framed by resorting to classical sources and symbols. This recovery and re-elaboration of the classical legacy is a pivotal factor in this cultural process in fifteenth-century and sixteenth-century papacies and it plays a prominent function in constructing a new symbolism of power.⁸¹ In the Porcaria in particular papal authority tends to be depicted as concrete political rule mainly thanks to this reuse of ancient exemplary figures. In this representation, the two dimensions of Rome, the holy and secular city continuously overlap: this conflation does not show universalistic traits any more (as the image of the Holy Roman Empire did), but it appears in the new figure of the pope, who embodies both political and religious power. Thus, in Orazio Romano’s poem, papal rule is celebrated as the highest form of government, which takes care of the whole sphere of human life: public and private, secular and religious (I, 482‒94). This is a princely state that unifies classical promonarchic political thought that champions the government of a single ruler and the traditional medieval idea of centralized religious authority, ruled by the pope as the heir of Peter.⁸² Furthermore, the conspiracy is not represented as a threat to the single figure of the pontiff, but to the whole city of Rome, which embodies the highest concept of fatherland: a perspective that is continuously conveyed in the poem.⁸³ This is a recurrent element in humanist texts devoted to conspiracies and is aimed at isolating the plotters from the rest of the civic community and condemning the subversive action as a dangerous seditious attack against the whole public sphere. Additionally, in the Porcaria, besides the political disapproval of the plot expressed by Cato and Scipio (and generally throughout the whole poem), Orazio Romano condemns the event from a universal angle as well, by the lengthy funeral laments inspired by Statius’s Thebaid through which the conspiracy appears as despotic abuse and is equated to a civil war that causes human grief and death. The Porcaria also has some crucial ideological perspectives in common with other literary texts devoted to this plot and, more generally, to Nicholas V’s pontificate. One of the principal aspects celebrated by humanists is the

⁸¹ For example, Pope Paul III was celebrated by recalling Alexander the Great’s deeds: see Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice, pp. 97‒8. ⁸² For this monarchic ideology, see Skinner, Visions, pp. 31‒3. For the unification of the secular and religious dimension in Nicholas V’s cultural politics see Miglio, ‘Niccolò V umanista’. ⁸³ For example: Porcaria I, 235‒6 ‘Insidias totiens patriae patribusque parantem’; ‘Many times I have plotted crimes against the fatherland’; I, 325 ‘Qui patriam et sanctos ausus violare penates’; ‘You dared to violate the fatherland and the sacred household gods’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

67

architectural restoration of Rome planned by Nicholas V, aimed at renovating palaces, churches, fortifications, walls, aqueducts, and streets.⁸⁴ Many texts, such as Orazio Romano’s Porcaria, Giuseppe Brivio’s Conformatio Curie Romane, Giannozzo Manetti’s Vita Nicolai V, and Pietro Godi’s dialogue, mention the renovation of the city and place it in connection with the plot against the pope. So, both the conspiracy and the architectural plan emerge as major topics in literature and historiography devoted to Nicholas V.⁸⁵ In this respect, these matters represent the ideal image of papal political power, from different but complementary perspectives. In the Porcaria, as already mentioned, the poet describes the restoration of Rome in its tangible progress by means of the eulogistic picture given through Scipio’s eyes (II, 241‒76): the Roman hero sees men working to erect new buildings and he is impressed by the magnificent constructions. So, Porcari’s plot is what risked jeopardizing the peace and wealth gained by Romans under papal rule and is contrasted with the restoration of Rome, which encapsulates the concrete image of the city’s prosperity. This becomes the immortalizing symbol of the pope’s princely government and of a verticalized state that protects its citizens and the whole of Christendom through its efficient fortifications. These two poles, the threats to the papacy and the protection of the state, were placed at the core of Nicholas V’s own political guidelines. They are also presented as tightly interlaced in his last will and testament drawn up by the pope and quoted by Giannozzo Manetti in his Vita Nicolai V. Nicholas V’s testament sheds light on the crucial implications that the conspiracy had in this historical scenario. After giving an overview on all menaces to the papacy throughout the centuries, Nicholas V explicitly recalls Porcari’s plot, placing it in this long trajectory of attacks at the papal rule and presenting it as a hideous crime that was providentially thwarted. In light of this recurring dangers to which the city or Rome is subject, he claims that fortifications are the only means of keeping the papal state safe, and therefore he encourages later popes to carry on his architectural plan.⁸⁶ These emphatic considerations hint at the pontifex’s aim of defeating any kind of uprising, reinforcing his state. Nicholas V’s majestic plan probably was not directly due to conspiracy and it had been drawn up earlier, but the pope’s last ⁸⁴ On Nicholas V’s restoration of Rome see in particular Miglio, ‘Niccolò V’, pp. 653–4; and Chapter 2, n. 3. ⁸⁵ Miglio, Massimo, ‘Storiografia su Niccolò V’, in Papato, Stati regionali, pp. 21‒32. ⁸⁶ Manetti, De vita, III, §§ 16‒18. The first version of the testament (in the codex 914 of the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence, ff. 55r‒65r) did not include the section about both the threats to the papacy and the building plan: Manetti probably added this section (aimed at justifying the pope’s politics) to intensify the eulogistic image of the pope he intended to provide (Manetti, De vita, p. LV). On the version of the testament in Manetti’s work see Miglio, ‘Niccolò V umanista’, pp. 77‒84; Modigliani, Anna, ‘Il testamento di Niccolò V: la rielaborazione di Manetti nella biografia del papa’, in Dignitas et excellentia hominis. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi su Giannozzo Manetti (Georgetown University, Kent State University: Fiesole-Firenze, 18‒20 giugno 2007), edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri (Florence: Le lettere, 2008), pp. 231‒59; Modigliani, Anna, ‘Il testamento di Niccolò V e la gestazione della biografia manettiana’, Roma nel Rinascimento (2009), pp. 17‒22.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

68

     

words suggest that he found a stronger legitimacy and justification for this project in the conspiracy itself.⁸⁷ Another political issue that emerges in the Porcaria and in other historical works on Porcari’s plot concerns the punishment inflicted on the conspirators. This matter is closely linked with the idea of clemency, which some humanists emphasized to the pope, urging him to be merciful with the plotters, as Brivio does in his Conformatio Curie Romane.⁸⁸ These themes were also at the core of fifteenth-century treatises on the ‘perfect prince’, where justice was considered the chief virtue of rulers, recalling directly the classical thought of Cicero (De officiis, I, 20). As Skinner observed, the indispensable requirement of justice must be clementia (De officiis, I, 88), ‘the avoidance of cruelty and violence’: in this regard, it is ‘the sole guarantee of popular affection, while love of the people is in turn the sole guarantee of governmental security’.⁸⁹ The new centrality acquired by the notion of clemency in humanist political thought, and in particular in the theorization in the mirrors for princes, has its foundations not only in the Ciceronian classical tradition but also in Seneca’s De clementia. This work was in itself a pioneering speculum principis and was recovered as one of the main classical sources at the core of fifteenth-century speculation on monarchical rule. The De clementia was adopted already in the thirteenth century as a prominent model for establishing and consolidating monarchical ideologies, especially in the context of the military and juridical conflicts that ended up strengthening the various monarchical centres of power on the Italian peninsula.⁹⁰ Yet it is only in the Quattrocento that, thanks also to the more extensive recovery and circulation of this source (which had been already enhanced by its re-elaboration in Petrarch’s political thought),⁹¹ the humanists looked at this model as an essential cornerstone of their princely theories. This new revitalization and the consequent centrality that Seneca’s work achieved in political texts is proved by the primary position assigned to clemency in treatises de principe, where this attribute was elevated as one of the most central pillars in the humanist system of princely virtues.⁹² Again, the Porcaria, placing a specific focus on this issue, turns out to be centred on a princely ideology, but, in the intricate scenario brought about by the conspiracy, the idea of clemency also had repercussions in the actual historical context. In this difficult situation, the pope was threatened by the prospect of ⁸⁷ See Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 54‒60. ⁸⁸ Tommasini, Oreste, ‘Documenti relativi a Stefano Porcari’, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 3 (1880), pp. 63‒133, 111‒23, vv. 330‒75. ⁸⁹ Skinner, Visions, p. 125. ⁹⁰ See in particular Stacey, Peter, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 75‒120. ⁹¹ Stacey, Roman Monarchy, pp. 145‒70. ⁹² Specific attention to this model in humanist political thought is paid by Stacey, Roman Monarchy, pp. 173‒200, and Guido Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, in Pontano, De principe, pp. L‒LI.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

69

further rebellions and alliances between the plotters and Italian states.⁹³ Thus, he had to prevent this danger by spreading the image of a just ruler who reacted legitimately against enemies to defend his subjects, but was also able to act mercifully not to aggravate the conflict. In addition, in most texts on Porcari’s plot, the allusion to clemency is associated with both the image of the architectural plan and the image of the just government of Nicholas V. In both Brivio’s and Orazio Romano’s works, the most powerful defences against subversive attacks are considered the virtue of the ‘papal prince’ and the massive fortification of the city, an idea that shines through Manetti’s testament as well. In the Porcaria, all these crucial themes are encapsulated in Scipio’s final words to Nicholas V, in which the humanist recalls again the unspoken connection between the pope’s regime and the golden age of Rome, another central tenet of the poem (II, 447‒51): . . . moenia rursus/ Extruis et Romam, si qua est, insignibus ornas/ Extollisque opibus pacemque impendis et annum/ Laetitiae exortem bellis, unde aurea fulget/ Roma et congestis opibus cumulata triumphat . . . [ . . . you (pope) erect the walls of ancient Rome and adorn the city with great and illustrious buildings and bestow on it a joyful age of peace devoid of wars, from which golden Rome shines and triumphs, full of wealth . . . ]

These words condense the core of Orazio Romano’s political ideology. Here all major topics associated with the pope’s propagandistic image appear unified: the image of Nicholas V depicted as a just prince; the celebration of his architectural plan, which epitomizes his power; and the encomiastic representation of his pontificate, as a new glorious age.

1.6 The eclectic use of the classical legacy and a new political symbolism The analysis of the Porcaria has shown the extensive and eclectic presence of classical sources in this humanist work. Together with Vergil’s Aeneid, another important auctoritas is Lucan, who is employed to establish an unspoken connection between the conspiracy against the pope and the most famous civil war narrated in a classical poem. Though, besides these models, the Porcaria turns out to be built up by multifarious references to different texts and the humanist proves to be a learned and quite sophisticated poet, who had a considerable knowledge of ancient poetry. In particular, the eulogistic nature of the Porcaria accounts for the extensive use of the model of Claudian, from whose works several

⁹³ On this historical context and the standpoint of other sources see Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 50.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

70

     

literary quotations are drawn. The principal element that links the Porcaria and Claudian’s poems is the close interplay of patterns that are typical of two different genres: epic poetry and epideictic rhetoric. This is a distinctive trait of Claudian’s historical-epic works, to the extent that his panegyrics and invectives have been described as characterized by a process of ‘panegirizzazione dell’epica’ or ‘epicizzazione dell’epidittica’.⁹⁴ This literary phenomenon resulted in a mixed genre of poetry that enjoyed widespread diffusion throughout the centuries. This interaction of encomiastic and epic elements is a key component in Orazio Romano’s work as well, but the Porcaria also shares other traits with the late antique poet. One of these features is the short structure of the poem, consisting only of two symmetrical books, which probably is inspired by some of Claudian’s works, such as the invectives In Rufinum and In Eutropium. This particular character of brevity is typical not only of Claudian’s invectives, divided into two books, but also of his proper epic works, De bello Gildonico and De bello Gothico, which are made up of one and three books respectively.⁹⁵ Thus, on the basis of these structural elements and of the broader similarity with this specific model, the Porcaria can be defined as a short historical-epic. In addition, Orazio Romano does not only resort to poetic sources but also turns to historiographical authors, such as Livy and, most significantly, Sallust, a model that is entirely consistent with the historical topic of the poem. From this point of view, the Porcaria can be connected with the remarkable fortune that historiography found in humanism, and it also seems to follow the pioneering humanist paradigm of epic established by Petrarch’s Africa, a poem where the historical source of Livy is a substantial model. Moreover, the use of Sallust in the section of the Porcaria devoted to the account of the conspiracy, along with the allusion to Lucan in the proemium and the references to Statius in the funeral lament, reveals that classical auctoritates are selected by the humanist in accordance with the different thematic contexts in the text. In light of this, the employment of sources proves to match coherently the unfolding of the scenes of the poem, even when historical scenarios are directly recalled. So, the Porcaria turns out to be a sophisticated experiment in fifteenth-century epic, a polychrome conflation of classical poetry and prose and multiple classical models. This eclectic character also emerges in the employment of political icons recovered from the classical tradition. Figures of ancient history, by epitomizing the classical world, play the key role of elevating contemporary characters and events to a higher sphere. More precisely, in the Porcaria these classical figures

⁹⁴ Fo, Alessandro, Studi sulla tecnica poetica di Claudiano, with a preface by Bruno Luiselli (Catania: Carmelo Tringale Editore, 1982), p. 77. ⁹⁵ As is well known, the model of Claudian had a crucial role also in Poliziano’s Stanze per la Giostra, divided into two books.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

  ’  

71

bestow authority on papal government, regardless of the specific political system they belong to in strictly institutional terms. They are enlisted as personifications of an idealized cultural and political world, as symbols of a golden age that can be equally associated with different modern political ideologies. This dignifying link with the classical legacy is one of the linchpins on which is built the theoretical and practical image of fifteenth-century powers, even religious power. Intellectuals, humanists, and artists, like the relatively unknown poet Orazio Romano, were actively engaged in this operation of cultural politics and, through their works, they presented papal power as founded on ancient Roman values. Now, more generally, these classical principles, symbols, and images become the legitimizing vehicles for new Renaissance political systems.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

2 Leon Battista Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio The Epistle as an Unresolved Reflection on the Political Plot

2.1 Alberti and the Porcaria coniuratio Leon Battista Alberti wrote an account of Stefano Porcari’s conspiracy in an epistle to an unknown addressee: the Porcaria coniuratio. In 1453 Alberti was in Rome, where he lived and worked carrying out ecclesiastical commitments, and he probably composed the letter soon after the failed plot, in the first half of January of the same year (this date is also mentioned in some manuscripts of the texts).¹ The Porcaria coniuratio can be regarded as the first literary work in prose in the Italian Renaissance completely devoted to the topic of conspiracy (or, more precisely, one of the firsts, if we also consider other contemporary texts produced on Porcari’s plot, such as Pietro Godi’s dialogue De Porcaria coniuratione, although Alberti’s letter certainly stands out among these works by minor authors for its higher literary value). Alberti, in his innovative literary operation, recovered the classical tradition of Sallust’s historiographical monograph on Catiline and recreated and recast it concretely in his text, with new features and purposes. This Sallustian model, for the first time, is employed neither as a general ideological authority nor as a mere source of historical facts or quotations,² but as an actual literary prototype to be rebuilt in a new ‘monographic’ work on a contemporary conspiracy. Alberti’s imitation of Sallust, as we shall see, is also extremely personal and original, since he selected the literary genre of the epistle, instead of a proper historiographical framework, to deal with the account of the episode. But he also enriched his letter with many elements typical of historiography, in a sophisticated and multifaceted combination of different components. Inasmuch as this is the earliest fifteenth-century prose text on this political topic (Orazio Romano’s poem is contemporaneous, but it displays different literary features belonging to the genre of epic poetry), it is possible to claim that it was

¹ On the date of the epistle see the introduction in Alberti, Leon Battista, Porcaria coniuratio, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi, in Leon Battista Alberti: Opere latine, edited by Roberto Cardini (Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2010), pp. 1265–1281:p. 1265. On the events of Porcari’s plot, see Chapter 1, section 1.2. ² On this use of Sallust in the first half of the Quattrocento, see Introduction, section I.3.

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

73

Alberti’s pioneering work that opened the way to the proliferation of literary texts on plots during the second half of the century. However, Alberti’s epistle reveals some distinctive elements that cannot be found in most subsequent works on conspiracies in the Quattrocento, and therefore it may also be regarded as an extremely original text. In particular the analysis of the event is presented from a multiple and elusive standpoint, through a studied and composite rhetorical architecture, albeit apparently simple. Thus, in so far as this work shows an ambivalent ideological perspective, it turns out to be more politically independent and less biased than other similar humanist works, which were focused on underpinning political power. In 1453 Alberti was directly involved in the political and cultural life of Rome. Nevertheless, he was not assigned an official leading position under Nicholas V’s papacy. In particular, there is no proof that Alberti played an active role in the pope’s ambitious architectural plans and, furthermore, the humanist’s works produced in these years contain several unspoken criticisms of the pope’s rule.³ This uneasy and undefined relationship between Alberti and the pope has been given great consideration in the interpretations of the epistle on the conspiracy, since Alberti’s ambiguous reading of the events appears to be closely connected with his view on Nicholas V’s papacy and, more generally, on political institutions and statecraft. Some scholars, from Grayson to Tafuri and Cassani, have pointed out that the Porcaria coniuratio reflects Alberti’s criticism of Nicholas V’s government and it develops a sympathetic attitude towards Porcari.⁴ However, if it is

³ On Nicholas V’s policy, see Chapter 1, sections 1.2 and 1.5. On Alberti and the papal architectural plan, see Westfall, Carrol William, In this Most Perfect Paradise: Alberti, Nicholas V, and the Invention of Conscious Urban Planning in Rome, 1447‒55 (University Park/London: The Pennsylvania State University Press 1974). Other studies on Nicholas V’s plan questioning Alberti’s role in it are: Tafuri, Manfredo, ‘ “Cives non esse licere”: Niccolò V e Leon Battista Alberti’, in Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti (Torino: Einaudi, 1992), pp. 33‒88; Burrough, Charles, From Signs to Design: Environmental Process and Reform in Early Renaissance Rome (Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 62‒7; Burrough, Charles, ‘Alberti e Roma’, in Leon Battista Alberti, edited by Anne Engel and Joseph Rykwert (Milan: Electa, 1994), pp. 134‒57; Grafton, Anthony, Leon Battista Alberti. Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance (London: Allen Lane, 2001), chapter IX; Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013), pp. 54‒60. Some critics have interpreted Alberti’s Momus as a critique of Nicholas V’s architectural plan for Rome: on this work see n. 12 and 13. ⁴ Cf. Grayson, Cecil, ‘Leon Battista Alberti’, DBI, 1 (1960), pp. 702‒13. On Alberti’s disapproval of Nicholas V and his implied understanding for Porcari, see Cassani, Alberto Giorgio, ‘Libertas, frugalitas, aedificandi libido. Paradigmi indiziari per Leon Battista Alberti a Roma’, in Le due Rome del Quattrocento: Melozzo, Antoniazzo e la cultura artistica del ‘400 romano: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Università di Roma La Sapienza, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Istituto di storia dell’arte, Roma 21‒24 febbraio 1996, edited by Sergio Rossi and Stefano Valeri (Rome: Lithos, 1997), pp. 296‒321; Tafuri, “Cives non esse licere”, pp. 44‒5; Fubini, Riccardo and Menci Gallorini, Anna, ‘L’autobiografia di Leon Battista Alberti. Studio e edizione’, Rinascimento 12 (1972), pp. 21‒78, 57‒8; and now Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 68. On the other hand, other scholars do not see in Alberti a sympathy for the conspirator, but a more complex attitude: Ponte, Giovanni, Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore (Genova: Tilgher, 1981), p. 76; Grafton, Leon Battista, p. 311; Furlan, Francesco, ‘Leonis Baptistae Alberti Porcaria coniuratio: Scheda critica e filologica’, Albertiana 5 (2002), pp. 261‒7, 267; Borsi, Stefano, Introduzione alla ‘Porcaria coniuratio’ di Leon Battista Alberti (Melfi: Libria, 2015),

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

74

     

true that the humanist’s oblique disapproval of the pope’s government appears in more than one work, this interpretation of the epistle has to be partially reconsidered, paying specific attention to other elements that reveal that Alberti’s complex and elusive view cannot be related directly to a tacit sympathy with the plotter. Thus, in order to provide a better insight into this work, it is essential to contextualize it more precisely as regards both the historical milieu and Alberti’s overall literary oeuvre, taking into consideration also the structure of the text and the combined employment of specific literary genres, classical sources, and rhetorical techniques. Moreover, it is important to look at this work from a comparative perspective, placing it in the category of monographs on conspiracies. Despite Alberti’s vague attitude towards Nicholas V’s papacy, it is undoubtedly true that he held a prominent position in the intellectual and political Roman environment, as one of the chief Italian humanists and, more importantly, a man of the clergy.⁵ He had been living in Rome since 1432, when he was appointed the secretary of Biagio Molin—patriarch of Grado and ruler of the curial chancery— and was given the role of ‘abbreviatore apostolico’. Alberti had also been a close secretary of Eugene IV: he left Rome with him to go to Florence in 1434, after the uprising against the pope, and he followed him to take part in the Council of Ferrara and Florence, in 1439.⁶ When the papal court was re-established in Rome in 1443, Alberti returned to the papal city and lived there until his death in 1472, with occasional visits to other centres in central and northern Italy (for instance to Florence, Ferrara, Mantua, and Rimini). It is likely that under the papacy of Nicholas V, Alberti and other humanists previously involved in curial politics were not assigned official commitments, probably due to their not very wellintegrated positions in the new papacy’s policy (such as Biondo Flavio, who, like Alberti, was somehow associated with Prospero Colonna, a member of the noble Roman family opposed to the pope).⁷ Nonetheless, in spite of this partial exclusion, Nicholas V renewed Alberti’s ecclesiastical benefices and conferred on him the role of prior of Borgo San Lorenzo in the Mugello, with the Bulla of 12 December 1448.⁸ This means that the humanist was an integral part of the curial environment. If Florence was the city where he lived as a ‘forestiere’, as he stated in who observes that Alberti does not blame only the conspirator for the critical political situation in Rome (pp. 211‒12). ⁵ In general on Alberti’s life and work, see Kircher, Timothy, Living Well in Renaissance Italy. The Virtues of Humanism and the Irony of Leon Battista Alberti (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2012); Grayson, ‘Leon Battista Alberti’; McLaughlin, Martin, Leon Battista Alberti. La vita, l’umanesimo, le opere (Florence, Olschki, 2016). ⁶ In particular on Alberti’s life in Florence and his relationship with the city, see Boschetto, Luca, Leon Battista Alberti e Firenze: biografia, storia, letteratura (Florence: Olschki, 2000). ⁷ Burrough, ‘Alberti’, p. 147; Grafton, Leon Battista, p. 312. ⁸ Alberti was already prior of San Martino in Gangalandi, in the Florentine diocese: Mancini, Girolamo, Vita di Leon Battista Alberti (Florence: Sansoni, 1882), pp. 93, 127; Burrough, ‘Alberti’, p. 156.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

75

the De iciarchia saying ‘raro ci venni e poco ci dimorai’ (‘I came there rarely and I resided there for a short time’), despite actually living there for quite a long time, Rome was the place where he found his financial stability.⁹ Looking at Alberti’s work, in these years the humanist was mainly engaged in writing one of his chief technical and artistic texts, the De re aedificatoria,¹⁰ as well as the Latin satire Momus, both chronologically close to the Porcaria coniuratio. It is noteworthy that the technical treatise contains a number of reflections that can be regarded as an implicit disapproval of Nicholas V’s architectural plan, a criticism that ends up applying to the whole of papal cultural politics. These allusions reveal that the relationship with the pope probably started to deteriorate around 1450, in conjunction with the centralization of power pursued by Nicholas V. In particular, Alberti condemns the libido aedificandi, the too ambitious attitude of building excessive constructions, a trait that can be ascribed to the pope’s renovation of the city. On the other hand, he praises modest and classical buildings, in accordance with a natural principle of restraint.¹¹ A similar, more general, disapproving attitude (but articulated in a complex imaginary and philosophical genre) informs the Momus, the sarcastic and multifaceted mythological fabula de principe, inspired by the model of Lucian. Many passages of this work have been interpreted as Alberti’s unspoken and caustic criticisms addressed to papal despotic and unreasonable policies.¹² From this point of view, the Porcaria coniuratio, composed approximately in the same period, has been seen as another expression of Alberti’s censorious approach towards the pope, sharing some implied connections with both his major works, the Momus and the De re aedificatoria.¹³ It is indubitable that the humanist’s disapproval of papal rule ⁹ Cassani, ‘Libertas’, p. 297. ¹⁰ The text has been traditionally considered as completed by 1452; nevertheless, recently it has been claimed that Alberti kept revising it until 1468: Modigliani, Anna, ‘Per la datazione del De re aedificatoria: il codice e gli archetipi dell’Alberti’, Albertiana 16 (2013), pp. 91‒110. ¹¹ See Modigliani, ‘Per la datazione’, pp. 101‒2; Cassani, ‘Libertas’, pp. 302‒6. References to this issue have been recognized in the Porcaria coniuratio, in the speech of the foreign clergymen: ‘urbs facta aurea’, ‘maxima ornandae Urbis cura’, § 30 (in this chapter, the reference is always to the paragraph numbers in Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio). ¹² Alberti, Leon Battista, Momus, edited by Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight, English translation by Sarah Knight [The I Tatti Renaissance Library] (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2003). The composition of the text has been traditionally dated between 1443 and 1450 (it is mentioned in a famous letter that Francesco Filelfo sent to Alberti in 1450), but according to recent studies the humanist may have carried out his work on the Momus until the late years of Nicholas V’s papacy, probably 1453: cf. Borsi, Stefano, Leon Battista Alberti e Roma (Florence: Polistampa, 2013), pp. 63‒4. On this work see also Fubini, Riccardo, ‘Leon Battista Alberti, Niccolò V e il tema della “infelicità del principe” ’, in Fubini, Riccardo, La vita e il mondo di Leon Battista Alberti. Atti dei convegni internazionali del Comitato nazionale per il VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Genova, 19‒21 febbraio 2004, vol. 2 (Florence: Olschki, 2008), pp. 441‒69; and now Hankins, James, Virtue Politics. Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019), pp. 318‒28. ¹³ In particular, see Cassani, ‘Libertas’; Borsi, Stefano, ‘Momus e Porcaria coniuratio: Leon Battista Alberti testimone’, in Borsi, Stefano, Nicolò V e Roma. Alberti, Angelico, Manetti e un grande piano urbano (Florence: Polistampa, 2009), pp. 521‒623; Borsi, Stefano, ‘Momenti di tangenza tra Momus e Porcaria coniuratio’, Albertiana 9 (2006), pp. 68‒98; and now Borsi, Introduzione.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

76

     

appears in a number of passages in these texts, nevertheless Alberti’s personal and ecclesiastical position in Rome, along with some stylistic, rhetorical, and thematical elements in the Porcaria coniuratio (as we shall see), lead us to re-evaluate the interpretation that attributes to the humanist an unspoken sympathy with the rebel Porcari. These factors analysed in relation to the humanist’s ideological and political view expressed in other works may help us to deduce more about Alberti’s standpoint in this elusive work, similar, in this elusiveness, to the Momus. The complex ideological perspective in the Porcaria coniuratio is reflected by the history of the manuscript tradition of the text. Although the epistle was almost certainly composed in Rome and it focuses on an episode of Roman history, none of the copies of the work still extant were produced in the papal city. The manuscript tradition is divided into two branches: the first originated from the codex of the University Library of Genoa (ms. G. IV. 9, ff. 58‒61), copied in Florence in the fifteenth century; the second came from an antigraph, not extant anymore, put together probably in the area of Ferrara and Padua (as some texts in the manuscripts of this branch seem to prove).¹⁴ Looking at this textual tradition, what is most striking is that Alberti’s work seemingly did not have a significant diffusion in Rome, but circulated more widely in the Florentine cultural environment, where the greatest number of copies was produced. In addition, probably also the northern branch of the tradition is connected with Florence, since all manuscripts have mistakes in common and therefore derive from an archetype codex, which could have been copied in Florence as well. The diffusion that Alberti’s epistle enjoyed in this city is certainly to be linked with the considerable fame that the eclectic artist had there, but also with the significant attention that Florentine intellectuals paid to the episode of the conspiracy against the pope, a crucial event in the history of the Quattrocento. This interest is shown by another text composed in Florence on the same plot: a letter written by Alamanno Rinuccini (to an unknown friend), in 1459.¹⁵ Rinuccini’s choice of recounting the episode in an epistle could lead us to suppose a correlation with Alberti’s work; nevertheless there are many differences in the two accounts and Rinuccini seems to have drawn on different historical sources (he focuses extensively on the events preceding the conspiracy and he quotes the speech delivered by Porcari in 1447 and not the harangue of 1453). Moreover, Rinuccini, who was an upholder of republican tenets, sympathizes with the conspirator more unwaveringly than Alberti does. In addition, we have to ¹⁴ For a complete analysis of the manuscript tradition, see Crevatin, Giuliana, ‘Prime osservazioni sul testo del De Porcaria coniuratione’, in Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore: filologia, esegesi, tradizione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI Centenario della Nascita di Leon Battista Alberti, Arezzo, 24‒26 giugno 2004, vol. 1, edited by Roberto Cardini and Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 327‒36; now see the Nota al testo in Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio, p. 1279. ¹⁵ Rinuccini, Alamanno. Epistole ed orazioni, edited by Vito R. Giustiniani (Florence: Olschki, 1953), pp. 39‒46.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

77

consider that Stefano Porcari (as mentioned in Chapter 1) spent two years in Florence as capitano del popolo, between 1427 and 1428, and consequently he was very well known in this city and had close relationships with the chief figures of Florentine culture. This further connection can help to explain the wide circulation of Alberti’s text in Tuscany. On the other hand, the limited diffusion of the text in the papal city can be related to the independent and unbiased perspective of the work, probably too intricate to be easily associated with the pope’s propagandistic aims and rather distant from the other one-sided historical sources that recount the conspiracy, although not in favour of the plotters.

2.2 The epistle as historical writing: the conflation of literary genres Alberti’s epistle has a bipartite structure: the first half of the work is a narrative section that contains the proper historical account, while the second half is mainly speculative and is devoted to presenting the different reactions by the members of the Curia to the conspiracy. The historical narration covers all the main events concerning Porcari’s attempts to subvert papal rule: from the first episode of rebellion, in 1447, when he delivered his speech in Ara Coeli after Eugene IV’s death to instigate the people to rise up (an endeavour stopped by the jurist Lelio Della Valle, as recalled by Alberti), to his public execution on 9 January 1453, after the failure of the conspiracy.¹⁶ The humanist mentions the clemency of Nicholas V regarding Porcari’s first attempts to overthrow the government: firstly the pope sent the rebel to Anagni, appointing him as propretore and, after a further seditious action, he decided to exile him to Bologna. After this, the text follows the narration of the conspiracy organized by Porcari with the help of his nephew: Alberti recounts Porcari’s secret escape from Bologna, the arrival in Rome, the gathering of many accomplices before the planned attack, the discovery by the pope and the capture and execution of the plotters. It is remarkable that the longest part of this account, almost half of it, consists of the speech delivered by Porcari to his accomplices to urge them to rebel against papal domination. This lengthy oration (which was included also in Orazio Romano’s poem) is quoted by Alberti in indirect speech, which represents faithfully the actual oral delivery. Then Alberti dwells on the plan that the plotters would have carried out if the conspiracy had not been discovered and here probably he relies on the actual confession that Porcari delivered before being executed.¹⁷

¹⁶ The events of the conspiracy are summed up in Chapter 1, section 1.2. ¹⁷ On the confession see Chapter 1, section 1.2. Massimo Miglio suggested that Alberti could have used the documents of the trials against Porcari in his text: Miglio, Massimo, ‘Nicolò V, Leon Battista Alberti, Roma’, in Leon Battista Alberti e il Quattrocento: studi in onore di Cecil Grayson e Ernst

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

78

     

The second half of the letter is the most cryptic. Here the humanist compares different readings of the historical episode, presenting the viewpoints of diverse factions of curial members and alluding also to his own opinion. The first members he recalls are the foreigners, who are traumatized by the conspiracy and blame the Roman people for the attack on papal rule. Next, he introduces the statement made by the Italian clergymen (among whom Alberti is included) who celebrate Rome and the pope and refuse the irrational approach that associates all Romans with the conspirators. In this group there are also more cautious men, who are worried about further attacks that the pope would not be able to defeat. Finally, Alberti presents his own standpoint and concerns, but he admits that he is not able to give a univocal opinion on the events and will leave his ultimate judgement to the future. As this brief synopsis demonstrates, the Porcaria coniuratio is mainly constructed as a short historical text, articulated in the form of an epistle. In this respect, the work can be regarded as an original rhetorical combination of historiographical and epistolary elements. The aim is both to report a faithful and accurate historical account (a purpose that Leon Battista claims at the very incipit) and present comparatively all the different reflections on the conspiracy, among which the author is allowed also to relate his own view. So Alberti’s original literary choice, which reveals the humanist’s experimental artistic attitude, results in the conflation of rhetorical and stylistic traits typical of two of the most preeminent literary genres in humanism: epistolography and historiography. The whole work is the harmonic result of this blending, but the bipartite structure of the text discloses the predominance of historiographical elements in the first section, while a dialogic framework prevails in the second. Here the articulation of the arguments reflects more directly the epistolary style, in which the author’s viewpoint is expected to come to light more plainly than in historical writings. Given this structure, it is worth considering the main features of the epistolary genre, in order to have a better insight into Alberti’s work. Epistolography enjoyed a considerable fortune in the Renaissance and it maintained its mixed nature between private and public writings, a trait it had shown since antiquity.¹⁸ Starting from Pseudo-Demetrius’s treatise De elocutione, epistolography was considered the literary genre in which it was possible to perceive most clearly the author’s character.¹⁹ After the Middle Ages, when this genre acquired a more rigid status

Gombrich. Atti del convegno internazionale, Mantova, 29‒31 ottobre 1998, edited by Luca Chiavoni, Gianfranco Ferlisi, and Maria Vittoria Grassi (Florence: Olschki, 2001), pp. 47‒64: 55. ¹⁸ Cavarzere, Alberto, ‘Caro amico ti scrivo. “Privato” e “Pubblico” nella letteratura epistolare di Roma’, in Alla lettera. Teorie e pratiche epistolari dai Greci al Novecento, edited by Adriana Chemello (Milan: Guerini, 1998), pp. 11‒31. ¹⁹ Henderson, Judith Rice, ‘Humanist Letter Writing: Private Conversation or Public Forum?’, in Self-presentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

79

regulated by the artes dictaminis, in the Quattrocento epistolary writing was progressively reshaped following classical models and became more extensively permeated by a rhetorical dimension: it maintained a sort of balance between medieval tradition and innovation,²⁰ but played a crucial role in the development of a new cultural society.²¹ Humanist letters reveal a wide range of writing styles and topics (public, official, literary, private) and they become a vehicle of intellectual dialogue between cultural circles, courts, and cities, but without showing traits of intimate communication. So fifteenth-century epistolography enhanced its mixed nature making ‘private’ and ‘public’ inseparable.²² This heterogeneous state also accounts for the conflation with other genres. Epistles were employed to recount historical events, discuss political and literary issues, and often consisted of actual treatises, such as Petrarch’s letter to Francesco da Carrara (Seniles, XIV, 1; 1372), which can be regarded as a speculum principis, or Guarino Veronese’s epistle-treatise on historiography, De historiae conscribendae forma (1446).²³ These brief general considerations can help us to look at Alberti’s work from a broader point of view. Critics made different hypotheses on the origin of this text: the Porcaria coniuratio could be an actual epistle sent to a real addressee, or a ‘fictional’ letter written as a purely literary work.²⁴ Unfortunately, the lack of evidence makes it difficult to give a definitive response. However, it is important to take into account the hybrid nature of epistolography, especially during humanism. This is a literary form in which personal writing can be, at the same time, a text created to be public and, conversely, public issues can be dealt with from a private perspective. In this respect, a personal letter can be part of the public dialogue of the literary community, as shown by the humanist practice of publishing epistolary collections. This overlapping of different elements and approaches may account for Alberti’s choice of this genre and explain his twofold intention. Although his text is framed as an authentic personal letter, it displays a Modern Times, edited by Toon Van Houdt, Jan Papy, Gilbert Tournoy, and Constant Matheeussen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), pp. 17‒38, 22‒3. ²⁰ See Witt, Ronald G., ‘Medieval “Ars Dictaminis” and the Beginnings of Humanism: A New Construction of the Problem’, Renaissance Quarterly 35, 1 (1982), pp. 1‒35; Alessio, Gian Carlo, ‘Il De componendis epistolis di Niccolò Perotti e l’epistolografia umanistica’, Res Publica Literarum 11 (1988), pp. 9‒18. ²¹ On humanist epistolography, see Fumaroli, Marc, ‘Genèse de l’épistolographie classique: rhétorique humaniste de la lettre, de Pétrarque à Juste Lipse’, Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la France 78 (1978), pp. 866‒905; Griggio, Claudio, ‘Dalla lettera all’epistolario: aspetti retorico-formali dell’epistolografia umanistica’, in Alla lettera, pp. 83‒141; Alessio, ‘Il De componendis epistolis’. ²² Henderson, ‘Humanist Letter Writing’, pp. 29‒30. ²³ Francesco Petrarca, Lettera di Francesco Petrarca al magnifico Francesco da Carrara signore di Padova, delle Senili lib. 14 epist. 1., sui doveri del principe, edited by Maria Papafava Dei Carraresi, Giuseppe Fracassetti, and Carlo Landi (Padova: Società cooperativa tipografica, 1922). On Guarino’s epistle, see section 2.3 in this chapter. ²⁴ It is claimed that the epistle is merely a literary work in Fubini, Menci Gallorini, p. 57; while Miglio, ‘Nicolò V, Leon Battista Alberti’, p. 54, states that the letter could have been written to an actual addresse.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

80

     

lofty rhetorical construction and consequently has to be regarded as a literary work conceived to be ‘public’. Besides, the epistolary framework might have been chosen precisely with the aim of composing a text that allowed the author’s outlook to emerge as a fundamental part of his narrative, conveying his message as in a private epistle. This choice can be also seen in connection with Leon Battista’s predilection for the genre of the dialogue, a literary form that, already in the classical tradition, was considered parallel to epistolography. In dialogues the author can analyse an issue from various standpoints and does not have to limit the discussion to one single interpretation of a phenomenon. From this perspective, it is interesting to consider what Poliziano claims in his commentary on Statius’s Silvae, where he stresses the direct correlation between dialogue and epistolary writing, stating that the epistle is like one of the two sides of a dialogue, a suspended discussion with an absent interlocutor.²⁵ More generally, epistolography was placed in an intermediate rhetorical position between oratory, the highest genre, and dialogues, characterized by the least studied style. What is most important to notice is that these rhetorical theories on the flexibility and fluidity of the epistolary genre certainly were very well known and shared in humanist circles of that period and, most significantly, can be perfectly applied to Alberti’s epistle on the conspiracy. Indeed, the fluid rhetorical dimension of humanists’ letters responded to different needs and concerns. These traits are probably at the heart of Leon Battista’s choice of this kind of writing, which seems intended to give the writer/ historian the chance to introduce his personal point of view extensively in the text, contrasting also different opinions in a dialogic and unresolved comparison, typical of Alberti’s work. He would not have had such a possibility if writing a proper historiographical work, where the historian is supposed to be more ‘external’ in analysing the facts (albeit by selecting Sallust as the main model, the Porcaria coniuratio is directly associated with a political kind of historia). By composing his text as a letter, Alberti was allowed to write in the first person and insert references to his personal situation, to the extent that he confesses the irresolution of his judgement and indecision on his future. On the other hand, the epistle is continuously filled with historiographical elements, especially in the first narrative section, where the writer/historian gives an accurate account of the facts. In particular, the most distinctive ²⁵ ‘Epistola velut pars altera dialogi . . . maiore quadam concinnatione epistola indiget quam dialogus . . . ’ (‘The epistle is like a part of a dialogue . . . and the epistle requires a more careful composition . . . ’; my translation); Angelo Poliziano, Commento inedito alle ‘Selve’ di Stazio, edited by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1978), p. 18: Poliziano’s discussion on the epistolary genre is included in his praefatio to the commentary (pp. 15‒50). He referred probably to Artemon’s statement, mentioned by Pseudo-Demetrius in his De elocutione: on this claim by Artemon see Henderson, ‘Humanist Letter Writing’, p. 22; Cavarzere, ‘Caro amico ti scrivo’, p. 28. On Alberti’s dialogues and his predilection for this genre see Marsh, David, The Quattrocento Dialogue: Classical Tradition and Humanist Innovation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 78‒99.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

81

historiographical components are embedded in the opening of the letter and in the lengthy oration of the conspirator. The attention paid by Alberti to the truthfulness of his account can be acknowledged as a distinctive element that unifies the epistolary and historical components in the text. It appears to be a link between, on the one hand, the idea of historia as based on reliable evidence collected by the historian and, on the other, epistolary writing, intended to convey the author’s view as corroborated by his role of witness of the events. So, the historian and the epistle-writer are connected by the rhetorical principle of truthfulness, which informs the whole text. Nevertheless, Alberti’s work evades any strict definitions of genre, since, despite the overall epistolary-historiographical structure, the text’s framework is built up by the combination of different kinds of literary writings. Indeed, a large part of the historical account consists in the oration declaimed by Porcari, while the closing section of the letter is dominated by the dialogic presentation of the clergymen’s opposing arguments that gives the reader the effect of a real dialogue among different groups of interlocutors, displaying the impossibility of a compromise. So, the Porcaria coniuratio turns out to be a combination of the chief literary genres of humanist culture: epistolography, historiography, and, to a lesser extent, oratory and dialogue, all components perfectly blended to produce a sophisticated literary result.

2.3 Classical theoretical models: Alberti’s view of history The pivotal classical models in Alberti’s work are historiographical auctoritates. This aspect reveals the centrality of the historical genre in this work, despite being shaped as an epistle. In particular the main source is Sallust,²⁶ whose prototype of monograph on plot is recovered and given new life. The title itself recalls directly the classical work’s heading, where the historical definition of the coniuratio is provided by the name of the plotter, the genitive Catilinae, while, similarly, in the humanist epistle it is given by the adjective coined after the name of Porcari, Porcaria. Prior to Alberti’s literary ‘experiment’, Sallust’s work was already one of the chief models consistently employed from the Middle Ages to Humanism, when it surpassed or at least equalled the chief model of Livy that had been one of

²⁶ Some considerations on the sources of the Porcaria coniuratio in Borsi, Introduzione. On the model of Sallust in the text, see also Grafton, Leon Battista, p. 307, and now Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Renaissance Conspiracy Histories: Hero or Villain? The Case of Stefano Porcari’, in Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013, edited by Miriam Chiabò, Maurizio Gargano, Anna Modigliani, and Patricia J. Osmond (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 203‒15: 209‒13.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

82

     

the main sources of Bruni’s Historiae Florentinae.²⁷ Nevertheless, Sallust’s work had been mainly used as a general source for historical motifs or political ideologies,²⁸ while Alberti’s epistle matches it from a thematic and structural point of view, focusing on a single contemporary conspiracy (and, differently from Orazio Romano, treating this topic in a prose work). In Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio the use of the De coniuratione Catilinae is widespread and it does not only appear in the practice of inserting textual references, which, nonetheless, are not as frequent as in other humanist texts on conspiracies (such as Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium). The employment of the Latin source mainly appears in the adoption of specific historiographical elements and moral categories, which are enlisted to describe the plot and the conspirator. Moreover, it is essential to consider that Sallust was regarded by Alberti as one of the chief classical authors and already played a prominent role in the Libri della famiglia: as is well known, he explicitly declared the importance of the Latin historian in the first book,²⁹ but he also employs Sallust extensively as a source in the whole text (for instance in the proemio and in book IV, where the historian is explicitly quoted).³⁰ This model comes to light immediately in the incipit of the Porcaria coniuratio, which is shaped by hinting at classical historiographical tenets and, thus, plays a programmatic function. Alberti indeed, addressing his unknown interlocutor (this is the only passage of the text in which the humanist speaks directly to him) explains briefly the purposes of his account and the methodological guidelines to which his historical writing adheres. In this respect, Leon Battista follows closely two of the most important classical auctoritates in humanist historiography, respectively Latin and Greek: Sallust, as already mentioned, and Thucydides. Both historians had a crucial influence on the construction of the humanist ars historica, especially in the development of the branch of ‘political historiography’. In particular, at the outset of the epistle, Alberti claims the accuracy of his historical narration. He states that his account is well-founded since it is based on his own direct experience as a ‘witness’ of the events: (§ 1) qua in re illud conferet, quod inter pericula constituti historiam, uti gesta sit, melius quam qui istic audiere, teneamus. ²⁷ On Bruni’s historical and political works see now Ianziti, Gary, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2012). ²⁸ On this use of Sallust, see Introduction, section I.3. ²⁹ Alberti, Leon Battista, Opere volgari, edited by Cecil Grayson, vol. 1 (Bari: Laterza, 1960‒73), p. 71. ³⁰ On the use of Sallust in the Libri della famiglia, see McLaughlin, Martin, ‘Unità tematica e strutturale nel De Familia’, in McLaughlin, Martin, Leon Battista Alberti, pp. 99‒123; Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Per un catalogo degli auctores latini dell’Alberti’, in Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca di un umanista, edited by Roberto Cardini, Lucia Bertolini, and Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Mandragora, 2005), pp. 105‒13: 110‒13.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

83

[It seems true that one who gathered the story while there was danger, and put things together as they happened, knows more about what was really done than one who has only heard the tale told.]³¹

Alberti was in Rome when the stunning episode took place, so he is able to recount the facts more truthfully than people who just ‘hear’ about the story and were not present on that occasion. He underlines this element at the very beginning of his work, saying that his friend could have known the news by ‘rumoribus’ and stressing the opposition between his letter and these rumours. Such a remark connects historical writing with autoptical and accurate reports, which have to be founded on eye-witness experience and thorough examination of sources, a historiographical tenet that was presented by Thucydides in the Peloponnesian war (I, 22): In recording the events of the war my principle has been not to rely on casual information or my own suppositions, but to apply the greatest possible rigour in pursuing every detail both of what I saw myself and of what I heard from others.³²

Other important historiographical principles held by Thucydides appear in Alberti’s work.³³ The attention paid to the truthfulness of the historical narration is associated, from a methodological point of view, with the rigorous analysis of evidence, while from a theoretical perspective it is linked with the concepts of veritas and parrhesia as the keystones of the ars historica. In Alberti’s epistle these general principles act as guidelines for his historiographical approach. In particular, Leon Battista immediately claims that he writes as a reliable ‘friend’ to his interlocutor and therefore it is implied that he can, but he also must, recount the truth, following closely the idea of parrhesia. This conception of historia was crucial for Alberti, since he made a similar point in his hagiographical work the Vita Sancti Potiti, composed in 1432‒4, at the invitation of the humanist’s protector Biagio Molin.³⁴ This text actually can be ³¹ All quotations are from the edition Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio, with the reference to the paragraph numbers. All translations of passages are quoted from Humanism and Liberty: Writing on Freedom from Fifteenth Century Florence, edited and translated by Renée Neu Watkins (Columbia: University of South Carolina press, 1978), pp. 107‒15 (unless otherwise stated). ³² All translations of Thucydides are quoted from Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, a new translation by Martin Hammond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 12. The same statement is in I, 21 ‘anyone accepting the broad facts of my account on the arguments I have adduced will not go wrong. . . . He will conclude that my research, using the clearest evidences available, provides a sufficiently accurate account’. ³³ In general, on Alberti’s knowledge of Greek, see Bertolini, Lucia, Grecus sapor: tramiti di presenze greche in Leon Battista Alberti (Rome: Bulzoni, 1998). ³⁴ This text was supposed to be the first of a series of hagiographical narrations that were never produced. See Kircher, Living Well, pp. 24‒34; Giannarelli, Elena, ‘Alberti, i padri della chiesa e la letteratura cristiana antica: linee di un problema’, in Alberti e la tradizione: per lo ’smontaggio’ dei ‘mosaici’ albertiani: Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

84

     

regarded from many perspectives also as a historiographical work, in particular because of the careful thoroughness that the author displays in it in the historical reconstruction of the biography of the medieval saint Potitus. In the prefatory letter to Leonardo Dati, Alberti declared all his concerns as a historian, disclosing his awareness of the theoretical problems related to this literary genre. He confesses his worry about the truthfulness of evidence and sources, which should be put together in a trustworthy account, as all fifteenth-century letterati expect a historia to be: Eram timida quidem in sententia, dum tecum verebar nequid eruditi viri subdubitarent hanc nostram Potiti istoriam esse fictam aliquam et puerilem fabulam. Memineram enim quam multa in istoria queritent viri non indocti quamve plene rerum causam, rem gestam, loca, tempora atque personarum dignitatem describi optent. Et videbam quoque apostolorum actus, pontificum martirumque reliquorum vitam dilucide atque plenissime a maioribus descriptam. Hanc autem Potiti istoriam videbam ita negligenter traditam ut facile illam arbitrari potuerim esse ab imperitis non ab illis diligentissimis viris editam. [I was a bit worried, since, like you, I feared that scholars might entertain the doubt that this history of Potitus of ours is a childish, invented tale. For I knew what men of learning usually seek in a history: they expect a full account of the event in question, the places, the times, and the quality of the actors. And I saw that the ancients had given clear and full accounts of the Acts of the Apostles and the lives of the popes and the other martyrs. But I saw that this history of Potitus was transmitted so carelessly that I could easily infer that ignorant men, rather than those scholars of great learning, produced it.]³⁵

With these words Alberti not only reveals how essential the accuracy of historical narratio was to him, but also how important and lively the humanist debate on historiography in that period was, since his concerns are openly referred to other humanists’ opinions on this issue. Around twenty years later, when the widespread debate on ars historica had developed further, Alberti decided to write a historiographical work devoted to a contemporary event, Porcari’s conspiracy, following the same tenets. He accurately introduced into the Porcaria coniuratio all the historical components he regarded as fundamental in his previous prefatory letter: in particular precise references to the historical context and to the ‘quality of di Leon Battista Alberti: Arezzo, 23‒24‒25 settembre 2004, edited by Roberto Cardini and Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 425‒47. ³⁵ Alberti, Leon Battista, Opuscoli inediti di Leon Battista Alberti. ‘Musca’, ‘Vita S. Potiti’, edited by Cecil Grayson (Florence: Olschki, 1954), pp. 86‒7; the English translation is quoted from Grafton, Anthony, ‘Historia and Istoria: Alberti’s Terminology in Context’, I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 8 (1999), pp. 37‒68: 51.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

85

the actors’ (‘personarum dignitatem’). It is noteworthy that Alberti incorporates in his early statement on historical writings not only Thucydides’s and Sallust’s tenets but also some of Cicero’s reflections on history: the ideals that Leon Battista openly declares to follow are recovered from Cicero’s reflections on historical writing in the De oratore (II, 63), a theoretical model that had a pivotal influence on humanist historiography and also in Alberti’s work, as we shall see.³⁶ Moreover, the very beginning of the Porcaria coniuratio shows another decisive correspondence with both Thucydides and Sallust. Alberti underlines immediately the extraordinariness of the historical episode he is going to narrate (‘rebus . . . que . . . vix credibilia esse ob facinoris immanitatem videantur’, § 1; ‘such extraordinary actions . . . seem hardly credible because of the inhuman wickedness involved’) and accordingly the exceptional importance of this event that justifies his historical work: Facinus profecto, quo a vetere hominum memoria in hanc usque diem neque periculo horribilius, neque audacia detestabilius, neque crudelitate tetrius a quoquam perditissimo uspiam excogitatum sit. (§ 2) [It was such a hideous crime that from the very beginning of human history till today nothing more horribly destructive, shameless, and totally cruel has been plotted by anyone, however lawless.]

This point is made also in the Peloponnesian War (I, 21): As for this present war, although men always think that any war they are engaged in is the greatest of all wars, . . . this war will even so prove itself, to those who examine the pure facts, a greater war than any in previous history.

However, in this respect, Alberti adheres more closely to Sallust’s history of Catiline’s conspiracy (De coniuratione Catilinae, 4, 3–4), since he makes the ³⁶ ‘Rerum ratio ordinem temporum desiderat, regionum descriptionem; vult etiam, quoniam in rebus magnis memoriaque dignis consilia primum, deinde acta, postea eventus exspectentur, et de consiliis significari quid scriptor probet et in rebus gestis declarari non solum quid actum aut dictum sit, sed etiam quomodo, et cum de eventu dicatur, ut causae explicentur omnes, vel casus vel sapientiae vel temeritatis hominumque ipsorum non solum res gestae, sed etiam, qui fama ac nomine excellant, de cuiusque vita atque natura’ (‘The nature of the subject needs chronological arrangement and geographical representation: and since, in reading of important affairs worth recording, the plans of campaign, the executive actions and the results are successively looked for, it calls also, as regards such plans, for some intimation of what the writer approves, and, in the narrative of achievement, not only for a statement of what was done or said, but also of the manner of doing or saying it; and, in the estimate of consequences, for an exposition of all contributory causes, whether originating in accident, discretion or fool hardiness; and, as for the individual actors, besides an account of their exploits, it demands particulars of the lives and characters of such as are outstanding in renown and dignity.’) The translation is quoted from Cicero, De oratore, Books I–II, vol. I, with an English translation by Edward William Sutton, completed, with an introduction, by Harris Rackham [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1942), p. 245.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

86

     

same reference to the atrocity and the cruelty of the crime he narrates, emphasizing that it was so brutal and savage that it put every citizen in jeopardy: Igitur de Catilinae coniuratione quam verissume potero paucis absolvam; nam id facinus in primis ego memorabile existumo sceleris atque periculi novitate. [Therefore, concerning the conspiracy of Catiline I shall provide a brief account, as truthfully as I can; for I regard that enterprise especially worthy of notice because of the novelty of the crime and danger arising from it.]³⁷

Alberti also follows Thucydides, and consequently Sallust, in acknowledging the programmatic nature of the proemium of historical texts (although the incipit of his epistle is very brief): a section where the writer is supposed to affirm the purpose and method in his work. Moreover, the two classical authors are linked also by the political dimension of their history. This approach is characterized by a thorough political analysis with pedagogical intents and it influences Alberti very much, as well as, more broadly, humanist historiography. A further parallel between Thucydides, Sallust, and Alberti can be recognized in the extensive use of speeches and orations made up by the historian to be put into the mouths of historical characters as truly delivered by them (a practice that in general is adopted by humanist historians).³⁸ It is significant that in the classical sources, as in Alberti’s text, these speeches are often in clear opposition to the author’s standpoint. This narrative device is frequently employed by Alberti in his work: he quotes Porcari’s lengthy oration and, in the second section of his work, the various clergymen’s opinions on the conspiracy, either in direct or indirect speech.³⁹ In the case of Porcari’s harangue he opts for a more oblique narrative strategy, relating the conspirator’s words in indirect speech; nevertheless this choice still matches the historiographical purpose of making the account more realistic and truthful, as Thucydides himself claimed (I, 22): Of the various speeches made either when war was imminent or in the course of the war itself, it has been hard to reproduce the exact words used either when I heard them myself or when they were reported to me by other sources. My method in this book has been to make each speaker say broadly what I supposed

³⁷ Translations of Sallust’s work are quoted from Sallust, The War with Catiline. The War with Jugurtha, edited by John T. Ramsey, translated by John Carew Rolfe [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013). ³⁸ On the use of speeches in Thucydides’s work, see Cole, Thomas, The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 104‒11; Badian, Ernst, ‘Thucydides on rendering Speeches’, Athenaeum 80 (1992), pp. 187‒90; Marincola, John, Greek Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 77‒85. ³⁹ Grafton observed that ‘like Sallust, Alberti did not comment elaborately himself but let his speaker do so’: Grafton, Leon Battista, p. 307.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

87

would have been needed on any given occasion, while keeping as closely as I could to the overall intent of what was actually said.⁴⁰

As we shall see, Porcari’s oration in Alberti’s work is totally based on the model of Catiline’s speech in Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae (20), a predictable source that was also fundamental in the parallel section of Orazio Romano’s poem. The practice of inserting speeches into historical texts can be detected also in Alberti’s Vita Sancti Potiti: a work where this rhetorical tool cannot be explained with a thematic link with Sallust’s work (as in the case of the orations of Porcari and Catiline), but has to be correlated more generally to Alberti’s choice of employing a specific classical historiographical device. Significantly, in the hagiographical work the humanist formulated a speech similar to Porcari’s, in so far as he made the emperor Antoninus Pius condemn the corrupt customs and idleness of the Christians.⁴¹ The use of this narrative strategy in both historical works leads us to acknowledge that Alberti resorts to this kind of speech as a classical technique that allows the historian to present the characters’ viewpoints in a realistic and effective way, but this does not mean that he sympathizes with these specific declarations. Looking at classical models of Alberti’s work it is worth considering briefly other important components that played a role in his historical writing. As we have seen in the programmatic statement relating to the Vita Sancti Potiti, one of the main theoretical sources for Alberti was Cicero, a model that played a fundamental role in the process of creation of humanist historiography and, in this important function, was combined with recently rediscovered Greek authors. In particular the synthesis of Cicero’s theory and the principles illustrated in Lucian of Samosata’s Quomodo historia conscribenda sit (the most important treatise on ars historica in classical antiquity)⁴² is at the basis of the creation of the first organic treatise on history in the Quattrocento, Guarino Veronese’s De historiae conscribendae forma, an epistle to Guarino’s student Tobia del Borgo written in 1446.⁴³ Thus, thanks to the new circulation and reception of Greek models, in this case Lucian, and their conflation with chief Latin auctoritates, which are made to interact and resonate with each other, an innovative theory of historiography is produced, with the aim of prescribing methodologies for actual historical reconstruction and writing. In particular, the recovery of Lucian’s historiographical theory has been considered as mainly due to the reception and ⁴⁰ Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, p. 12. ⁴¹ Grafton, ‘Historia’, p. 52. ⁴² Macleod, Matthew Donald, ed., Luciani Opera, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), pp. 287‒ 319. On the fortune of Lucian in Humanism, see Mattioli, Emilio, Luciano e l’Umanesimo italiano (Naples: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici, 1980); Berti, Ernesto, ‘Alla scuola di Manuele Crisolora. Lettura e commento di Luciano’, Rinascimento 27 (1987), pp. 3‒73; Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Riflessioni umanistiche sullo “scrivere storia” ’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 3‒37. ⁴³ On Guarino’s work, see Regoliosi, ‘Riflessioni’, with an edition of the text. On this work and in general on humanist historiography, see also Black, Robert, ‘The New Laws of History’, Renaissance studies 1, 1 (1987), pp. 126‒56.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

88

     

reformulation of his work carried out in Guarino’s letter-treatise, which is therefore regarded as the chief vehicle for the diffusion of the Quomodo historia conscribenda sit in the fifteenth century. It is also important to consider that most of Thucydides’s tenets are acknowledged by Lucian. Nevertheless, Guarino did not introduce into his work the section of Lucian’s text (chapter 47), which presented the Thucydidean idea of history as grounded in meticulous examination of evidence.⁴⁴ Thus, with specific regard to Alberti’s text and his idea of history, it is not possible to suppose that he drew this element from Guarino.⁴⁵ Alberti’s assimilation of these principles deriving from Greek models, which gradually started to circulate again in those years in humanist circles, has to be traced back to other channels, possibly to Latin translations of Thucydides’s work, or even to a direct knowledge of this source.⁴⁶ On the other hand, as far as Cicero is concerned, humanists (and also Guarino in his letter-treatise) mainly relied on his theoretical reflections presented in the De oratore (II, 35‒6; 54; 63), where he correlated directly the idea of veritas with the principle of utilitas, ascribing to historical writing a pedagogical and moral dimension. But fifteenth-century historians also drew from Cicero the fundamental rhetorical link between historia and oratory, a connection that places on history a high rhetorical status. In the De oratore (II, 62) Cicero declared ‘videtisne quantum munus sit oratoris historia?’ (‘Cannot you see what considerable part of oratory is history?’), and, most remarkably, in the De legibus (I, 5) he claimed that historia is ‘opus . . . oratorium maxime’ (‘mostly a work of eloquence’), a statement that is recovered by Guarino and informs great part of humanist historiography, including Alberti’s work. It is noteworthy that Leon Battista owned a manuscript of the De legibus (Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, Conventi Soppressi, I 9 3), a source that he used extensively as a model in his works: significantly, in this personal copy Alberti had underlined the lines containing Cicero’s definition of history.⁴⁷ So, the highly rhetorical organization and framing of arguments in the Porcaria coniuratio reveals that the humanist agreed with classical principles that placed history in the realm of rhetoric, as is proved also by Grafton’s studies on Alberti’s conception of historia/istoria.⁴⁸ In particular, Leon Battista’s historical account is constructed using rhetorical tools whose purpose is that of portraying

⁴⁴ Cf. Regoliosi, ‘Riflessioni’, p. 13. ⁴⁵ A connection with Guarino’s work is instead pointed out by Borsi, Introduzione, p. 159, who wrongly considers Guarino’s epistle as a translation of Lucian’s text. ⁴⁶ On the humanist’s familiarity with Greek authors, see Bertolini, Grecus sapor. ⁴⁷ On Alberti’s copy of the De legibus see Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca, Scheda n. 60, edited by Maria Luisa Tanganelli, p. 396; Cardini, Roberto, ‘Biografia, leggi e astrologia in un nuovo reperto albertiano’, in Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore, vol. 1, pp. 21‒189: 46. On Alberti’s extensive employment of Cicero’s rhetorical works in his oeuvre: Martin McLaughlin, ‘Alberti e le opere retoriche di Cicerone’, in Alberti e la tradizione, pp. 177‒206. ⁴⁸ Grafton, ‘Historia’, p. 65. See also Mastrorosa, Ida, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas in Leon Battista Alberti: la tradizione classica’, Albertiana 8 (2005), pp. 85‒117: 113.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

89

the complexity of reality, as we shall see with regard to the employment of the disputatio in utramque partem. Moreover, it is significant that Alberti adopts the term historia also in his artistic treatise De pictura (1435) to define what an ideal visual composition should be (he employs the same word, istoria, in his vernacular version of the text translated in 1436): Est autem compositio ea pingendi ratio qua partes in opus picturae componuntur. Amplissimum pictoris opus non colossus, sed historia. Maior enim est ingenii laus in historia quam in colosso. Historiae partes corpora, corporis pars membrum est, membri pars est superficies. Primae igitur operis partes superficies, quod ex his membra, ex membris corpora, ex illis historia . . . (De pictura, II, 35). [Composition is the procedure in painting whereby the parts are composed together in the picture. The great work of the painter is not a colossus but a ‘historia’, for there is far more merit in a ‘historia’ than in a colossus. Parts of the ‘historia’ are the bodies, part of the body is the member, and part of the member is the surface. The principal parts of the work are the surfaces, because from these come the members, from the members the bodies, from the bodies the ‘historia’ . . . ]⁴⁹

Although it has been claimed that the term historia is simply used by Alberti with the meaning of a ‘representation of events’ (a meaning that had appeared in the artistic vocabulary in the previous century to mark the difference from ‘nonnarrative representations of people’), nevertheless, the choice of this specific word reveals more profound conceptual implications surrounding the broader idea of historia and historical writing, which was crucial in the humanist debate.⁵⁰ Alberti’s statement on art in the De pictura reflects indeed some distinctive traits of his concrete historical work. In his view, both literary and artistic historiae do not represent in a linear manner the development and unfolding of facts, episode by episode. Conversely, they depict the complexity of the historical event and its intricate overtones, which emerge from the overall portrayal of the composite reality that the painter/historian chooses to represent. With respect to the relationship with classical sources, the distinction between the colossus and ⁴⁹ Alberti, Leon Battista, ‘De pictura’, in Alberti, Leon Battista, On Painting and On Sculpture: The Latin texts of ‘De Pictura’ and ‘De Statua’, with translations, introduction, and notes by Cecil Grayson (London: Phaidon, 1972), p. 72 (translation at p. 73); Alberti’s vernacular translation is published in Alberti, Opere volgari, vol. 3. On this text see Grafton, ‘Historia’. ⁵⁰ For the presence of the word historia in the artistic terminology of that period, see Hope, Charles and McGrath, Elizabeth, ‘Artists and Humanists’, in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, edited by Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 161‒88: 166. On the other hand, Grafton’s whole study, which is the most complete work on this issue so far, highlights relevant rhetorical implications in the selection of the term historia by Alberti: Grafton, ‘Historia’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

90

     

the historia that Alberti establishes can be seen as an unspoken allusion to Pliny, who regarded ancient statues of colossuses as an expression of the artist’s audacia (Plin. Nat. 34, 38–9). The extensive theoretical discussions on art in Pliny’s Naturalis historia is a key model for Alberti, but the humanist’s intention is to stress the difference between his groundbreaking treatise and the classical precedent, as usual in his works. Here this tendency appears in Alberti’s claim that a more various and multifaceted kind of composition, the historia, is the most praiseworthy expression of art, in an unspoken polemic with the classical source. Immediately after the allusion to Pliny, Alberti describes the perfect correlation and balance that must link all members in the work of art. This important statement was probably influenced by the passage of the Institutio oratoria where Quintilian illustrates the rhetorical construction of history and describes the ‘fluid’ interconnection of each element in a unified and cohesive composition (Quint. Inst. 9, 4, 129).⁵¹ It is from this source that Alberti probably draws the terms historia and membrum. Moreover, he specifies in his treatise that the essential features of the historia are copiousness and variety, with the fundamental contribution of dignity and truth.⁵² All these traits that Alberti describes in his theoretical work on painting perfectly fit his literary historical writing. As we have seen, it does not provide an extensive narration of a series of events, but is articulated to depict the intricate totality of the historical episode. This result is achieved by means of the studied balance of various rhetorical components derived from different literary genres, in a homogenous conflation inspired by the tenets of varietas and rhetoric, and by the search for truth. The rhetorical nature of historical writing, and as a consequence its lively stylistic nature, is firmly claimed also by Lorenzo Valla, with whom Alberti proves to have significant viewpoints in common as far as historiographical theory is concerned, such as the predilection for inserting orations in the texts and for using rhetorical devices to shape the narration.⁵³ Moreover, they both strongly believe that a careful examination of evidence and sources is at the core of the historian’s ⁵¹ ‘Historia non tam finitos numeros quam orbem quendam contextumque desiderat. Namque omnia eius membra conexa sunt, [et quoniam lubrica est ac fluit] ut homines, qui manibus invicem adprehensis gradum firmant, continent et continentur’ (Quint. Inst. 9, 4, 129); ‘History requires not so much definite rhythms as a certain cyclical structure, for its cola are all connected with one another [and because it is fluid and flows easily], in the way that men who join hands to steady their steps lend mutual support to one another’; the translation is quoted from Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, edited and translated by Donald A. Russell [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002). ⁵² Alberti, On Painting, p. 78. ⁵³ Valla claimed that he was inspired by classical historians in introducing digressions and orations in historical writings and he made this remark in his Antidotum in Facium (Regoliosi, ‘Riflessioni’, pp. 24, 25); the text is part of the dispute between Valla and Bartolomeo Facio on historiography: Valla, Lorenzo, Antidotum in Facium, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1981). See also Valla’s important statements on historiography in his Proemium to the Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum, edited by Ottavio Besomi. On this issue also: Gardiner Janik, Linda, ‘Lorenzo Valla. The Primacy of Rhetoric and the De-moralization of History’, History and Theory 12 (1973), pp. 389‒404.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

91

work.⁵⁴ Most importantly, Valla worked on a Latin translation of Thucydides to be offered to Nicholas V from 1448 to 1452, in the very same period when Alberti lived and worked in Rome in the curial environment.⁵⁵ Hence, the new reception and revival of Thucydides as a pivotal source in humanist historiography sees Valla as one of the main protagonists and this key role somehow connects his enterprise with Alberti’s historical writing and, most importantly, with the idea of historia that emerges in it. Although there is no proof of a direct relationship between the two humanists,⁵⁶ Valla finished his translation just one year before Alberti wrote his epistle. Therefore, it is possible to suppose that Thucydides’s work, and in particular Valla’s Latin version of it, was one of the main historiographical landmarks for Alberti, especially taking into account that other Greek texts translated by Valla have been identified as part of Alberti’s library, such as Herodotus’s Historiae.⁵⁷ So, the theoretical cornerstones of Alberti’s work can be recognized in Thucydides (perhaps through the mediation of Valla’s translation) and Sallust, the chief classical models for humanist political historiography, with the contribution of the other essential bases for fifteenth-century historical writings, Quintilian and especially Cicero, from whom the idea of the close connection between rhetoric and history derives.

2.4 Thematic and stylistic models: a Sallustian conspiracy Immediately after the brief incipit of the letter, Alberti starts his historical narration. The opening of the account discloses at once the significant influence that Sallust had in the epistle, also from a thematical and stylistic point of view, ⁵⁴ On Valla historiographical tenets, see Ferraù, Giacomo, ‘La concezione storiografica del Valla: i Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum’, in Lorenzo Valla e l’Umanesimo italiano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi umanistici (Parma, 18‒19 ottobre 1984), edited by Ottavio Besomi and Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1986), pp. 265‒310, later published in Ferraù, Giacomo, Il tessitore di Antequera. Storiografia umanistica meridionale (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2001), pp. 1‒42; Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Lorenzo Valla e la concezione della storia’, in La storiografia umanistica, vol. 1, edited by Anita Di Stefano (Messina: Sicania, 1992), pp. 549‒71. ⁵⁵ Pade, Marianne, ‘Il Tucidide romano del Valla: la traduzione valliana nel quadro della traduzione umanistica del Quattrocento’, in Le radici umanistiche dell’Europa. Lorenzo Valla. La riforma della lingua e della logica. Atti del convegno del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Lorenzo Valla (Prato, 4‒7 giugno 2008), edited by Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Polistampa 2010), pp. 279‒ 98. See also Alberti, Giovan Battista, ‘Tucidide nella traduzione latina di Lorenzo Valla’, Studi italiani di filologia classica 29 (1957), pp. 224‒49. ⁵⁶ On some connections between Alberti and Valla’s works, although not supported by the proof of a direct relationship: Rinaldi, Rinaldo, ‘ “Larvatus prodeo”: vecchie e nuove ipotesi su Alberti e Valla’, in Alberti e la cultura del Quattrocento. Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti. Firenze, 16‒17‒18 dicembre 2004, vol. 2, edited by Roberto Cardini and Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 541‒602. ⁵⁷ Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca, scheda n. 68. Nevertheless, it is likely that Alberti knew Herodotus’s work before Valla’s translation: on Alberti’s knowledge of Greek authors see Bertolini, Lucia, ‘Per la biblioteca greca dell’Alberti’, in Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca, pp. 101‒3; and Bertolini, Grecus sapor.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

92

     

especially in the first section of the text, which is characterized by a more evident narrative structure. In particular, the leader of the political plot, from his first appearance in the text, is described with echoes of some famous traits of Catiline in Sallust’s work.⁵⁸ This characterization is recurrent in the whole epistle, although the conspirator’s negative attributes turn out to be depicted with less emphasis than in the classical source or in other humanist works. For instance, Alberti does not stress the moral corruption of Porcari as much as Poliziano does in his Sallustian portraits of plotters in the Coniurationis commentarium. However, Alberti still resorts to the Latin historian to shape the image of his main character, who, as a consequence of this parallel, proves to be a negative hero. If it is true that Sallust’s work was a predictable model, Alberti’s practice of imitation is not merely dictated by stylistic purposes, but, conversely, it is also aimed at conveying a specific political image of the conspirator: he is seen as a turbulentissimus man (‘extremely seditious’), led by ambition and recklessness, and driven by his yearning for political upheavals. The first image of Porcari recalls the portrait of Catiline in so far as it points out at once the contradictions and duplicity of the conspirator, who is depicted as endowed with eloquence and ingenio, but neither moderate nor well balanced: (§ 3) homo animi utinam tam moderati, quam erat ingenio preditus docili et lingua ad dicendum paratus . . . [had this man only been as reasonable as he was intellectually gifted and fluent of speech . . . ]

This descriptive technique, which enriches the representation of a negative character with positive features, is derived from Sallust, who stresses the negative traits of Catiline but hints also at positive qualities, such as eloquence, the very same attribute recalled by Alberti: ‘[Catilina] satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum’ (‘he possessed adequate eloquence, but too little discretion’; Sall. Cat. 5, 4).⁵⁹ In general, Porcari is portrayed with direct references to the moral and political categories employed to describe Catiline and his accomplices, who embody the ideal image of nasty conspirators. The modern plotter is an organizer of seditions (‘seditionum auctor’, § 5), a man capable of criminal plans (‘turbidis consiliis’, § 6), dominated by insolence and ambition, always turbulent (‘non posita animi pristina protervia, sed aucta ambitione, iterato se turbulentissimum exhibuit’ § 7).⁶⁰ The link between men’s ambitio and the disposition to violent political changes is recurrent in Sallust’s work and this proves to be a typical characteristic ⁵⁸ On this parallel see also Osmond, ‘Catiline in Renaissance’, pp. 209‒13. ⁵⁹ Another description based on oppositions appears a few lines earlier in Sall. Cat. 5, 1. ⁶⁰ The adjective turbulentus, as mentioned, occurs twice in relation to Porcari: ‘non minus vehementem quam turbulentam’ (‘not less vehement than turbolent’) is his oration (§ 3).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

93

associated with immorality and dishonesty which can lead to revolts (Sall. Cat. 11, 1).⁶¹ This point had already been made by Aristotle in his Politics (1271a9 and 1312a21), showing that the interpretation of ambition as a driving force for political subversion has a very long tradition. Nonetheless, in Alberti’s work, and in humanist texts on plots in general, the principal source from which this motif is derived has to be recognized in Sallust. Porcari is also portrayed by Alberti as driven by recklessness, audacity, and thirst for subversion (‘audaciam’; ‘temeritatem’; ‘cupiditatem rerum novarum’, § 8), all negative traits that are seen as jeopardizing forces of established political rules and that the humanist draws from Sallust’s work. Here the eagerness for subversive political change in particular occupies a key position in the assessment of political phenomena, especially uprisings.⁶² Moreover, the inability to control oneself, ascribed to Porcari (‘Homo impatiens sui’, § 9) is another typical trait of the classical conspirator.⁶³ Alberti enlists Sallustian categories not only to describe the plotter but also to build up his narration of the historical event and to examine its causes. For example, recounting briefly Porcari’s first attempt to provoke a rebellion against papal rule (§ 3), the humanist describes the plotter’s oration as ‘vehementem’ and ‘turbulentam’. This element underlines immediately the negative power of Porcari’s eloquence, which could lead to political disorder by urging people to rebellion. It also puts under a negative light the ‘vulgus’, represented as liable to be easily roused into a military uprising. This idea emerges in the description of Porcari’s second attempt to rise up, where the author mentions the ‘insanum vulgus’: (§ 7) . . . presto affuit Porcarius vultu, gestu, manu, verbis, clamore omnia tentans, quibus insanum vulgus ad odium eorum, qui rebus preessent, incenderet atque ad arma concitaret. [ . . . Porcari immediately arrived there and tried in all ways, with his facial expressions, his gestures, his hands and his words, and his shouts, to stir the mad crowd to hatred for their rulers and call them to arms.]⁶⁴

The depiction of the common people as insane, foolish, and inclined to be inflamed by political leaders comes to light also in Sallust’s thought, in particular

⁶¹ The word ambitio occurs several times in the De coniuratione Catilinae: 3, 4; 10, 5; 11, 1; 52, 22; 52, 26. ⁶² The references to the danger of the eagerness for ‘res novae’ are multiple: Sall. Cat. 28, 4; 37, 1; 48, 1; Sall. Iug. 66, 2; 7, 4. On the cupiditas rerum novarum as one of the main causes of the conspiracy underlined by Alberti and Sallust see also Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 112; Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 66; Osmond, ‘Catiline in Renaissance’, p. 213. ⁶³ Sall. Cat. 5, 5 ‘Vastus animus inmoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat’ (‘His insatiable mind always craved the excessive, the incredible, the impossible’). ⁶⁴ My translation and my emphasis.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

94

     

in his Bellum Iugurtinum (66, 2; 30, 3);⁶⁵ but in the passage of Alberti’s epistle, the focus is placed on the plotter’s specific ability to involve the people in his seditious plans. Another significant correlation with the model of Sallust emerges in the reference to the idea of libertas as a driving force that lead the conspirators. This is emphasized both in the classical work (Cat. 20, 6) and in Alberti’s epistle (§ 9): Homo [Porcari] impatiens sui . . . deberi ab se fortune sue et animi generositati putabat, ut quocumque daretur pacto, vel etiam interitu, sin aliter nequiret, libertatem redimeret. [Porcari was an impatient spirit . . . He thought he owed it to his fortune and his generosity of mind to somehow, even at the cost of his life, if no other means was available, regain liberty.]

Furthermore, Alberti, underlines that the conspirator gathered accomplices led by similar wicked intentions and by the thoughtless hope of achieving success (§ 9), an allusion that recalls again some passages in the De coniuratione Catilinae, where the plotter is described enlisting young men with the same purposes (Sall. Cat. 17, 1‒2; 17, 6). All these thematic and descriptive elements inspired by Sallust clearly reveal that Alberti does not sympathize with Porcari in his historical epistle. The moral paradigms and exemplary traits that the humanist selects from the classical source to be associated with the fifteenth-century conspiracy and its leader, although conventional, are totally negative and lead us to believe that the humanist’s intent is not to show comprehension for the plotter, neither outspokenly nor covertly.⁶⁶ So, although Porcari’s harangue is informed by an apparent and substantial disapproval of the papal government, it cannot be considered as evidence of Alberti’s closeness to the rebel’s ideas, as some scholars have claimed.⁶⁷ The insertion of a lengthy oration as delivered by the leader of the plot to his fellow citizens is a rhetorical device typical of historiographical works and it is perfectly consistent with the classical model, in which, needless to say, Catiline gives his famous speech (Cat. 20).⁶⁸ The introduction to the oratio in the Latin source ⁶⁵ In particular Sall. Iug. 66, 2: ‘Vulgus, uti plerumque solet . . . , ingenio mobili, seditiosum atque discordiosum, erat cupidum rerum novarum, quieti et otio advorsum’ (‘The common throng, as usual . . . , was of a fickle disposition, prone to rebellion and disorder, fond of revolution and opposed to peace and quiet’). ⁶⁶ This point is confirmed by the reception of the figure of Catiline in the literary tradition from the Middle Ages to Humanism, where the conspirator always maintains an evil status: see Osmond, ‘ “Princeps” ’; Osmond, ‘Catiline in Fiesole’. ⁶⁷ See Modigliani, Congiurare, pp. 67‒8. ⁶⁸ On Catiline’s oration drawn from Sallust’s work and used in Alberti’s texts, see Regoliosi, ‘Per un catalogo’, pp. 110‒13.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

95

seems to inspire directly Alberti’s presentation of Porcari’s harangue, which is described as skilfully delivered as a result of the plotter’s rhetorical ability, in both eloquence and gesture: (§ 10) Convocantur illico, quibus placere sua consilia noverat. Repente completa domo confluentium multitudine, excogitatam diesque multos elaboratam orationem pronuntiat tanta et sui fiducia et auditorum approbatione, ut nihil ad rem perficiendam nisi constitutum deesse tempus omnes affirmarent. [There he called together those he knew were favourable to his designs. At the house, which was packed with people, he gave a seemingly impromptu speech, which he had prepared carefully for days. He gave it with such confidence and won such approval from his audience that everyone said nothing more was needed to get action that just to set the time.]

Alberti makes Porcari denounce decisively the papacy for its unfair rule, which had put Roman people in a condition of poverty and marginalization and gave power only to a small minority of curial men. The plotter hints at the topoi that recall the libertas and glory of ancient Rome, now lost because of iniquitous governments, and, in contrast, he reminds his accomplices of their valour and virtues. The content and the rhetorical structure of the oratio seem to reflect Porcari’s actual orations that he delivered when he was capitano del popolo in Florence in 1427, which were mainly focused on the concept of libertas.⁶⁹ But, most importantly, these thematic and rhetorical elements perfectly match Catiline’s speech in Sallust’s work, just as Porcari’s oration in Orazio Romano’s Porcaria did. So, the narrative choice of placing the leader’s speech in a literary work on a conspiracy (either a poem or an epistle) turns out to be rather common and aimed at presenting the plotter’s purposes in a vivid way.⁷⁰ A point worth making concerns the structure of the oratio in Alberti’s epistle, which shows a perfect correspondence with the rhetorical framework of classical orations. The speech proves to be divided into the partitiones prescribed as essential sections of orations in the chief classical treatises on the ars rhetorica, such as Cicero’s De inventione. Porcari’s harangue contains an exordium; a lengthy laudatio (§§ 11‒13), in which the conspirator underlines his accomplices’ value, bravery, and capacity to recognize the problematic political situation of Rome; a narratio (§§ 13‒14), where he describes the unfair papal government; a ⁶⁹ Miglio, Massimo, ‘ “Viva la libertà et populo de Roma”. Oratoria e politica: Stefano Porcari’, in Palaeographica diplomatica et archivistica. Studi in onore di Giulio Bertelli, edited by the Scuola Speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma, vol. 1 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1979), pp. 381‒428; Cassani, ‘Libertas’, p. 310. ⁷⁰ This rhetorical device is used also in Malvezzi’s Tarentina (book II): Martucci, Giovanni, Un poema latino inedito del sec. XV sulla tentata restaurazione angioina (Rome: Giovanni Balbi, 1899). On this text, see Chapter 1, section 1.3 in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

96

     

confirmatio (§§ 15‒17), where Porcari proves his allegations and condemns his enemies; and a final peroratio (§§ 18‒19), which opens with the classical Ciceronian closing formula, ‘Nihil reliquum esse . . . ’ (‘Nothing is left to be said . . . ’), and incites the audience by appealing to pathos. This rigorous structure reveals Alberti’s carefulness in shaping this oratio and his awareness of classical oratorical rules. But it also confirms his intention of following closely historiographical models that use this very rhetorical tool, such as Sallust and Thucydides. This lofty and well-structured speech, written in accordance with the guidelines of classical oratory, is also a confirmation that Alberti sees history as a high form of rhetorical writing. The connections between Porcari’s speech and Catiline’s in Sallust’s work can be acknowledged in both structural and thematic components. The incipit of the oration in Alberti’s epistle displays some traits of a captatio benevolentiae and is shaped on the opening section in Catiline’s speech. Porcari in particular urges his fellow citizens to undertake a noble endeavour and seize the day, reminding them that they are valorous and ‘strong men’ (§ 11 ‘viros fortes’; § 12 ‘Romanos cives, aut saltem homines’). This reference to the status of ‘vigorous men’ occurs in both the classical source and the humanist text and is frequently stressed especially by Catiline (Sall. Cat. 20, 2‒3; 20, 9; 20, 11). Significantly, a similar claim is made also in Porcari’s speech in Orazio Romano’s poem, where the plotter asks the rhetorical question: ‘Are we not men?’ (Porcaria I, 259‒60). Moreover, in Alberti’s epistle Porcari highlights that he and his co-conspirators share the same poor condition of life (§ 13), again recalling Catiline’s speech framed by Sallust (Cat. 20, 3; 20, 8). Porcari also promises to their associates a permanent acquisition of glory and honour, along with the gaining of money and wealth (§§ 12; 18), similarly, once more, to Catiline’s words (Sall. Cat. 20, 14; 58, 8).⁷¹ After this, the central segment of Porcari’s speech (§§ 13‒15) mainly consists in a denunciation of the slavery status in which Romans are forced to live, because of the hideous and unjust domination of people who do not deserve this autocratic power. This point is made by contrasting the condition of ‘citizens’ and ‘slaves’, as the famous words ‘cives esse non licere’ (‘we are not allowed to be citizens’) laconically portray and as is stressed by the emphatic description at the beginning of this section: (§ 13) Egestatem, servitutem, contumelias, iniurias et eiusmodi iam tum peculiare malum et tolerabile factum esse assuetudine . . . [Poverty, servitude, insults, injuries and such could happen to people and be tolerated because they were habitual . . . ] ⁷¹ Analogous considerations appear in other passages of Sallust’s work: Sall. Cat. 21, 2; 58, 9. It has also been pointed out that Alberti put less emphasis on Porcari’s greed in comparison with other historical sources: cf. Borsi, Introduzione, p. 153.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

97

It is no coincidence that Catiline also describes extensively the crimes and injustices perpetrated by people who rule Rome and he pronounces these accusations in both his orations in Sallust’s work (Cat. 20, 6‒8; 20, 11‒13; 58, 13‒14).⁷² Approaching the vigorous concluding section, another parallel between the humanist and the classical work can be found in the words with which Porcari (§ 17) and Catiline (Sall. Cat. 20, 10) incite their fellow conspirators by mentioning the favour of the gods: they claim that victory is imminent and stress the difference between the force of the conspirators and the weakness of their enemies, corrupted by luxury. Finally, the explicit of both speeches, a sort of peroratio typical of classical oratory, coincides with the closing and emphatic exhortation to carry out the plot and it contains a further allusion to the wealthy reward that would be gained from the rebellion (Porcaria coniuratio, § 17; Sall. Cat. 20, 14). All these connections show how closely Alberti follows Sallust. But the process of imitation performed by Leon Battista is far from being unoriginal, since he applied the prototype of Sallust’s text to a different kind of writing, the epistle, innovating and re-semanticizing the classical source. In addition, the humanist does not seem to replicate his model directly from a verbal point of view, although the vocabulary obviously echoes Sallustian terminology due to the thematic relationship between the texts. Conversely, Alberti’s language is far more composite and it includes references to different authors, and in particular a number of Ciceronian expressions, synonymic pairs, and words, variegated and simple at the same time. What emerges plainly is that the condemnation of unfair papal rule articulated in Porcari’s oration reflects the very same thematic and rhetorical construction of Catiline’s speeches, which were certainly not aimed at conveying any kind of understanding for the evil plotter. Even Porcari’s claim that his political plan is the consequence of his love for the fatherland and freedom (§ 19) has a parallel in Catiline’s words (Sall. Cat. 58, 11; 58, 8). Thus, the specific way in which the model of Sallust is used contributes to shedding light on Alberti’s view of the plot. By establishing this extensive correlation with the most famous classical conspiracy, he does not have any intention, not even unspoken, of putting Porcari’s plot under a positive light. It seems clear that, although he does not share the flattering eulogy of the papacy that he ascribed to the foreign clergymen in the second section of the epistle, he does not display sympathy for the plotter.

2.5 ‘Eclectic classicism’ in Alberti’s language The model of Sallust is not employed in the second section of the epistle, where the enlisting of classical sources becomes less frequent and evident. This double ⁷² For the specific connection with Sall. Cat. 20, 6‒8, see also Osmond, ‘Catiline in the Renaissance’, p. 211.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

98

     

approach in the practice of imitation can be related to the dissimilar character of the two portions of the letter. However, notably, it is again a specific reference to a classical source in the second section that can help us to gain a better insight into Alberti’s standpoint on the events. In particular he inserts a significant quotation at the end of the discourse of the foreign clergymen. They praise papal rule and blame the Roman people for putting in danger the prosperity and safety of Rome with a brutal attack on the Curia. The closing sentence of the speech finishes with a sophisticated reference to a satire of Juvenal (Sat. 2, 1‒3), which reveals the ironic tone that dominates in the representation of the foreigners’ viewpoint: they claim they are afraid to remain in Rome and want to leave the city, ‘Ultra Sauromatas nimirum hinc fugiendum est; linquendum crudele celum et lares avaros’ (§ 29, ‘Beyond the Sarmatians we have certainly to flee; we have to leave this cruel sky and these greed Lares’).⁷³ The reference is drawn directly from Juvenal (Sat. 2, 1‒3): Ultra Sauromatas fugere hinc libet et glacialem/ Oceanum, quoties aliquid de moribus audent/ qui Curios simulant et Bacchanalia vivunt. [I feel like running away from here beyond the Sarmatians and the icy Ocean whenever those people who imitate the Curii but live like Bacchanals have the gall to talk about morality].⁷⁴

The reference is to a nomad population, the Sauromatae, who lived in remote territories at the most extreme borders of the Mediterranean Sea, and epitomize the image of the most inhospitable and distant land from Rome. Notably, in the satire ‘Ultra Sauromatas’ is the expression by which Juvenal emphasizes that he wants to run away as far as possible whenever he hears hypocrites who talk about moral principles. This correlation associates the barbari’s final words in Alberti’s text with Juvenal’s, but, on the other hand, it might also reveal an ironic implication, linking obliquely the clergymen to the hypocrisy that the classical poet criticizes and disclosing the sarcastic tone in which the barbari’s whole monologue seems to be phrased. As far as language is concerned, these verbal echoes betray Alberti’s predilection for the use of a plurality of models and his stylistic ideal of literary composition as based on originality and ‘eclectic classicism’.⁷⁵ What emerges in Alberti’s

⁷³ My translation. ⁷⁴ My emphasis. The translation is quoted from Juvenal and Persius, edited and translated by Susanna Morton Braund [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004). ⁷⁵ On Alberti’s theory and practice of literary imitation, see McLaughlin, Martin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 149‒65. For the definition of ‘classical eclecticism’, see Marsh, Quattrocento Dialogue, p. 94, and again McLaughlin, Literary Imitation, p. 165.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

99

epistle is his pursuit of a personal middle style, apparently unsophisticated but informed by the cult of brevity and rare and unpolished terms. Nevertheless, this tendency, which reflects a decisive opposition to stylistic conformity, is combined with the creation of a classical veneer aimed at ennobling the whole work by means of references to the chief classical auctoritates, such as Cicero. It is not surprising that Alberti relies on Cicero as a source, since he often mentioned the Latin rhetorician in his works with words of praise, such as in book I of the Libri della famiglia, where Lionardo defines Cicero ‘quel nostro principe degli oratori’ (‘he is for us the prince of the orators’).⁷⁶ Thus, if a prominent role is played by this auctoritas from a theoretical perspective, especially as far as historiographical tenets are concerned, the influence of Cicero is not limited to this aspect and his works are also a source for Alberti’s lexis and style, which enriches the epistle with a lofty classical patina. The eclecticism of Alberti’s language appears clearly in the employment of verbal expressions drawn not only from Cicero and classical historians (in particular Sallust), but also from satirical writers, such as Juvenal (§ 29), as already mentioned. It is again a verbal reference to a satirical author that highlights Alberti’s taste for recherché terminology typical of his ideal of imitation: the rare word ‘cistiferos’ (§ 27), meaning originally ‘bearer of a box or a chest’, is employed by the humanist with the specific meaning of ‘porter’ and proves to be drawn directly from Martial (5, 17, 4). Martial’s epigram contains the only occurrence of the term in the classical tradition, in the form ‘cistibero’, while Alberti adopts the form cistifer. Thus, the intertextual sources in the Porcaria coniuratio range from the ethical denunciation of Sallust to the indignant satire on Rome’s decadence in Juvenal, and also include Martial, giving us an idea of Alberti’s own tone and stance in this historiographical epistle. But the Porcaria coniuratio also demonstrates Alberti’s preference for technical terms and linguistic rarities, which, more generally, are frequently adopted in his whole output. The synonymic iunctura ‘fenisiceis et stramentariis’ (§ 21; ‘the mower and the harvester’) consists in the studied juxtaposition of two sophisticated terms drawn from the technical terminology of agriculture. The term ‘fenisiceis’ is connected to fenisex, fenisecis (also fenisicis), with the meaning of ‘the mower/ the person who cuts hay’, and derives from fenisicium, ‘the harvest, the cutting of hay’: this word occurs only in Varro’s Res rusticae (1, 49, 2), Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia (18, 259), and Columella’s De re rustica (2, 18),⁷⁷ who can be regarded as Alberti’s sources. The adjective ‘stramentariis’, with the meaning of ‘concerning straw’, is also typical of agricultural language. It is drawn

⁷⁶ Cf. McLaughlin, Literary Imitation, p. 149. ⁷⁷ Varro, Res. rust. 1, 49, 2 ‘sicilienda prata, id est falcibus consectanda quae faenisices praeterierunt’; Plin. Nat. 18, 259 ‘hoc est quae feniseces praeterierunt secari’; Colum. 2, 18 ‘Sed iam faenisicia insequitur cura messis’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

100

     

from Cato’ De re rustica (10)⁷⁸ and is turned into a noun, ‘the harvester’, by Alberti. This unusual form is adopted as a synonym of the previous term and, consequently, this pair of rare words seems intended to exhibit the humanist’s profound fondness for technical and sophisticated vocabulary. But in the very same passage, Alberti discloses also a classicist approach in the wording, since he defines the ecclesiastical offices (which did not have a name in classical Latin) by relying on classical terms: (§ 21) the ‘collegia’ are the ‘colleges of cardinals’; the ‘pretor’ represents the ‘magistrate in charge of the administration of justice’; and the ‘minores pontifeces’ are the ‘prelates’. This passage, displaying the combination of rare technical terms and classical words employed to name new entities unknown in the ancient Roman world, provides an emblematic example of Alberti’s complex attitude towards language. This approach, which informs the whole epistle, challenges stylistic conformity but is profoundly nourished by a plurality of classical models, showing what has been properly defined an ‘eclectic classicism’.

2.6 The rhetorical construction of an unsettled political dialogue The political perspective of the text and Alberti’s own standpoint are not plainly conveyed in the epistle. As we have seen, the humanist does not have any compassion for the conspirators; nonetheless his political view is couched in a multifaceted rhetorical exposition that is aimed at underlining the complexity of the historical situation and the unresolved dispute between the different factions involved in the Roman scenario. As in most of Alberti’s works, his purpose is not to provide the reader with a reassuring and linear reading of the social and political world. On the contrary, the presentation of conflicting points of view is intended to depict the unsettled intricacy of political tensions and, at the same time, Alberti’s disillusioned and anti-dogmatic view on the problematic relationship between individual and society. This enquiring approach that arouses questions instead of providing reassuring answers is reflected in the rhetorical construction of the second section of the Porcaria coniuratio. It is totally articulated by means of the classical technique of the disputatio in utramque partem, a method according to which the discussant argues on both sides of the question in the form of a ‘for and against’ debate and uses the same argument on both sides, giving different interpretations of a specific

⁷⁸ Cato De re rust. 10 ‘Falces f[o]enarias tres, stramentarias sex’. More in general, for Alberti’s use of technical literature and in particular of this kind of authors see Sberlati, Francesco, ‘Rerum rusticarum scriptores in Alberti’, Alberti e la tradizione, edited by Roberto Cardini and Mariangela Regoliosi, pp. 153‒75.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

101

matter.⁷⁹ This debating method had been used since antiquity, especially to train orators, but in the Renaissance it became a proper technique of discussion and analysis employed by humanists. One of the first and most emblematic examples of the fifteenth-century use of this practice can be found in Leonardo Bruni’s Dialogi ad Petrum Paulum Histrum (1405‒8), which were based on the Ciceronian debating model of the De oratore.⁸⁰ This argumentative technique was closely linked with both the ideas of ‘prudence’ and ‘rhetoric’, seen as the core of many humanists’ ideology (as Victoria Kahn illustrated examining the works of Coluccio Salutati, Lorenzo Valla, and Giovanni Pontano) and was aimed at ‘persuading the reader not to any specific action but to the exercising of the prudential judgment that is required for all actions’.⁸¹ The centrality of rhetoric in humanist works is not only conceived in terms of style but also of building a line of reasoning which leads to the application of ‘prudential judgment’:⁸² a practice that proves to be crucial also in the Porcaria coniuratio, which is a product of Alberti’s conception of historia as a highly rhetorical form of writing. Here the univocal depiction of the event moves towards a dialogic representation of reality. The articulation of the different political views presented by Alberti, although informed by a problematizing approach, is framed by means of a logical and rigorous expository method. This exposition presents the diverse standpoints as asserted by the clergymen in their own words and it underlines clearly the distinctions (and subdistinctions) between every component of the political debate, by means of rhetorical devices that bring forth a coherent development of the argument. Additionally, Alberti hints explicitly, more than once, at his own viewpoint, as one of the curial officials. Immediately after the account of the conspiracy, which finishes with the words Porcari pronounced before dying (§ 25), the humanist stresses the divide between the conspirators and the curial members. He declares that he and the other clergymen (§ 26, ‘Nos alii . . . ’, ‘The rest of us . . . ’) are perturbed by fear and indignation caused by the revolt, as if they were thrown onto rocks by a storm, and thus are not able to maintain univocal opinion on the events. The first group presented consists of the barbari: the foreigners who were assigned official ecclesiastical roles and who are shocked by the conspiracy and blame the Romans for not being aware of the prosperity created in the city by the papal government. The speech appears to be shaped

⁷⁹ The employment of this technique in the Porcaria coniuratio has been acknowledged by Furlan, ‘Leonis Baptistae Alberti Porcaria coniuratio’, p. 267; Grafton, Leon Battista, p. 311; Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, pp. 113–14. The use of this argumentative method deserves a more in-depth analysis focused on disclosing its implications in Alberti’s work. ⁸⁰ On the use of this technique in Bruni’s Dialogi ad Petrum Paulum Histrum, see Marsh, Quattrocento Dialogue, pp. 24‒5; Fubini, Riccardo, ‘All’uscita dalla Scolastica medievale: Salutati, Bruni, e i Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150, 2 (1992), pp. 1065‒103. ⁸¹ Kahn, Victoria, Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985): on the Quattrocento, pp. 55‒88; quotation at p. 39. ⁸² Kahn, Rhetoric, p. 39

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

102

     

by a sarcastic tone by which Alberti distances himself from the barbari: this seems to be proved also by the emphatic quotation from Juvenal’s Sat. 2, 1‒3 (discussed in section 2.5). In particular, the rhetorical choice of direct speech allows the author to set an ironical overtone on these words making them sound affected. Next, in a strong contrast underlined by the connective phrase ‘Haec illi. Nos alii . . . ’ (§ 30, ‘So they spoke. We, on the other hand . . . ’), the humanist explains the viewpoint of the Italian members of the clergy, among whom he includes himself. They claim a more rational approach in judging the situation and do not accept that all Romans are to blame for the crime of a few people; moreover, they celebrate Rome and the pope, acknowledging the flourishing state of arts and humanist studies in the city. Now, the author introduces a further distinction, presenting those clergymen who are more cautious. They are concerned that papal rule might not be able to face other attacks and put forward some general considerations on the issue of conspiracies. After these reflections, the humanist appears again in the development of the argument (for the third time), this time giving his personal standpoint. He declares that he does not totally agree with the opinions presented and he shifts the focus onto the wider Italian scenario, hinting at possible threats coming from other states. Then, he rethinks his concerns and celebrates the pope’s maiestas and love for peace, claiming that these virtues will keep the papacy safe. Finally, in this overlapping of contrasting points of view, Alberti’s position turns out to be still evasive, since he concludes his work admitting that he cannot give a univocal opinion and he will decide about his own life by considering the evolution of the events, day by day. This whole section reflects both Alberti’s prudent and dissimulating attitude and his predilection for a dialogical construction of reasoning. This construction in the Porcaria coniuratio is characterized by an underlying tone of doubt and perplexity, as in most of Alberti’s works, many of which belong to the very genre of the dialogue (such as the four vernacular dialogues, and some Intercenales). This dialectic argumentation is used not only in the actual dialogues but also in other texts, and it confers vividness and vigour on the exposition. It mainly consists in ‘the interaction of polarities which is generally expressed in the opposition of interlocutors’, but this collision also has an intimate and introspective character, since it often portrays ‘tensions within the author’s own personality’.⁸³ As the historiographical ⁸³ On the style and structure of Alberti’s dialogic writings and in general on the forms of argumentations in his works, see Marsh, Quattrocento Dialogue (quotations at p. 79, 83); Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 114; Tateo, Francesco, ‘Le forme dell’argomentazione nella tarda trattatistica albertiana’, in Leon Battista Alberti: Actes du Congrès international de Paris (Sorbonne, Institut de France, Institut culturel italien, Collège de France, 10‒15 April 1995), organized under the direction of Francesco Furlan, Pierre Laurens, and Sylvain Matton; edited by Francesco Furlan (Torino: Aragno; Paris: Vrin, 2000), pp. 391‒403; Furlan, Francesco, ‘Remarques sur la conception, la genèse et la construction dialogique des livres De familia’, in Leon Battista Alberti: Actes, pp. 427‒41; Guerin, Philippe, ‘Préméditation et improvisation: Un modèle anomique de la disputatio’, in Leon Battista Alberti: Actes, pp. 493‒510.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

103

text shows, the polarization portrayed becomes the image of both a social and an inner conflict. Thus, in the Porcaria coniuratio, the dialogic structure is not only a mere expository technique but reflects also the controversial nature of the themes and issues that arise in the text. It is noteworthy that Alberti describes the use of the disputatio in utramque partem in his later work Trivia senatoria, the treatise on the art of eloquence and oratory dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1460. Here he claims that it is possible to argue on the same issue from opposite sides: Atqui trivium quodque duos habet ad disceptandum aditus, ubi argumenta contendant: nam aut de lege roganda consultant aut contra de lege abroganda. . . . Persuasionum quidem loci eque numero sunt, uti trivia, quoque sex: possibile, necessarium, facile, honestum, utile, delectabile. Ex quocumque istorum, quod ipsum etiam triviis accidit, duplex ad persuadendum facultas prebetur. [There are two ways to discuss any trivium,⁸⁴ where the arguments can be developed: indeed, you can deliberate either in favour of the proposal of a law, or on the request of abrogation of a law. . . . The figures of persuasions are also six, as the trivia: what is possible, what is necessary, what is easy, what is honest, what is useful, what is pleasing. From each of these, as for the trivia, a double possibility of persuasion is offered.]⁸⁵

Alberti also seems to allude to this very same argumentative technique in a passage in book II of the Libri della famiglia: ‘io ora dimando, ora rispondo difendendo il contrario di quello che gli altri dicono’ (‘now I ask, now I answer supporting the argument contrary to what the other people say’).⁸⁶ Most significantly, the same dialogical articulation of different viewpoints, based on the juxtaposition of the characters’ speeches (in either a direct or indirect form), emerges in more than one of the Intercenales (1432‒42),⁸⁷ especially in the texts devoted to political matters. In the Intercenales Hostis, Bubo, and Lacus most of the narration consists of the pure contrasting of opposing opinions, ideologies, and thoughts,⁸⁸ ascribed to different characters or to different groups and parties, comparable with the clergymen in the Porcaria coniuratio. This is the case in

⁸⁴ The trivium is the debate in the senate. ⁸⁵ Alberti, Opere latine, p. 1286 (my translation). See also Borsi, ‘Momenti’, p. 79; and Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 114. ⁸⁶ Quoted by Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 114. ⁸⁷ For this date see Alberti, Opere latine, pp. 194‒201 (the edition of the texts at pp. 223‒818). ⁸⁸ This element is more striking in Hostis and Bubo, where the development of the text is exclusively based on the juxtaposition of different speeches: in Hostis the speeches are delivered by broad groups of men, representative of different opinions, while in Bubo the orators are the owl, who embodies philosophical tradition, and the duck, who stands for aristocracy.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

104

     

Lacus, where, in an imaginary society of animals, the political speeches of the delegates of the little fishes (the opponents of the frogs) have an important narrative function and are presented as an effective attempt to change the allegorical social system depicted. The same technique appears in Hostis, where the Genoese ponder over diverse opinions on the treatment of captured enemies. Here all the different views are reported without any comments, apart from the laconic final remark, ‘ut iam non obscurum sit, unicum et eum quidem abiectum hominem posse in tempore universe rei publice pestem calamitatemque afferre’ (‘Thus it is clear that one single man, and even of the lowest status, is able, at the right moment, to bring a whole state to ruin and destruction’).⁸⁹ This statement can be regarded as an additional parallel to the text on the conspiracy, since it underlines the evil power that a single man’s oratorical art can have on individuals and social changes. As this latter example demonstrates, the rhetorical articulation of arguments is a crucial issue in Alberti’s work, not only from a stylistic perspective, as a pivotal element in shaping his own texts, but also, from an ideological point of view. Political oratory is often represented as a device through which eloquent men (or a personification of men, as in some Intercenales) can persuade the common people to hideous actions, such as violent rebellions, which are considered by Alberti one of the most dangerous threats to concordia in societies. This issue emerges clearly in both the Porcaria coniuratio and in the Intercenales Lacus and Bubus, where the driving forces of political changes are the speeches delivered by skilled orators.⁹⁰ In the epistle on the conspiracy, in particular, Porcari’s rhetorical tools are often put in relation with the purpose of moving popular masses to action by raising hatred and evil impulses (§ 7; 15). Moreover, detailed representations of the conspirator’s rhetorical techniques are also frequent in the text and are placed in order to emphasize the effectiveness of his speeches (§ 10; § 13). Hence the link between rhetoric and politics, a key element in Alberti’s works,⁹¹ becomes apparent in the Porcaria coniuratio and in those Intercenales more extensively devoted to political issues. The prominent function that argumentative techniques, eloquence, and oratory play in the development of political phenomena turns out to be addressed by Alberti from multiple perspectives in his works: stylistic, rhetorical, thematic, and ideological. But, most importantly, this matter is always treated through a questioning and dialectical approach that reflects Alberti’s complex and caustic ideological view.

⁸⁹ Alberti, Opere latine, p. 316. My translation. ⁹⁰ For this element in the Intercenales, see Rossi, Giovanni, ‘Alberti e la scienza giuridica quattrocentesca: il ripudio di un paradigma culturale’, in Alberti e la cultura, vol. 1, pp. 59‒121: 110‒15. ⁹¹ In general on this matter, see Baron, Hans, In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism: Essays on the Transition from Medieval to Modern Thought, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 258‒88.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

105

2.7 The disapproval of res novae and the ‘iciarchical’ image of power The Sallustian tone of Porcari’s oratio, along with the negative light in which Alberti places political oratory, is a confirmation of the humanist’s decisive disapproval of the conspirator’s plans. Porcari turns out to be an extremely seditious rebel (‘turbulentissimum’), whose rhetorical skills are able to inflame the foolish plebs (‘insanum vulgus’), exploiting the ‘cupiditas rerum novarum’ (‘eagerness for subversion’) and putting in danger the whole social institution. At the core of this idea of the conspiracy there are two crucial ideological elements that dominate in Alberti’s bitter political thought and are recurrent in his work. The first is the negative image of the plebs, which is depicted as unable to decide independently for the common good, as favourable to upheavals, and as the target of evil manipulations.⁹² The second is the pessimistic idea according to which political and social changes, res novae, can bring about only detrimental conditions and are caused by egoistic and thoughtless ambitions of single men that lead to a general collapse of the social system. From this perspective, as Giovanni Rossi demonstrated extensively in his study on Alberti’s views on juridical science, the observance of ‘tradition’ and the protection of the status quo are the only ways to safeguard a peaceful and orderly political organization, protecting the citizens’ quies and tranquillitas.⁹³ It is also very well known that Alberti often shows a critical attitude towards the most oppressive aspect of power. This view is articulated in many passages of his works either implicitly or openly, such as the caustic and allegorical mythological fabula of Momus, the earlier work Theogenius (1441), and some Intercenales, where the eagerness for civic commitment coexists with a disillusioned desire to escape from politics, in an unresolved tension.⁹⁴ In the Momus the criticism of political power reaches unparalleled peaks and the veiled and sarcastic denunciation of the mechanisms of autocratic rule covers both concrete and general aspects of the contemporary society. In particular, a direct target of Alberti’s mordant portrait has been identified in the curial political system, an element that links this work directly with the Porcaria coniuratio. Numerous correlations between the two works have been pointed out,⁹⁵ but one of the most significant ⁹² See also Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 101. ⁹³ On this issue see the analysis in Rossi, ‘Alberti’, pp. 59‒121. ⁹⁴ Cf. Mastrorosa, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas’, p. 99. On the Momus, see Fubini, ‘Leon Battista Alberti’; and on the Theogenius, Boschetto, Luca, ‘Ricerche sul Theogenius e sul Momus di Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 33 (1993), pp. 3‒52. The edition of the Theogenius is in Alberti, Opere volgari, vol. 2. More generally on Alberti’s political thought, see Canfora, Davide, ‘Leon Battista Alberti: Modello di letteratura politica in età umanistica’, in Alberti e la cultura, vol. 2, pp. 699‒717; Catanorchi, Olivia, ‘Tra politica e passione. Simulazione e dissimulazione in Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 45 (2005), pp. 137‒77; Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 318‒34. ⁹⁵ On the correlation between these works, see the studies already mentioned in n. 13.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

106

     

parallels, neglected so far, comes to light in the passage of the Momus where Leon Battista describes the conspiracy as a nefarious instrument to gain political control, within a more general denunciation of the evil of power: Sed animadvertisse duas ad principatum patere vias breves et haudquaquam difficiles. Unam quidem, quae factionibus et conspirationibus muniatur, hanc teneri expilando, vexando, collabefactando, sternendoque quicquid tuis curriculis obiectum ad interpellandum offenderis. Alteram vero ad imperium viam bonarum esse artium peritia bonorumque morum cultu ac virtutum ornamentis deductam atque aptam, qua quidem te ita compares, ita exhibeas hominum generi oportet, ut te gratia et benivolentia dignum deputent, unum te in suis adversis rebus adire, tuis potissimum assuescere consiliis et stare sententiis condiscant. [But he had noticed two short and not at all difficult routes leading to kingship. One relied on factions and plots, and could be followed by plundering, ravaging, destroying, and razing to the ground anything that got in your way. The other route to power lay through knowledge of liberal arts, through the cultivation of a fine character and through the acquisition of attractive virtues. That’s how you position yourself in such a way—that’s how you appear to the human race in such a way—that they learn to regard you as worthy of favor and goodwill, that they turn only to you in times of trouble, that they learn to seek out your views and abide by your counsel.]⁹⁶

These words confirm not only Alberti’s negative opinion about Porcari as a plotter, whose actions in the Porcaria coniuratio are metaphorically stigmatized by the image of ‘pigs’ grunts’ (§ 35, ‘primum . . . inter porcos qui grunnitum sustulerit’, ‘the first pig does the grunting will lead’, a wordplay that links ‘porcos’ with ‘Porcari’), but they also prove the humanist’s general condemnation of conspiracies as a way to gain power. In spite of Alberti’s frequent disapprovals of the despotic side of political dominion in his works, he does not admit the possibility of rebellion. The conspiracy is regarded as a brutal upheaval that subverts the political system and, in Alberti’s pessimistic view, can lead only to chaos and the ruin of the state. Thus, the only option is the maintenance of traditional laws to prevent dangerous changes brought about by the social body. The denunciation of the inconsiderate yearning for overturning the status quo, which underlies the Porcaria coniuratio, is a recurring topic also in some Intercenales, such as Templum, Lapides, and Lacus. In Templum, in particular, the ‘stones’ at the foundations of a temple want to gain a higher position as they ⁹⁶ Both the text and the translation are quoted from Alberti, Momus, pp. 128‒9. This significant passage ends up with the denial of any possible form of good power, so Momus suggests that the better condition for a man is that of a vagabond.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

107

envy the stones at the upper levels of the building, but this thoughtless and selfdestructive rebellious behaviour brings about the destruction of the whole temple. This fabula is both an allegory of the danger of not accepting the social order corroborated by tradition and an assertion of political conservatism.⁹⁷ As the allegorical social picture in Lacus also demonstrates, in Alberti’s cynical view the harmful ‘res novae’ end up prevailing eventually, because of man’s ambitions, thoughtlessness, greed and envy: all negative traits that are conventionally ascribed to conspirators in the literary tradition and are evoked also in the Porcaria coniuratio. These considerations shed light on the intimate correlation between the problem of conspiracies and the debate on the theory and practice of political power typical of the humanist age. This subject in that period became closely related to the idea of princely rule and, as a consequence, to the political conduct of the perfect prince. These issues also prove to be crucial in Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio, where, despite the main topic being a conspiracy against the pope, the ideological perspective that underlies the epistle is completely secular and political. Similarly to Orazio Romano’s poem, Alberti’s work does not deal with religious matters; conversely, the issue concerning papal power is addressed entirely from a secular perspective and the pope is seen as a political ruler who has to deal with threats to his state. As in Orazio Romano’s text (but with different purposes and outcomes), in the Porcaria coniuratio the pope is assimilated to the figure of a prince and his government is seen as a princely political institution.⁹⁸ This aspect reflects not only the general emergence in Italy of a personalistic idea of authority but also the political and cultural process of centralization of power carried out by Nicholas V.⁹⁹ More generally, a similar secular perspective applied to the treatment of religious issues had already come to light in Alberti’s Pontifex, the dialogue written in 1437 that deals with the ideal traits, duties, and conduct of the episcopus, analysed from a moral point of view. In this work Alberti looks at the bishop as a prince who rules his state and social community as a praetor or a dux, and is seen as a pater familias.¹⁰⁰ Along with the denunciation of the moral corruption of the Church, this earlier text shows the utterly secular standpoint adopted by Alberti in looking at religious matters, which are directly associated with the dimension of political rule.

⁹⁷ Rossi, ‘Alberti’, p. 112. See also Paoli, Michel, ‘Battista e i suoi nipoti: il “conservatorismo” albertiano nel De iciarchia e le ultime opere’, in Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore, vol. 2, pp. 523‒40. ⁹⁸ On this political aspect of Alberti’s epistle, see also the brief remarks in Borsi, Introduzione, pp. 78, 109, 217, who recognizes in this element a correlation with the Momus. ⁹⁹ On this process, see Chapter 1, section 1.5. ¹⁰⁰ See the introduction to the text by Andrea Piccardi in Alberti, Opere latine, p. 921, and the edition Leonis Baptiste Alberti Pontifex, edited by Andrea Piccardi (Florence: Polistampa, 2007).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

108

     

In the Porcaria coniuratio Alberti explicitly refers to the pope as ‘prince’ or ascribes to him attributes typical of monarchical leaders. In the Italian clergymen’s eulogy of the papal city, they claim that Romans will always be safe because of the ‘solertissimi principis sapientiam . . . ’ (§ 32, ‘the wisdom of the most expert prince’); next, the more cautious curial men add that the ‘principis maiestas’ was ‘offensa’ (‘harmed’) by the conspirators (§ 33). Moreover, Alberti himself mentions the ‘pontificis maiestas’ (§ 35, ‘the pope’s majesty’), ascribing again to the pope a distinctive feature of princes, namely majesty. This attribute will be considered a fundamental princely virtue in the late fifteenth-century mirrors for princes, in particular in Giovanni Pontano’s De principe (1465) and Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate (1492), where this princely virtue appears as the title of the work.¹⁰¹ From this perspective, it is also remarkable that whenever Alberti mentions Nicholas V in the Porcaria coniuratio he prizes his political conduct, attributing important political virtues to him, such as restraint and wisdom. By means of these virtues he is able to govern fairly and efficiently, tackling the threats coming from Porcari, or other enemies. Significantly, the most frequent reference is again to distinctive princely attributes, especially clementia, one of the pivotal classical virtutes assigned by humanists to ideal rulers: (§ 6) Sed pontifex, cum per ipsa pontificatus initia instituisset quam posset plurimos sibi omnis conditionis homines conciliare omni qua posset beneficentia et facilitate, hunc alioquin honestum et presertim romanum civem beneficio devinciendum atque a turbidis consiliis ad spem honesti otii revocandum statuit mansuetudine. [The pope, however, who was just initiating his pontificate, was much inclined to show mercy and try to reconcile all sorts of people to himself by acts of benevolence and tolerance. He wanted, therefore, to win over this otherwise honourable and certainly very Roman citizen, hoping he would give up his criminal desires for the prospect of honourable peace.] (§ 8) . . . ne quid pro suscepto instituto aggrederetur, quod non piissimi et misericordis esset, non extinguendam duxit hominis temeritatem, sed paulo cohercendam. [ . . . as a man of piety and mercy, however, he did not wish to hurt the man he had just appointed to an office, even on account of recent acts. He decided not to wipe out Porcari’s boldness with one stroke but only to make him yield a little ground.] (§ 35) Sed alia ex parte versatur ante oculos pontificis maiestas. Numquam ferme inventum a veterum memoria, ut qui pontifex arma odisset, in arma incideret. Hunc pacis esse studiosum, in principes plus satis facilem, ut extrinsecos

¹⁰¹ See Chapter 3, section 3.6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

109

impulsores non multum verear, et perinde intestina quidem malorum contagia non multum momenti habitura censeam. [From another angle, I find the pope’s majesty obviously solid. Never since antiquity has a pope who hated arms really had to fight a war. I think this one is zealous for peace, and more than amenable in dealing with princes. Hence I am not much afraid of external aggression. And for that reason I also think the plague of internal evils will die down.]

It is true that Alberti is distant from the propagandistic attitude that dominates in other works on this conspiracy, such as Orazio Romano’s Porcaria, and he looks at the event with more critical, unbiased, and meticulous eyes. Nonetheless these meaningful passages show that his text turns out to be integrated into the political and cultural horizon that was developing around the middle of the century in Italy, and especially in the scenario of Nicholas V’s papacy (despite Alberti’s implicit criticism of the pope’s government), which was marked by the strengthening of the ideal image of the ‘papal prince’. Alberti’s political ideology, indeed, although it is based on different principles, shares with Nicholas V’s politics the idea of a distinct secularization of papal power, a conception that will emerge as crucial in the Renaissance. We also have to consider that Alberti’s eulogistic remarks on the pope’s rule seem to clash with his negative view on Nicholas V’s politics concealed in some of his works, such as the Momus and the De re aedificatoria.¹⁰² These observations also seem inconsistent with the disapproving mockery through which Alberti disparages the foreign clergymen’s speech (§§ 28‒9), a hyperbolic celebration of the pope that he certainly does not approve. However, the examination of the text in relation to the political principles conveyed by Alberti in other works has shown that it is unconvincing to argue that he takes sides against the pope, even tacitly, in an account of a violent threat directed at a political system. Rather, the humanist seems to adopt an objective and non-adulatory approach in analysing the events. He does not radically censure papal government, but, instead, he inserts implicit critical elements into his work. This unspoken criticism informs especially Alberti’s studied portrayal of the intricate political situation in Rome and becomes particularly vibrant in his sarcastic framing of the barbari’s speech. Some scholars have pointed out that Alberti’s final celebration of Nicholas V’s peaceful policy (§ 35) should be interpreted as purely ironical and that it betrays his disapproval of Nicholas V’s government.¹⁰³ However, the pope’s closing eulogy can also be considered from a different perspective: it can be read as an invitation to Nicholas V to pursue the virtues that the humanist mentioned, so it would be an indirect way of advising the pope, showing him the moderate and

¹⁰² See also section 2.1.

¹⁰³ For these remarks, see Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 167.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

110

     

compassionate behaviour that he should adopt. As we have seen, the focus on the concept of clemency is characteristic of the texts on Porcari’s conspiracy, where the pope is often urged to be clement with criminals.¹⁰⁴ But, more in general, it is also a recurrent element in other fifteenth-century monographs on conspiracies and in humanist specula principum. In both these ‘genres’, the perfect prince described by the author ideally corresponds to the actual prince to whom the text is devoted: in mirrors for princes, in particular, the qualities of the dedicatee are often used as exempla to portray the ideal monarch. So, the real leader is invited to emulate the model proposed, but he also appears as the reflection of that ideal figure, according to the eulogistic outlook predominant in these texts. Moreover, works on plots usually describe how the ruler in power defeats the rebels and consequently he stands out as the heroic protagonist of the historical episode. Hence Alberti’s portrayal of the pope is not to be interpreted as a mere conventional tribute, nor as an ironical depiction, but may be read as a veiled invitation to imitate the image of the ideal ruler provided in the text. This approach, more generally, was common among fifteenth-century humanists. It reflects a pedagogic view of society that conceived power as based on the principles of humanist education and becomes also the expression of the intellectuals’ aspiration of influencing rulers and improving the governing practices. Moreover, Alberti deals with the issues of clemency and fair punishment in another work very close to his epistle, the De re aedificatoria, in a section devoted to the ancient system of jails, where, as well as in the text on the conspiracy, he recommended that political rulers should behave mercifully.¹⁰⁵ So, the reference to these matters in the Porcaria coniuratio contributes to revealing that Alberti’s analysis of the event is utterly political and proves to be oriented towards a personalistic conception of rulership, which revolves around the notion of virtue. Indeed, the political outlook of the text seems to be inspired by the idea of a virtuous and individualized authority, and, according to this ideology (which was becoming characteristic of humanist political thought), the ruler’s virtutes are the defining elements and cornerstones that legitimize political power.¹⁰⁶ This political perspective emerges in many of Alberti’s works (such as in the passage of the Momus previously quoted) and especially in his treatise De iciarchia (1470c.),

¹⁰⁴ In the case of Porcari’s conspiracy the pope had to limit his revenge in order not to exacerbate the internal conflicts in Rome, see Modigliani, Congiurare, p. 52. See also Chapter 1, section 1.5. ¹⁰⁵ Alberti, Leon Battista, De re aedificatoria, edited by Giovanni Orlandi and Paolo Portoghesi (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1966), p. 396; Cassani, Alberto Giorgio, ‘Le carceri di Ravenna’, in Dalla Romagna alle Romagne, 1815‒1860. Le quattro Legazioni di Romagna e i loro archivi fra Restaurazione e Risorgimento. Atti del convegno internazionale Ravenna 2011 per il 150 dell’unità d’Italia, edited by Angelo Turchini (Cesena: Società editrice il Ponte Vecchio, 2015), pp. 245‒61: 260. ¹⁰⁶ More generally, on this complex process in humanist political thought see Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 31‒45; Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 122‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

111

where the ideal ruler is assimilated to the figure of the pater patriae.¹⁰⁷ Alberti coined the term iciarchia by combining the Greek words oikos (household) and archia (government), and therefore the political leaders, the iciarchs, coincide with the figures of the heads of the family, or ‘house-princes’.¹⁰⁸ In this view, the ruler must exhibit his virtues and has to inform the whole social body. This society, in a kind of metaphorical identification with the family system, reflects the quality of its head, who is the controller and guarantor of ethical and social values. So, the state is seen as the projection of the prestige and virtue of a personalistic authority by whose traits society is shaped. A final point worth making concerns Alberti’s ideas on the issue of conspiracies. Unlike most fifteenth-century texts on this topic, the Porcaria coniuratio includes general considerations on political plots. Leon Battista addresses this matter not only with reference to the specific historical episode narrated, but also hinting at broader problems concerning the dynamics of political conflicts. In particular, the author places these reflections in the mouth of the more cautious Italian clergymen (§§ 33‒4) and in his own final remarks (§ 35). The curial members point out the rebellious and manipulable nature of the common people and claim that revolts are easier to be aroused than to be defeated. Given the fact that only a few conspirators were punished, while most accomplices stayed apart when the plot failed, these clergymen came to the conclusion that men do not want to stay in the forefront in dangerous uprisings, but they take advantage, later, of the suppression of the leaders. Even though Alberti claims that he does not totally agree with these reflections (displaying his usual evasive standpoint), it is noteworthy that he introduces into his work this general analysis on conspiracies. In doing so he proves to have an extensive view on this political phenomenon, showing a pioneering approach that will reappear only in the sixteenth century in Machiavelli’s more mature work (where this topic is comprehensively treated through a modern historical method aimed at producing a theorization of the phenomenon of the conspiracy).¹⁰⁹ Alberti’s critical attitude is not followed by other humanists, who, on the contrary, usually focus only on the specific event they narrate, not broadening their considerations to more general issues and merely concentrating on the internal conditions of the state threatened by the conspiracy. This narrow perspective turns out to match perfectly propagandistic intents, since it allows the author not to open up his analysis to the complex historical causes of the plot. Conversely, it limits the examination of the event to the application of moral categories, through which the conspiracy is usually presented in Manichean terms as a blameable attack against the state. From this ¹⁰⁷ See Pastore Stocchi, Manlio, Il pensiero politico degli umanisti, in Pastore Stocchi, Manlio, Pagine di storia dell’Umanesimo italiano (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2014), pp. 77‒9. On the De iciarchia see in particular Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 328‒34; and Boschetto, Luca, ‘Note sul De iciarchia di Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 163‒217. ¹⁰⁸ Hankins, Virtue Politics, pp. 329‒30. ¹⁰⁹ See Chapter 6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

112

     

point of view, Leon Battista’s attitude is different from the other humanist accounts of plots. Significantly, Alberti, at the end of his letter, also adds some very meaningful considerations, though very evasive and brief, on the wider Italian political scenario, connecting the contemporary situation with the past history of popes and hinting at the threats addressed to Eugene IV and Boniface IX (§ 35). Here the humanist mentions the implication of external political forces in the conspiracy and alludes to the complex Italian context. This is again a proof of Alberti’s independent and critical approach in recounting the event, since he introduces a thorny political element into his account. By contrast, in the other humanist texts on conspiracies the authors usually omit any references to the wider historical scenario (emblematic is Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, as we shall see). In the unstable political circumstances brought about by the plots it appears as a recurring and prudent behaviour by humanists not to mention the foreign states that could have had a role in the conspiracy. This is due to the fact that the explicit reference to external enemies could produce the effect of a declaration of hostility, usually avoided by diplomacy, and therefore also by the humanists, who were often aware of the subtle implications of the rulers’ political strategies. This is the reason why Alberti also, albeit alluding to this matter, leaves his reflection in a completely evasive dimension, not specifying which states were actually involved in the crime. In conclusion, despite the analytical approach displayed by Alberti in his work, it ends with the author’s apparent declaration of his inability to provide the reader with an ultimate and definitive judgement of the events: (§ 36) Tamen quid de tota re statuam, quid de me consilii capiam, nondum constat, praeter id, ut ex temporum eventu consilia in diem capturus pendeam. [My understanding of the matter, however, and my conclusions, are far from settled. I know that I am waiting in suspence to see what the further developments in this situation will teach me.]

This final remark reveals once again the humanist’s problematizing attitude towards political power and, more specifically, his unresolved view on the intricate Roman political background. Alberti’s work, because of all its contradictions, stands out as one of the most ideologically evasive texts on the topic of conspiracy in the fifteenth century, but, paradoxically, at the same time, as one of the most unbiased: a text highly rhetorically articulated to convey the author’s standpoint in a veiled manner; a complex Sallustian epistle/history that turns out to be not so much informed by propagandistic intents as other humanist works on the same topic, but one that discloses significant aspects of Alberti’s experimental literary approach and his complex political views.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

3 Giovanni Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano The Historia of the Conspiracy in Political Theory

3.1 Pontano the historian, the royal secretary, and the theorist of politics and historiography The first and chief historical source of the ‘first conspiracy of the barons’ (now defined in modern historiography as a ‘war of succession’) against the king of Naples, Ferdinando of Aragon, is Giovanni Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano: the historiographical work composed by the distinguished and versatile humanist, who was involved in Neapolitan politics as a diplomat and royal secretary and took active part in the events of the kingdom until his death.¹ The rebellion of the noblemen against the new king Ferdinando (also called Ferrante) started in 1459, after Alfonso the Magnanimous’s death in June 1458. This upheaval resulted in a six-year war between the Aragonese party and the Angevins, who were supported by the insurgent barons of the realm and led by John of Anjou, son of René of Anjou, the titular king of Naples.² Pontano’s historical account is divided into six books and narrates the events of the conspiracy and the war. It follows an annalistic order and includes the description of several battles, sieges, counterattacks, and, above all, the continuous betrayals and shifting alliances of the noblemen who defy Ferdinando. Despite the large number of war episodes recounted, which result in a dispersive narration, one of the main thematic threads of the text is the central topic of the conspiracy. So, this issue discloses its crucial implications in both the intricate history of the Neapolitan kingdom

¹ On Pontano’s literary works and his political commitment see the classic study on Neapolitan humanist culture by Bentley, Jerry H., Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 184‒252. For the connection between politics and culture in fifteenthcentury Naples, see also Santoro, Mario, ‘La cultura umanistica’, in Storia di Napoli, vol. 4, t. 2, directed by Ernesto Pontieri (Naples: Società Editrice Storia di Napoli, 1974), pp. 317‒446. The most complete study of Pontano’s biography is Percopo, Erasmo, Vita di Giovanni Pontano, edited by Michele Manfredi (Naples: ITEA, 1938), but see also now Figliuolo, Bruno, ‘Giovanni Pontano’, DBI, 84 (2015), pp. 729‒40. On the role of the royal secretary, and more specifically on Pontano, see Vitale, Giuliana, ‘Sul segretario regio al servizio degli Aragonesi di Napoli’, Studi storici 49, 2 (2008), pp. 293‒ 321, 294‒9: 307‒8. ² This political plot was called ‘first conspiracy of the barons’ so as to distinguish it from the following rebellion of the noblemen that took place around twenty years later, between 1485 and 1486, but now is identified in scholarship as ‘war of succession’.

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

114

     

and the ambitious political theory conceived by Pontano in his historical and political works. The chronology of composition of the De bello Neapolitano is rather complicated and it has been convincingly reconstructed by Liliana Monti Sabia in her volume on Pontano’s historical text,³ which also contains an anthology of passages quoted from the codex Lat. 3413 of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna: the autograph manuscript of the De bello Neapolitano and the only copy still extant. She has pointed out a layered process of composition divided into three main stages of writing and revision. Pontano wrote the first version of the text immediately after the end of the war, in 1465, using documentary and diplomatic sources to which he had access thanks to his role as secretary, but also relying on his own memories and notes, since he was a close collaborator of the king during the whole conflict (he also mentions himself in the narration: IV, IV, 37).⁴ Later on, he revised his work and added some passages and historical details in different phases between the 1470s and the early 1480s, as some inconsistencies in the text also reveal (for instance in the introductory historical overview in book I, Pontano mentions Federico of Montefeltro as already dead but his death took place in 1482).⁵ After this process of revision, the text was copied by the author in the Viennese manuscript, but he kept on correcting and changing it until his death, in 1503. The De bello Neapolitano was then published posthumously in its editio princeps in Naples in 1509, and from that moment it could enjoy a wider circulation also outside Neapolitan circles, becoming one of the main sources for the events of both the barons’ rebellion and the war for later authors: this edition also included Pontano’s De sermone and the editor was the humanist’s former pupil Pietro Summonte.⁶ He edited all Pontano’s work after his death, but he generally revised the texts introducing changes and amendments and, in the case of the historical work, he introduced also the division into

³ Monti Sabia, Liliana, Pontano e la storia. Dal ‘De bello Neapolitano’ all’ ‘Actius’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 1995). On Pontano’s historical work, see also Ferraù, Giacomo, Il tessitore di Antequera. Storiografia umanistica meridionale (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2001), pp. 81‒129; Senatore, Francesco, ‘Pontano storico’, Studi storici 39, 1 (1998), pp. 291‒96; Senatore, Francesco, ‘Pontano e la guerra di Napoli’, in Condottieri e uomini d’arme nell’Italia del Rinascimento, edited by Mario Del Treppo (Naples: GISEM-Liguori, 2001), pp. 279‒309. ⁴ In this chapter, references are always to the section and paragraph numbers in the edition of Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano in Monti Sabia, Pontano (unless otherwise stated), where the main sections of the text are published. A new complete edition is now published in Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano, De bello Neapolitano, edited by Giuseppe Germano, Antonietta Iacono, Francesco Senatore (Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2019) (unfortunately I was not able to see it before the publication of this monograph). On the use of diplomatic and chancery sources by Pontano, see in particular Senatore, ‘Pontano e la guerra’, pp. 279‒309. ⁵ Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 62. ⁶ Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano, De sermone et De bello Neapolitano (Neapoli: ex officina Sigismundi Mayr artificis diligentissimi, mense Maio 1509). Another edition was published just a few months later, in August, by the same printer, while the next edition was printed again in Naples in 1529.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

115

different sections that is evidenced in the Viennese manuscript, the copy where Summonte carried out his revision.⁷ Pontano probably tweaked his work mainly between 1495 and 1499, while he was writing the dialogue Actius—his important treatise on the theory of the ars historica, whose composition was obviously closely interconnected with the concrete historiographical work—and in the scenario of harsh crisis faced by the Aragonese monarchy, after Charles VIII’s invasion in 1494. He wrote on the codex some additamenta, the most important of which consist of critical observations on Ferdinando’s behaviour and policy (I, II, 7; VI, V) and some lengthy antiquarian and geographical descriptions that reveal the development of the humanist’s erudite studies in his last days.⁸ In particular, the final judgement on Ferdinando’s whole reign presupposes his death, which took place in 1494 (VI, V). The additional comments concerning the figure of the king have been regarded as the humanist’s ultimate partial reconsideration of Ferrante’s entire government. Nevertheless, despite these variants, the political perspective of the work remains unaltered and it proves to be aimed at presenting and boosting Pontano’s political theory formulated in his treatises in the same years (such as the De principe, De obedientia, etc.).⁹ The interplay between ‘theoretical’ and ‘concrete’ elements in Pontano’s works comes to light if we also consider the direct link that connects the treatise on historiography, the Actius, and the actual historical writing, the De bello Neapolitano. Given the chronology of composition, in this case it is the practical phase that precedes the theoretical, since the Actius was composed later than the historia, in the last years of the century. The dialogue Actius, in which the second section de lege historiae is totally devoted to the theory of historiography, is the first systematic treatise on historical writing in the Renaissance and it is a fundamental landmark in the lively debate on this subject that had been going on throughout the Quattrocento and had already produced prominent works, such as Guarino’s epistle De historiae conscribendae forma (1446).¹⁰ As Monti Sabia compellingly illustrated, Pontano’s historiographical theory is formulated on the basis of his previous practice of historiography, but, at the same time, the De bello ⁷ On Summonte’s revision of Pontano’s works see Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 53; 65‒7; and the two contributions by Monti Sabia, Liliana, ‘Pietro Summonte e l’editio princeps delle opere pontaniane’ and ‘La mano di Pietro Summonte nelle edizioni postume di Pontano’, in Monti Sabia, Liliana and Monti, Salvatore, Studi su Giovanni Pontano, vol. 1, edited by Giuseppe Germano (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2010), pp. 215‒55. ⁸ For the detailed chronology of composition of the text and the description of the Viennese codex, see Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 43‒69. ⁹ For the single treatises, see sections 3.3–3.6. On Pontano’s ethical treatises, see in particular Tateo, Francesco, Umanesimo etico di Giovanni Pontano (Lecce: Milella, 1972). On his idea of virtue, see Roick, Matthias, Pontano’s Virtues. Aristotelian Moral and Political Thought in the Renaissance (London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017); Cappelli, Guido, ‘Introduzione’, in Giovanni Pontano, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003), pp. XI‒CXXI. ¹⁰ On this work, and for bibliography on it, see Chapter 2, section 2.3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

116

     

Neapolitano itself is revised at a later stage according to the theoretical tenets asserted in the Actius, in a twofold and reciprocal influence.¹¹ The correlation between the historical account and the historiographical canon illustrated in the treatise concerns several thematic, structural, and stylistic elements: the pursuit of a style grounded on the principles of varietas and celeritas, in accordance with the model of Sallust; the explanation of the remote causes of the historical events, which in the De bello Neapolitano are evoked in the introductory synoptic excursus on the Italian and Neapolitan conditions from the Middle Ages to the present time; the fundamental function played by direct speeches delivered by characters as a rhetorical tool deployed to depict their nature and thoughts; the widespread presence of character portraits; and the poetic colour sometimes given to the historical narration, according to Quintilian’s principle that ‘[historia] est enim proxima poetis et quodam modo carmen solutum’ (‘history is close to poets and is somehow a prose poem’; Inst. X, 1, 31).¹² Moreover, in the De bello Neapolitano the extensive and frequent accounts of war episodes, such as battles, sieges, and conquests, adhere to the rules illustrated in the Actius. They prescribe that these narrative sections have to include the accurate descriptions of the geographical settings, the disposition of troops, the feelings and attitudes of soldiers, and the role of imponderable forces, such as fortune. As this brief overview shows, both Pontano’s Actius and his De bello Neapolitano are based on the recovery and reappropriation of classical models: in particular Sallust and Livy, who are selected by Pontano as the chief Latin historians to be employed as literary prototypes. Nonetheless, despite the substantial correspondence between the ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of history, the two works cannot completely interlock because of an intrinsic thematic difference: on the one hand, we have the pure military subject that is theorized in the Actius as the main historical theme, and, on the other, the topic of the conspiracy which, although often concealed in the De bello Neapolitano in the narration of war episodes, resurfaces throughout the text as the most pivotal political issue. The focus on this political matter places the work in the genre of monographic history. For this reason, the De bello Neapolitano, though centred on the key word bellum as the title shows, is not merely an account of the war between two states, as the Actius mainly prescribes, but it mostly revolves around the internal hostilities between the rebel barons, who supported the French pretender, and the king of Naples.

¹¹ See Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 63‒65, and on the Actius, pp. 1‒8. The dialogue is published in Pontano, Giovanni, I dialoghi, edited by Carmelo Previtera (Florence: Sansoni, 1943), pp. 121‒239. On Pontano’s historiographical theory, see also Cotroneo, Girolamo, I trattatisti dell’ars historica (Naples: Giannini, 1971), pp. 87‒120; Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 81–129. ¹² On the links between the De bello Neapolitano and the Actius, see Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 9‒33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

117

The continuous overlapping of the historical episodes in Pontano’s long narration is due to the complex chain of the actual events. They are often put in sequence by the author (sometimes with some mistakes) on the basis of his own notes and chancery documents. In order to gain a better insight into the De bello Neapolitano, which is the chief historical source for these events, let us summarize briefly the main episodes of the conspiracy and the war, from 1459 to 1465.¹³ Before dying in 1458, Alfonso the Magnanimous had nominated his illegitimate son Ferdinando as his successor in the Aragonese family. However, the unstable conditions of the kingdom, where the new Spanish ruling class had to cope with the resentment of the old noble class throughout the realm, brought about a general revolt against the new king. The majority of the barons in the kingdom, led by the powerful Prince of Taranto, Giovanni Antonio Orsini¹⁴ (whose niece was Ferrante’s wife, Isabella da Chiaromonte), plotted a conspiracy against the Aragonese monarchy. They decided to support the claims of the French aspirant to the crown, John of Anjou, who was supported by his father, René d’Anjou, the titular king of Naples before Alfonso’s conquest. In October 1459, John travelled with his fleet to Naples to wage war against the Aragonese and this marked the beginning of the conflict. Ferdinando could count on his allies Francesco Sforza and Pope Pius II; while the renowned condottiero Iacopo Piccinino led his troops on the side of the Aragonese’s enemies, as well as Ercole d’Este, who, despite having been appointed as governor of Apulia by Ferrante, defected to the French side. The episode that openly revealed the barons’ betrayals to Ferdinando was the infamous attack in Teano in May 1460. Marino Marzano, duke of Sessa, one of the mightiest noblemen in the kingdom and Ferrante’s brother-in-law (he was married to Eleonora d’Aragona, Alfonso the Magnanimous’s daughter),¹⁵ planned an ambush against the king and tried to kill him, with the help of two other barons— Deifobo Dell’Anguillara and Iacopuccio da Montagano. Ferdinando, who was accompanied by his loyal fellows Gregorio Corella and Giovanni Ventimiglia, managed to save himself and put the attackers to flight. After this incident the war continued and the first and unexpected defeat for the Aragonese army took place in Sarno, on 7 July 1460. Here, Ferdinando, after having carefully pondered the

¹³ The most complete study of the historical events as presented in Pontano’s work is Senatore, ‘Pontano e la guerra’. For the history of the kingdom of Naples: Galasso, Giuseppe, ‘Il Regno di Napoli. Il Mezzogiorno angioino e aragonese (1266‒1494)’, in Storia d’Italia, directed by Giuseppe Galasso (Torino: UTET, 1992), vol. 15, t. 1; on the war between Ferdinando and the French, see also Nunziante, Emilio, ‘I primi anni di Ferdinando d’Aragona e l’invasione di Giovanni d’Angiò’, Archivio storico per le province napoletane 17 (1892)–23 (1898), and on Ferdinando’s reign, see Pontieri, Ernesto, Per la storia del regno di Ferrante I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1968). Now see also Senatore, Francesco, Storti, Francesco, Spazi e tempi della guerra nel Mezzogiorno aragonese. L’itinerario militare di re Ferrante, 1458‒1465 (Salerno: CAR, 2002). ¹⁴ See Kiesewetter, Andreas, ‘Giovanni Antonio Orsini del Balzo’, DBI 79 (2013), pp. 729‒32. ¹⁵ See Sardina, Patrizia, ‘Marino Marzano’, DBI 71 (2008), pp. 446‒50.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

118

     

different possibilities, decided to attack the opposing troops, but this choice turned out to be disastrous and the Aragonese were conclusively beaten. Due to this heavy defeat many other barons defected to Orsini and John of Anjou, seriously compromising the maintenance of the king’s power. The war continued until 1465 and the decisive battle took place on 18 August 1462 in Troia, a small city in Apulia, where Ferdinando’s enemies were violently defeated. The course of the war was also influenced by the death of the prince of Taranto, who, after coming to a peace agreement with the king on the 21 September 1462, died in Altamura in unclear circumstances, on 14 November 1463. Many allegations were made against Ferdinando himself, who was accused of being the instigator of the assassination perpetrated by a servant of the prince. Even Pontano does not totally exculpate Ferrante from this accusation and leaves the issue vague in his work (however, he specifies that the king immediately took possession of Orsini’s properties, without any judgement on this behaviour—V, V, 3). On the other hand, the humanist did not keep the same approach with the death of Iacopo Piccinino, who was murdered in Naples in the jail of Castel Nuovo, where he had been treacherously imprisoned by Ferrante: in this case Pontano opted for totally omitting this episode, though it was relevant in the narration.¹⁶ Another implacable enemy of the king of Naples, Marino Marzano, was harshly punished by Ferdinando. He is depicted in the text as a recidivist traitor, who, despite having formally been reconciled with the king in August 1463, kept plotting against him. Therefore, Ferrante ordered his men to capture and incarcerate Marzano in the jail of Castel Nuovo in June 1464, without showing any mercy for his brother-in-law. After these acts of revenge and, in particular, the turning point of the Prince of Taranto’s death, the rebel barons lost their leader and John of Anjou also surrendered. Thus, Ferdinando was able to come back to Naples in 1464. The final conflict was the battle on Ischia, between the king and Giovanni Torella, a treacherous baron who had been appointed as ruler of the island by Alfonso (when he had given Ischia as a fief to his lover Lucrezia d’Alagni, Torella’s sister-in-law). At the end of the naval conflict in July 1465, the Aragonese won their ultimate victory over the rebels and the war ended.¹⁷ Nonetheless, although Pontano closes his work with this success of the Aragonese monarchy, it was only temporary and the seditious inclination of the barons was not appeased: instead, it broke out again in a further rebellion in 1485–6, revealing the centrality of the problem of internal political conflict in the kingdom and, consequently, in the development of Pontano’s thoughts on monarchical rulership.

¹⁶ For this omission, see Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 38. ¹⁷ See Iacono, Antonietta, La guerra d’Ischia nel ‘De bello Neapolitano’ di G. Pontano (Naples: Accademia Pontaniana, 1996).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

119

3.2 Pontano’s models and the development of political historiography Pontano’s work belongs to the classical literary genre of historia: the highest rhetorical subgenre in the realm of historiography. It displays an extensive narration that covers the entire sequence of the events of the war and is crafted in a lofty literary style based on the model of the chief historiographical sources of classical literature. From this point of view, Pontano’s work follows in the footsteps of the newly fashioned fifteenth-century Neapolitan historiography. The development of this literature was inaugurated by Lorenzo Valla’s Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum (1445):¹⁸ the first piece of dynastic historiography to be written after the conquest of the Neapolitan kingdom by Alfonso the Magnanimous in 1442 and whose main purpose was to celebrate and legitimize his rule by narrating his father’s glorious deeds. The gradual growth of this new kind of monarchic historiography was pursued by later official historians patronized by the king himself, Bartolomeo Facio and Antonio Panormita: ‘humanists in government’ who enhanced the eulogistic dimension of historical writing, making it an essential component in the Aragonese system of cultural politics.¹⁹ The De bello Neapolitano can be regarded as a continuation of this historiographical tradition established by Facio and Panormita, which is characterized by a strong encomiastic component, but Pontano incorporated in his text also some distinctive elements of Valla’s work.²⁰ Valla had been disapproved of by the two other humanists, in particular Facio, especially for his lack of decorum in dealing with royal characters and for the neglect of the principle of brevitas, which was interpreted as a form of reticence that had to be employed in recounting episodes unsuitable for an eulogistic history.²¹ The De bello Neapolitano integrated both ¹⁸ Valla, Lorenzo, Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum, edited by Ottavio Besomi (Padova: Antenore, 1973). ¹⁹ The definition of ‘humanist in government’ was given by Ryder, Alan, ‘Antonio Beccadelli: A Humanist in Government’, in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, edited by Cecil H. Clough (Manchester: Manchester University Press; New York: A.F. Zambelli, 1976), pp. 123‒40. On Neapolitan historiography, see Bentley, Politics and Culture; Cotroneo, I trattatisti; Ferraù, Il tessitore; Tateo, Francesco, I miti della storiografia umanistica (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990); and on Facio, see Albanese, Gabriella, Studi su Bartolomeo Facio (Pisa: ETS, 2000). More generally, on literary writing as a support for the Aragonese monarchy, see Delle Donne, Fulvio and Iacono, Antonietta, eds., Linguaggi e ideologie del Rinascimento monarchico aragonese (1442‒ 1503). Forme della legittimazione e sistemi di governo (Naples: Federico II University Press, 2018). ²⁰ An allusion to a possible connection with the model of Valla is in Ferraù, Il tessitore, p. 98. ²¹ The dispute is mainly articulated in two texts: Facio, Bartolomeo, Invective in Laurentium Vallam, edited by Ennio I. Rao (Naples: Società Editrice Napoletana, 1978); Valla, Lorenzo, Antidotum in Facium, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1981). On Facio, see Albanese, Studi; Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 43‒80; Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Riflessioni umanistiche sullo “scrivere storia” ’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 3‒37: 16–27. Facio’s historiographical work is published in Facio, Bartolomeo, Rerum gestarum Alfonsi regis libri, edited by Daniela Pietragalla (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2004). For Valla’s theory of historiography, see Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 1‒42; Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Lorenzo Valla e la concezione della storia’, in La storiografia umanistica. Convegno

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

120

     

these strands. On the one hand, it adhered to the propagandistic and monarchic historiographical practice founded by Facio and Panormita that turned out to be the most successful in the Neapolitan cultural environment; on the other, it also followed the distinguished model of Valla in its pursuit of the idea of veracity, which is regarded by both Pontano and Valla as an essential component of historiographical writing to be combined with the rhetorical dimension of the narrative.²² This conflation of veritas and rhetoric results in a literary outcome that is able to represent the intricacy of reality and, at the same time, to convey a specific political standpoint. There is no doubt that the direct predecessor and model of Pontano’s text is Panormita, also from a chronological point of view, since when Pontano started to write his historical account in 1465 the older humanist was still the official historian of the Aragonese court and he was composing his Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis (due to his death in 1471 it is unfinished).²³ In this work Panormita mentioned his intention to recount the events of the war in a De bello Neapolitano, which he would never write and that, probably not coincidentally, is the title of Pontano’s work.²⁴ Nonetheless, the younger author had already decided to undertake the historiographical enterprise before Panormita’s death. His willingness to take on this composition may be due to the fact that he took active part in the war alongside the king and, moreover, his historical work fitted perfectly with the humanist’s monarchic political theory attested by the composition of the De principe in 1465 and, later, by other treatises. It is also likely that after the elder historian’s death Pontano projected onto his own historiographical work the traits of an official monarchic history, despite the lack of any commission by the king. In spite of this continuity with his direct predecessor, Pontano did also borrow more directly from Valla the principles of veritas and utilitas as pivotal in his idea of history and reconciled them with the eulogistic dimension that characterized the most recent works by the official historians of the king, Facio and Panormita. Furthermore, similarly to Valla, and also to Alberti, Pontano is very much concerned with the reliability of the sources of his historical account. His narration is mainly based on letters and official documents of the royal chancery internazionale di studi (Messina 22‒25 ottobre 1987), vol. 1, edited by Anita Di Stefano (Messina: Sicania, 1992), pp. 549‒71. See also Chapter 2, section 2.3. ²² Pontano follows classical models in asserting that veritas is ‘prima historiae lex’: Actius, in Pontano, Dialoghi, p. 208; cf. Cic. De or. II, 62. See Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 35. ²³ Panhormitae, Antonii, Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis, edited by Gianvito Resta (Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1968). On the representation of Ferrante in Panormita’s works: Iacono, Antonietta, ‘Ritratto ed encomio nella produzione letteraria per Ferrante d’Aragona’, in Linguaggi, pp. 25‒52: 36, 42. ²⁴ Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 60; Panhormitae Liber rerum gestarum, p. 34; Senatore, ‘Pontano e la guerra’, pp. 294–6. On the influence that Facio and especially Panormita had on Pontano’s work see also Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 93‒6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

121

(though, of course, these Aragonese sources also connect this text with a partially biased view). So, Pontano’s work turns out to be the most mature output in the gradual development of Neapolitan historiography, enhancing its political dimension but, at the same time, harmonizing the pursuit of truthfulness and the propagandistic aim. The De bello Neapolitano perfectly represents the strand of ‘political historiography’.²⁵ This kind of historical writing can neither be merely associated with eulogistic intentions as a panegyric, nor should it be described as storia cortigiana, but it has its centre of gravity in a specific political horizon that results in the unspoken, though relentless, affirmation of the political standpoint of the present government.²⁶ It is a type of history that is imbued with a specific political perspective and may be described as a ‘phenomenology of politics’. This historiography, which would develop in the sixteenth century in a modern kind of historical writing based on a more critical political analysis, in the Quattrocento took the shape of different literary compositions and matched the needs of new and unstable political powers, becoming the vehicle for the affirmation of a specific political theory. In the De bello Neapolitano, the not always balanced integration of veritas and propaganda may explain some contradictions that have been recognized by scholars. These inconsistencies appear especially in the coexistence, on the one hand, of the celebration of the king and the continuous condemnation of his internal enemies, and, on the other, of some critical remarks on Ferdinando’s behaviour.²⁷ This criticism emerges, for example, in the description of the ingratitude shown by the Ferrante in the imprisonment of the condottiero Maso Barrese, who was guilty of cruel deeds (II, XIV), but was also always loyal to the king (II, XVI, 6).²⁸ Another example can be found in the negative depiction of the conduct of Ferdinando’s troops, sometimes responsible for plunderings and inconsiderate and violent actions (I, IX, 24‒5; II, III; II, V).²⁹ We also have to consider that the few more substantial disapproving comments about the king are usually put into the mouth of his enemies, while, instead, Pontano justifies on many occasions Ferdinando’s wrong strategic choices and leaves out or minimizes his unfair actions. This is evident in the omission of any reference to Iacopo

²⁵ On this kind of historiography, see also Introduction, section I.3 and Chapter 5, section 5.2. ²⁶ From this perspective my analysis does not agree with that of Monti Sabia, who argues that Pontano’s work is not a political text: Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 62. On the other hand, Iacono, although she stresses that the text was not the result of an official commission, claims that it has to be read considering its ideological and militant aspect: Iacono, ‘Ritratto ed encomio’, pp. 42–3. ²⁷ If Pontano’s text appears not totally focused on celebrating the figure of the king as much as Facio’s works, it is not possible to agree with Ferraù (Il tessitore, p. 96) who does not acknowledge in Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano the same idealizing perspective that is distinctive of Facio’s texts: the De bello Neapolitano displays a similar approach, although with different outcomes and specific narratives techniques. ²⁸ On the condottiero Barrese, see Indeborg, Walter, ‘Maso Barrese’, DBI 6 (1964), pp. 521‒22. ²⁹ Particularly intense is the description of violent actions perpetrated by Ferrante’s soldiers: Monti Sabia, Pontano, II, V, 4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

122

     

Piccinino’s murder, or in the narration of the dishonourable sacking of the temple of San Michele (II, V),³⁰ where the humanist dwells on the soldiers’ brutal raids, but explains that the king’s decision to seize the riches of the temple is due to the urgent need for money for the war. He also adds that after the final victory Ferdinando would give all gold and silver back to the holy sanctuary. Additionally most critical observations are embedded in the unfolding of the narration and are an integral part of vivid descriptions, which are aimed at producing a realistic overtone and proving the reliability of the historical account. They display no connection with an open judgement by the historian, who is external. In fact, although Pontano agrees in his Actius with the Ciceronian definition of historia as ‘vitae . . . magistra’ (De oratore II, 9), and consequently claims that the historian has to docere and comment on the events with his personal judgement,³¹ in his actual historiographical work he does not often intrude openly with moral remarks, but inserts them implicitly in the development of his account. Hence, despite the lack of the author’s explicit opinions, the reader always discerns Pontano’s viewpoint and recognizes it as reliable because it is rooted in the principle of veracity that underlies the whole text. Being placed in this new but already illustrious tradition of Neapolitan historiography, the De bello Neapolitano is the only fifteenth-century work on a conspiracy that reaches the highest rhetorical status of historia, matching the distinctive elements characteristic of this classical literary genre. The other humanist works on plots were written as a poem, epistle, lament, historical commentary, and so on. Thus, in this corpus of texts, Pontano’s work seems to mark the most significant step in a gradual process of approaching the loftiest and most formalized status of historiography, in an evolution where the historiographical components are increasingly relevant and central to the texts. The choice of this genre could have been determined also by the longer chronology of the events narrated in the De bello Neapolitano, which does not only include the episodes concerning the political plots, but also the war waged after the barons’ betrayals. The extensive narrative of military events in the text is also an element that perfectly suits the classical genre of historia, where the topic of war is traditionally a crucial and recurrent theme. It is also significant that the narration in the De bello Neapolitano follows a rough annalistic chronology, adhering to the chief classical model of Livy: the first book covers the events of the first year of war, which was waged in 1459, but had its major development in 1460; the second book is devoted to 1461; books III and IV deal with years 1462‒3; the fifth book keeps narrating events of 1463 arriving at 1464; and finally book VI focuses on 1465.³² It is no accident that the model of ³⁰ On this sanctuary see Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 20, n. 41. ³¹ Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 9. ³² For this chronological distribution of events in the six books, see Senatore, ‘Pontano e la guerra’, pp. 285‒6; Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 43‒53.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

123

Livy plays a prominent role in Pontano’s work, since the Latin historian is also acknowledged as a fundamental prototype in the dialogue Actius. In particular the numerous speeches that the author puts into the mouth of the characters in the De bello Neapolitano are mostly inspired by Livy’s work, where, as Pontano claims in his treatise, the orations suit the different characters’ personality and the specific circumstance of delivery.³³ An emblematic example of the fundamental narrative function of these speeches is provided by the lengthy orations inserted in the storyline before and after the battle of Sarno, through which the different opinions of the military captains are compared (I, IX, 8‒22; I, X, 2‒21). The extensive use of these speeches reveals a rhetorical conception of historiography combined with the search for a realistic narrative that is based on truthfulness.³⁴ All these elements perfectly match the requirements of the loftiest historiographical genre, the historia, which in this case is chosen to deal with a specific and circumscribed event: the conspiracy and the resulting war. Thus, despite the broadly annalistic framework, Pontano’s work also acquires the traits of a traditional monographic historical narrative, unsurprisingly based on the model of Sallust. Both the De coniuratione Catilinae, for the narration of the political plot, and Bellum Iugurtinum, for the episodes of the war, represent a more than suitable model for Pontano, who includes the Latin historian in the Actius as the most prominent classical auctoritas together with Livy. As far as the structure of the De bello Neapolitano is concerned, the text is characterized by a lack of order and systematic arrangement in some sections of the narration. Indeed, the narrative is built up by the juxtaposition of countless and sometimes unconnected events. In light of this, the historia, with its annalistic construction, displays a centrifugal character that can make the reader feel lost in the endless sequence of different war episodes: battles, sieges, conquests, and betrayals. However, it is the main political topic on which the monographic structure of the work is grounded, the theme of conspiracy, that provides the unifying centre and the core of the whole narration. From this point of view the complex and wide architecture typical of the major genre of the historia is balanced by the ‘monographic’ and ‘thematic’ framework of the text, which hinges on the issue of the political plot. So, if the narrative construction is centrifugal, the unity is provided by the consistency and uniformity of the political perspective in the text. Hence the conspiracy, and more in general its political implications and consequences in the Neapolitan kingdom, turns out to be the crucial political topic

³³ Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 32; Pontano, I dialoghi, p. 211, 3‒8. ³⁴ For the tradition of military speeches in historiography, see Abbamonte, Giancarlo, ‘Discorsi alle truppe: documenti, origine e struttura retorica’, in Discorsi alla prova, Atti del Quinto Colloquio italofrancese, Discorsi pronunciati, discorsi ascoltati: contesti di eloquenza tra Grecia, Roma ed Europa (Napoli-S. Maria di Castellabate, 21‒23 settembre 2006), edited by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Lorenzo Miletti, and Luigi Spina (Naples: Giannini, 2009), pp. 29‒46. On speeches in humanist historiography, see also Chapter 2, sections 2.3 and 2.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

124

     

on which the narrative consistency of the text rests and through which Pontano elaborates his political views. On account of this pivotal thematic element, Sallust’s work emerges in the text as the chief classical model. It is the source of motifs and images, and, most significantly, of the main moral categories through which the conspiracy is interpreted. If Pontano already at the beginning of the text (I, II) and more extensively later (II, X) mentions Ferrante’s controversial succession after Alfonso’s death as a cause of the barons’ uprising, the reasons for the political plot are nevertheless recognized mainly in the conspirators’ evil nature and vices (as in the other humanist literary works on plots). These vices are the thoughtless ambition, the yearning for political changes and subversion, the inconstancy and moral corruption, and the unwillingness to acknowledge the flourishing conditions provided by the current government. These causes are not presented in an orderly and systematic way in the text, but are mentioned recurrently in different sections, especially in the portraits of the barons and in the narrations of their betrayals, which are recounted throughout the work (the last episode is Marzano’s final betrayal—V, VII, 1‒4). These descriptive and narrative components also contribute towards building up the pro-monarchic political perspective that the author aims to convey. One of the most emblematic examples of the employment of these interpretative categories is Giovanni Antonio Orsini’s portrait (I, III). He is depicted evoking many of the conspirators’ features described by Sallust, especially in the evil profile of Catiline (Cat. 6).³⁵ Pontano mentions the impatience for res novae, the inconstancy (which is recalled twice in a few lines in both ‘eius inconstantiam atque animum minime tranquillum’ and ‘vario et inconstanti ingenio’; ‘his inconstancy and restless spirit’ and ‘fluctuating and instable mind’), the lack of any eagerness or respect for anything holy and honest, the urge to do whatever his mind could plan, the double-faced vices of avarice and greed, and the lack of any scruple. Furthermore, as Monti Sabia has pointed out,³⁶ Pontano draws from Sallust’s portrayal of Catiline also the attribute of the ambivalent and contradictory nature of the leader of the plot (as Alberti also did in his depiction of Stefano Porcari in the Porcaria coniuratio). The humanist, besides assigning a few good qualities to Orsini, narrates some episodes in which the character proves to be both ruthless and thoughtful (such as during the siege of Minervino, when he left for many days a hanged corpse to be seen by his niece who was imprisoned in the castle’s jail, but he still provided her every day with good food; IV, I). In particular, the specific reference to the two opposite vices of avarice and greed ascribed to the prince of Taranto (I, III, 2, ‘sui ipse parcissimus, sic contra alieni quam appetentissimus erat’; ‘he was parsimonius with his own money, but ³⁵ For this parallel, see also Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 13‒14.

³⁶ Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 14.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

125

very greedy for that of others’)³⁷ reminds us of a passage in Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, where the Florentine humanist evokes a similar double trait in the description of the chief conspirator, Iacopo Pazzi: ‘Duo in homine ingentia vitia eaque, quod mirum esset, maxime inter se contraria eminebant: multa avaritia, multa perdendi patrimonii voluptas’ (§ 5, ‘He had two inborn vices, and what is incredible, they were conspicuously contrary; he was extremely avaricious, but he took great pleasure in wasting his patrimony’).³⁸ Poliziano’s source is Sallust, Cat. 5, 8, therefore the original passage in the classical text could also have had an influence on Pontano’s description, possibly through the mediation of Poliziano’s work. In this case it would be an ‘imitative series’ that would concern two of the main humanist works on conspiracies and their major classical model. From this perspective, it is significant that Pontano owned a copy of Poliziano’s text. He was the possessor of one of the oldest manuscripts that contains the account of the Pazzi conspiracy, a miscellany of historical texts and orations now conserved in the Vatican Library (Vat. Lat. 13679). Even though Poliziano composed his Coniurationis commentarium only in 1478, and the manuscript was probably put together in the 1480s, it has been proved that Pontano revised and changed his text until the end of his life.³⁹ Consequently he might have been influenced by Poliziano’s text also at an intermediate stage of his revision and he could have drawn from the Commentarium some motifs and descriptive elements (although often the presence of the common source of Sallust makes it difficult to pinpoint a precise correlation between the two fifteenthcentury texts). Another specific connection between the two works, this time not attributable to Sallust’s influence, can be found in the reference to the plotters’ impulsive and evil nature, which drives them to accomplish any hideous idea they have in mind. Pontano ascribes this behaviour to Orsini (I, III, 2 ‘cura assequendi eius quod animo destinasset’; ‘he was determined to achieve what his mind designed’), while Poliziano ascribes it to Francesco Pazzi (§ 15 ‘dum rem quamcunque is animo volveret expeditum iret’; ‘he set out to accomplish whatever entered his mind’). Moreover, the two humanists mention the lack of respect for any tenet of honesty, both religious and ethical, as a typical characteristic of conspirators. In Poliziano’s work this trait is associated with the Archbishop of Pisa Francesco Salviati (§ 10, ‘is Franciscus homo fuit, id quod Dii atque homines sciunt, omnis divini atque ³⁷ All passages of Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano are quoted from the edition in Monti Sabia, Pontano (references are to the section and paragraph numbers); all translations are mine. ³⁸ References are always to the paragraph numbers in Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium. Translations are from Poliziano, The Pazzi conspiracy. On this work, see Chapter 4. ³⁹ In particular, the text of the De bello Neapolitano copied in the autograph codex Vindobonensis Lat. 3413 of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna probably corresponds to the pre-final version, which includes the changes made between the 1470s and 1480s; then the humanist added on this manuscript only the final amendments and variants (which can be read in the codex). On the manuscript of Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, see Chapter 4, section 4.1.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

126

     

humani iuris ignarus et contemptor’; ‘This Francesco was, both the gods and men know, an ignorant disparager of every law, human and divine’). In the De bello Neapolitano, instead, both leaders of the conspiracy, Antonio Orsini and Marino Marzano, are represented as totally dishonest (I, III, 2 ‘apud quem [sc. Orsini] etiam sancti honestique non tantus respectus . . . ’, ‘in him there was not much respect for holy and honest things’; I, VI, 5 ‘Marinus contempto iure necessitudinis, omnis divinae et humanae rationis oblitus’, ‘Marino, despising any reason of necessity, neglected any religious and human value’). Besides these descriptive and stylistic correlations, the connection between the two humanists’ texts proves to be still more significant if we consider the ideological framework of both works, which share the same centralized political perspective and employ the same crucial thematic nuclei and topoi. Coming back to Pontano’s description of the causes of the conspiracy, it is noteworthy that not only individual barons but also the collective group of rebel noblemen are often described as motivated by economic reasons and the yearning for political subversion, the cupiditas rerum novarum (‘eagerness for upheavals’): fundamental elements in both Sallust’s work and in humanist texts on plots. In the De bello Neapolitano, after the portrait of Orsini, these traits are attributed to the barons whom the Prince of Taranto wants to drive to rebellion. Pontano describes the thoughtless promises by which the leader of the conspiracy urges his accomplices to follow him in the political crime: a recurrent motif in classical and humanist literature on conspiracies (I, III, 3). Additionally, some of these negative features ascribed to the barons and seen as the roots of the conspiracy are also regarded as characteristic of the common people, in a critical standpoint that is similar to Alberti’s negative opinion on the vulgus (I, VI, 3–4):⁴⁰ Ea potissimum tempestate iudicari plane potuit non fidem, non constantiam, non gratitudinem popularium animis inesse ullam, poenitere eos praesentis semper imperii, gaudere novis rebus, futura in expectatione habere . . . Non illos longae pacis ocium, quae etiam eorum, qui in militia educati sunt, relanguescere animos facit, non partae sub Alfonso plurimae divitiae, . . . non belli facies ipsa, quae eo terribilior magisque formidolosa apparet quo longior pax fuit, non denique agrorum securitas, ad quos relictis oppidis commigrarant, aut eorum desiderium, quae relinquenda erant, remorantur. Certatim undique ad rebellandum curritur. [In that situation it was clear that there was no loyalty, no constancy, no gratitude in the people’s heart, they complained about the condition of the kingdom, they were happy about revolutions and had expectations for future changes . . . The serene tranquillity brought about by a long peace, which also softened those who

⁴⁰ See Chapter 2, section 2.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

127

were trained in the army, did not placate their spirits. They did not consider carefully the substantial wealth that they gained under Alfonso and the terrible image of the war, which appears even more dreadful and frightful the longer the preceding peace, the safeness of the fields, where they could retire after abandoning the towns, or their desire for what they could actually lose, none of all this gave them pause for thought. Because of this, they rushed to be the first to rebel.]

The common people are portrayed as inconstant, unfaithful, easily manipulable and eager for subversion, and never grateful for the condition of peace and wealth brought by the government, in this case the Aragonese monarchy. This aspect is mentioned also in Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum (66, 2; 30, 3), and it is redeployed in humanist works on conspiracies as a key factor in the analysis of the historical event. Nevertheless, as in Poliziano’s text, so in the De bello Neapolitano the role played by the common people is considered crucial not only as a fundamental help for conspirators, but, still more, as an essential factor that may be exploited by rulers to defeat the internal enemies and maintain power. The masses are more often seen as loyal supporters of the legitimate government, which succeeds in maintaining his power thanks also to the mutual link with the people, as we shall see. This double perspective in these texts reveals how the model of Sallust is not passively enlisted, but is adapted in accordance with the new historical and cultural scenario of the Renaissance age. In general the source of Sallust is adjusted to the new political implications of fifteenth-century conspiracies and it surfaces also in the definition of the plot as a facinus: ‘facinus indignum et atrox’ (‘an atrocious and ignoble crime’), for example, is how the attack in Teano against the king of Naples is described (I, VIII, 13). The representation of the conspiracy as a nefarious misdeed coincides with a political and moral characterization of the rebellion that perfectly suits the ideological angle that subtends the whole of Pontano’s work, as well as most humanist texts on the same topic. This typical Sallustian word in particular is employed as a moral category used to define political actions.⁴¹ Although Pontano’s work covers a long chronology and numerous episodes, and consequently it may appear more dispersive in giving a precise characterization of the historical events, the description of the conspiracy as an outrageous facinus, as a moral, social, and political crime, continually emerges in the unfolding of the story. However, the influence of Sallust on the De bello Neapolitano is not only thematic or structural, but also stylistic, as Monti Sabia stated, highlighting the adherence of the text to the Sallustian tenets of brevitas and celeritas: principles that are claimed in the Actius as the main stylistic features of an ideal humanist ⁴¹ Poliziano’s incipit, for example, is modelled on Sallust Cat. 4, 3–4, where the conspiracy is defined as facinus.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

128

     

historia.⁴² Moreover, the influence of the classical model goes further and it appears in the employment of specific descriptive motifs and purely literary patterns and topoi.⁴³ An emblematic example is the image of the strong man able to resist hardship, which is associated with Catiline and would become extremely famous in the literary tradition. This motif is displayed by Pontano in the description of the Aragonese condottiero Maso Barrese, a character who is represented as full of contradictions and both positive and negative traits (II, XIII– XIV). In particular he is very virtuous, both physically and spiritually, and able to stand up to hard labour and extremely cold and hot weather: a description that directly recalls the very famous passage in the De coniuratione Catilinae (5, 3–4). Thus, the centrality of the prototype of Sallust affects several components: stylistic, rhetorical, structural, and thematic. As far as the political analysis is concerned, Pontano’s work, as a proper historia, proves to be more oriented towards the political background of the events than other literary works on the topic of conspiracy, such as Poliziano’s and Orazio Romano’s texts (the latter in particular belonging to the epic genre, followed completely different principles). Nevertheless, the political perspective that informs the whole of the De bello Neapolitano is still similar to Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium, as both works do not examine analytically and systematically the political and historical causes of the conspiracy. In this respect they both differ from Sallust’s text, which contains a more extensive and in-depth analysis of the actual historical motivations of the plot (although the classical work is also pervaded by a specific political viewpoint). It is true that Pontano is more careful than Poliziano in considering the historical factors that may have brought about the conspiracy, and consequently is closer to Sallust’s approach; nevertheless, his work still lacks the thorough and mature analysis that, instead, would characterize sixteenth-century historiography. Although the Italian and Neapolitan scenario is partially reconstructed in the introductory digression at the opening of the text, the author’s perspective does not deviate from the Aragonese political views, just as the Medici’s political position is never put aside by Poliziano. This element marks a distance between these humanist works and the model of Sallust, whose political approach is assumed by the fifteenth-century historians without the classical historian’s broader outlook. The ground on which Pontano’s narrative lies is totally moralistic and political and it is for this reason that he does not indulge in giving specific details in the representations of episodes that may be problematic for the monarchy’s politics. If he offers meticulous descriptions of military events, sometimes even mentioning mistakes that Ferdinando might have made, he does not dwell on episodes that

⁴² Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 30. ⁴³ On the stylistic use of classical sources, see also Iacono, ‘Ritratto ed encomio’, pp. 44‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

129

concern the burning issue of the relationship between the king and the barons with the same thorough and straightforward approach. This is because the main ideological thread of the narrative, the issue of conspiracy, unfolds rotating around a precise pro-monarchic political outlook. In some passages this narrative attitude also produces an emphatic dramatization of the events, which is mainly achieved through a realistic and colourful style, and a lively rhythm of syntax and narration. The political nature of Pontano’s historia also accounts for the lack of a more comprehensive and in-depth investigation of the role played by the foreign states in the war. This perspective would have opened up the narration to consider external points of view: in particular the standpoints of the foreign participants in the war—such as Pius II and Francesco Sforza as allies of Naples—and the enemies of Ferdinando, the French invaders. But these elements are irrelevant to the Neapolitan-centred perspective of Pontano’s narration of the war. It has been claimed that the humanist did not pay as much attention to the role played by Ferdinando’s allies as to the deeds of the Neapolitan and Aragonese characters, which are at the forefront. Conversely, in Pio II’s Commentarii and in Giovanni Simonetta’s Rerum gestarum Francisci Sfortiae Commentarii, which contain an account of the same episodes, the perspective turns out to be centred respectively on the pope and the condottiero, whose contribution to the victory appears highlighted.⁴⁴ In addition, the most prominent thematic nuclei in the De bello Neapolitano are the issues of political subversion and the management of monarchic power. Accordingly, the ‘Neapolitan-centred perspective’ is also a result of the ‘conspiracy-focused perspective’. It is no accident that also among the ranks of the enemies of the house of Aragon, Pontano’s attention is drawn almost exclusively to the barons, rather than to the French characters and troops. It is the barons who are the evil protagonists of the narration, they are the main characters in most episodes and descriptions, and, as a result, they represent the actual enemies of the monarchy and the main political forces opposing the just king. This is why the portrait of John of Anjou at the end of the narration is almost totally built around the description of positive qualities (VI, I), while the insurgent noblemen are depicted as totally negative exemplars and are the actual targets of Pontano’s sharp criticism. So, the humanist’s political interest is not very much attracted by the war between different countries, but mainly by the internal conflict within a single state and the dynamic of dissident behaviours.

⁴⁴ Simonetta, Giovanni, Rerum gestarum Francisci Sfortiae Commentarii, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 21, t. 2, edited by Giovanni Soranzo (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1932‒59); Pius II, Commentaries, edited by Margaret Meserve and Marcello Simonetta (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2003‒). For the comparative analysis of the different narrations, with specific focus on Simonetta’s history, see Ianziti, Gary, Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas. Politics and Propaganda in 15th Century Milan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 140‒52. See also Senatore, ‘Pontano e la guerra’, pp. 281‒91.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

130

     

Once again, the prototype of the monographic account of a plot, which is traditionally epitomized by Sallust’s work, turns out to be the source of unity in the text. This element emerges as a factor of textual unity not merely from a structural point of view, as the pivotal element that balances the centrifugal narration of the war, but also from an ideological perspective, since the issue of the conspiracy stands out as the frame that allows Pontano to formulate and convey his political view. So, the De bello Neapolitano, as well as the other works on this topic, proves once more the centrality of the issue of political plot in the historical, political, and cultural scenario of Italian humanism.

3.3 Conspiracy, obedience, and kingship in Pontano’s political theory The conspiracy, the leitmotiv of the De bello Neapolitano, is a concrete historical theme that Pontano placed at the core of a considerable part of his political speculation: a theory that was systematically articulated in his theoretical treatises and, more implicitly, in his historiographical work. Hence with Pontano, who was a first-hand observer of contemporary statecraft and who pragmatically connected his active political role with his ideological theorization, the crucial fifteenthcentury issue of internal rebellions and plots acquires ultimately a pivotal function in the literary elaboration of the theory of princely power. The political perspective that subtends the De bello Neapolitano is deeply intertwined with the well-structured political thought that Pontano constructs in two of his main treatises: the De principe (1465), the first organic humanist work on the perfect prince, as the title clearly shows, and the De obedientia (1470), the first text in the fifteenth-century devoted to elaborating a comprehensive theory of the ideal state and social and political relationships in it.⁴⁵ Thus, these works prove to be totally complementary and coordinated in articulating Pontano’s organicistic and autocratic political conception. In his view, the head of the state is embodied in the monarch, whom the whole social body must spontaneously obey, in an indissoluble relationship between the prince and his subjects, which is the essential condition for the state to thrive. The De bello Neapolitano is perfectly integrated into this all-embracing political ideology.

⁴⁵ The relationship between these three works, especially the historiographical text and the De obedientia, has been pointed out by Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 108‒17; see also Finzi, Claudio, Re, baroni, popolo: La politica di Giovanni Pontano (Rimini: Il Cerchio Iniziative Editoriali, 2004), pp. 39‒94; Cappelli, Guido, ‘La sconfitta di Sarno nel pensiero politico aragonese’, in La battaglia nel Rinascimento meridionale. Moduli narrativi tra parole e immagini, edited by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Joana Barreto, Teresa D’Urso, Alessandra Perriccioli Saggese, and Francesco Senatore (Rome: Viella, 2011), pp. 189‒ 201: 199‒201. On Pontano’s political thought see now Cappelli, Guido, Maiestas: politica e pensiero politico nella Napoli aragonese (1443‒1503) (Rome: Carocci Editore, 2016), pp. 89‒161.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

131

Pontano’s theory is clearly centred on the principles of fides and conformity to the ruler’s authority (as the title itself of the most pivotal treatise, the De obedientia, demonstrates) and it is based on the thorough condemnation of any disobedience and rebellion against the king-pater patriae. The historical work, which deals with this specific issue, provides the actual events to support the humanist’s speculation and becomes a central pillar of it. It is no accident that Pontano composed (or started to compose) these three major works in the same years, immediately after the first conspiracy, trying to contribute through his literary activity to the strengthening of the unstable political condition of the monarchy and the reconstruction of the moral and civic bedrock of the state.⁴⁶ From this political perspective the historiographical account plays a literally classical exemplary role in the making of Pontano’s political theory, by offering both positive and negative exempla and by connecting the theoretical tenets that the humanist illustrates in his treatises with practical facts, problems, and solutions. In particular it is possible to identify four main thematic nuclei in the De bello Neapolitano that convey four complementary political ideas. These thematic nuclei make up the humanist’s political theory and are embodied in specific categories of characters, either evil or virtuous. The first category consists in the rebel barons, who represent the chief negative ‘pole’ in the social body and symbolize any blameworthy defiance towards the king. Then we have the loyal noblemen and the barons who regret their betrayal and come back under the prince’s authority: they play a positive exemplary role as the emblem of a restored social harmony. The third group of characters coincides with the royal protagonists, in particular Ferdinando, the princeps, who stands out as the personification of the highest concept of kingship. Finally, the last component can be found in the common people, who are another essential pole in the political system and are often pictured in the narration in order to convey the image of the mutual relationship between the monarch and his subjects.⁴⁷ The following sections in this chapter are devoted to the illustration of these interlaced social constituents, their role in the state, and their function as thematic and ideological cores in Pontano’s historical narrative: a function that contributes towards building the humanist’s overall political theorization.

⁴⁶ Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, p. XXVIII; Cappelli, ‘La sconfitta’, p. 199: here the scholar (unlike Ferraù, Il tessitore, p. 110) recognizes a decisive affirmation of the principles of a centralized monarchy in Pontano’s texts, in particular in the De obedientia. On the De obedientia, see Cappelli, Guido ‘Prolegomeni al De obedientia di Pontano. Saggio interpretativo’, Rinascimento meridionale 1 (2010), pp. 47‒70; Cappelli, Guido, ‘Il castigo del Re. Bartolo, Pontano e il problema della disubbidienza’, Studi Umanistici Piceni 34 (2014), pp. 91‒104; Guido Cappelli, Maiestas, pp. 89‒161. ⁴⁷ These central characters in both the historiographical work and the actual social body of the kingdom appear correlated in the title of the book, already mentioned, Finzi, Re, Baroni, popolo, which, nevertheless, does not pay enough attention to the De bello Neapolitano and to the function of these protagonists in the historical narration and in the political system.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

132

     

3.4 The barons and the crime of disobedience At the heart of the De bello Neapolitano’s political perspective lies the representation of the rebel barons and their criminal deeds. We have already seen the emblematic depiction of the leader of the plotters, Giovanni Antonio Orsini, whose main portrait is significantly introduced through Ferdinando’s thoughts, who is represented as being aware of the noblemen’s immoral and corrupt attitude (I, III, 1). This narrative strategy implicitly displays the tension between two opposing extremes, the barons and the monarchy, making immediately clear where the right and the wrong belong, and emphasizing the clever perspicacity of the king in detecting all possible threats that his enemy could mount against him. It is through the same angle that the unsteady condition of the kingdom at the beginning of Ferdinando’s reign is described. This intricate situation is illustrated by representing Ferdinando’s full awareness of the barons’ (‘reguli’) subversive plans, of their fictitious loyalty and dissembled hatred, of the discordiae deeply rooted in the realm, and the avarice, greed, and inconstancy of men (I, V, 2). Another passage where the condemnation of the barons ends up in the implicit affirmation of the king’s standpoint can be seen in the allusion to the rumours concerning Ferrante’s illegitimate birth⁴⁸ and his unlawful right to govern. These allegations, which appear as one of the causes that drive the rebels, are mainly ascribed to some of the most ungrateful, wicked, and perfidious barons (as well as some Spanish officials who supported Ferdinando’s uncle, Giovanni, in the succession): Giovanni Torella, Pietro Mandragone, and Giovanni Fosciano, who had received fiefdoms and estates from the monarchy, but, notwithstanding, betrayed it (II, X, 1‒2). So, it is the evil barons who are the sources of these unfounded accusations, which, through the narrative articulation conceived by Pontano, turn out to be totally untrue. Hence, the subversive noblemen and the king appear as the contrasting, respectively negative and positive, poles in the political conflict. A similar approach is adopted in describing the demands put forward to Ferrante by the barons Antonio Centelles and Giosia Acquaviva⁴⁹ (through the mediation of Giovanni Antonio Orsini), who wanted back the territories that Alfonso had confiscated from them because of their previous insubordination (I, III, 4). Once again, Ferrante is depicted as honest and generous in his decision to accede to these claims, in contrast with the seditious and ungrateful barons. Even when Pontano shows impartiality in describing the favourable position of some cities towards the Angevin pretender to the throne, a view brought about by the oppressive domination of the Aragon rulers, nevertheless, he presents these ⁴⁸ There were many rumours concerning Ferdinando’s mother, Gueraldona Carlino: Monti Sabia, Pontano, II, X, 1. See Ryder, Alan, ‘Ferdinando I d’Aragona’, DBI 46 (1996), pp. 174‒89. ⁴⁹ On these barons, see the notes to the text in Monti Sabia, Pontano, p. 163.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

133

opinions as rumours, as words uttered by unspecified anti-Aragon opponents, and therefore, implicitly, devoid of any objective basis. All these remarks are introduced by the anaphora of the perfect infinitive ‘venisse’, which is dependent on an introductory statement that is couched so as to convey the idea of rumours (I, VII, 1): Fama interim Ioannis per regnum divagata multos . . . ad rebellandum invitat: venisse virum florentem annis . . . contra alii Ispanae gentis impotentis animos, insatiabilem avaritiam, crudelem cum damnarent dominationem; venisse tandem . . . qui ab insolentissimo Catalanorum dominatu tot annis oppressos populos . . . liberaret . . . [Meanwhile there were rumours about John of Anjou spreading throughout the kingdom and this urged people to rebellion: it was said that a man in his flourishing age was coming against the forces of the other tyrannical Spanish people, since their impotent rage, insatiable avarice, and cruel domination was condemned; it was said that finally a man was coming to liberate the people who had been oppressed for so many years by the Catalans’ extremely despotic power . . . ]

It is significant that also in other works on conspiracies the authors often adduce the motivations that drive conspirators, which correspond to a denunciation of the current rulers’ misconducts; nonetheless, these critical opinions are usually put in the mouth of the conspirators. Frequently they are expressed in their speeches (following the model of Catiline’s oration in Sallust’s work), or, as in Pontano’s text, they are presented as generic ‘gossip’, which has arisen among the Angevins’ supporters. Hence, these beliefs are depicted as directly coming from the plotters’ minds and in neither case can they be considered as being shared by the author, or as corresponding to sympathy with the rebels.⁵⁰ Besides the leader of the conspiracy, Orsini, another chief evil character is Marino Marzano, who is described in even darker shades. He is represented as devoid of any virtues and his nobility is based only on his lineage, not on his nature (I, IV, 1 ‘Marinum Martianum Principem Rosanensem, cuius praeter genus vix erat quod bonus aliquis laudare in eo posset’; ‘Marino Marzano, prince of Rosarno, apart from whose lineage there was hardly anything that anyone good could praise in him’). Pontano goes further and claims that Marzano was considered blameworthy even by his father and was disrespectful of any religious or human law (I, VI, 5). The rebel also urged other barons to rise up against the monarchy and he was the planner of the ambush against Ferdinando in Teano, the attack that was seen as the most dangerous attempt to murder the king and

⁵⁰ Pontano’s condemnation of the rebel barons is acknowledge also by Cappelli, ‘Il castigo del Re’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

134

     

jeopardize the government. Thus, Marzano’s profile is comprehensively conveyed and corresponds to that of an actual anti-hero. He is also the emblem of the inveterate traitor, since, even though Ferdinando reached a peace agreement with him in 1463, he ended up again plotting against him and consequently was finally punished without mercy (V, III; V, VII): a recidivism that, for example, is ascribed also to Porcari in Alberti’s account and becomes an aggravating factor.⁵¹ The descriptions of the barons’ characters and deeds, often associated with the opposing ideal image of the king, dovetail with the theorization of the perfect political system, and its nastiest aberrations, which Pontano formulated in his treatise De obedientia. Here the whole centralized and organic architecture of power is grounded on the principle of fides that the subjects, and especially the barons, must give to the monarch. Therefore, as Guido Cappelli has illustrated, this idea of fidelitas represents a natural and rational act of obedience that must derive from spontaneous consensus and is deprived of medieval and feudal implications, but becomes a vital political tenet on which the state is built.⁵² As the political horizon of the De bello Neapolitano shows, the government of one single ruler is the only guarantee of peace and prosperity, in accordance with classical monarchical principles. Moreover, the princeps is regarded as the head of the social body and a pater patriae, exploiting the two major metaphors of the organicistic political ideology that associates the state with either an actual body or a family.⁵³ But Pontano goes even beyond this view and ends up totally identifying the king with the patria and the state. Thus, the medieval dilemma about the preeminence of either the rex or the lex is solved in the De obedientia by establishing a complete identification of the two terms, so that the king is the state.⁵⁴

⁵¹ On Alberti’s work, see Chapter 2. ⁵² According to Cappelli, this idea would evolve into the principle on which the modern absolutist state would be founded: Cappelli, Guido, ‘Lo stato umanistico. Genesi dello stato moderno nella cultura italiana del XV secolo’, in La determinación de la humanitas del hombre en la Crítica del Juicio y en el humanismo clásico, edited by Guillermo Villaverde López and Sara Barquinero del Toro (Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores S. L., 2018), pp. 35‒70, 36–8; Cappelli, Maiestas, pp. 139‒45. More generally on the issue of the foundation of modern states, see Gamberini, Andrea, and Lazzarini, Isabella, The Italian Renaissance State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Chittolini, Giorgio, Molho, Anthony, and Schiera, Pierangelo, eds., Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994). ⁵³ For the traditional employment of the metaphor of the body in political thought, see Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), in particular chapter V; on body politics in the Renaissance, see Cappelli, Guido, ‘Corpus est res publica. La struttura della comunità secondo l’umanesimo politico’, in Principi prima del Principe, edited by Lorenzo Geri [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 117‒131; Cappelli, ‘Lo stato umanistico’; Najemy, John M., ‘The Republic’s Two Bodies: Body Metaphors in Italian Renaissance Political Thought’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, edited by Alison Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 237‒62; see also Briguglia, Gianluca, Il corpo vivente dello Stato. Una metafora politica (Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2006). ⁵⁴ See Cappelli, Maiestas, p. 158, 160; Quaglioni, Diego, ‘I limiti del principe legibus solutus nel pensiero giuridico-politico della prima Età moderna’, in Giustizia, potere e corpo sociale nella prima età

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

135

This is precisely the political system that is mirrored and promoted by the historical picture provided by the De bello Neapolitano. In light of this ideological construction, any rebellion, or any disobedience and departure from monarchic authority, is seen as an action contravening not only the princely law, but also natural law, and accordingly is subject to resolute condemnation. As stated in the De obedientia, high treason, the ‘perduellionis crimina’,⁵⁵ is the most grievous and outrageous crime. Pontano’s disapproval of the rebel barons is firm in both the historical account and the political treatise, where he also mentions the official juridical sentences handed down to the guilty noblemen: Sed in omni perfidiae atque inobedientiae genere plurimum barones peccant, dum aut cum regis fortuna communicare sua nolunt aut ampliandorum finium gratia novis student rebus sua parum sorte contenti; ac de hac fidei atque obedientiae parte satis hic dictum sit, plura apud iurisconsultos qui suas de iis tulere sententias.⁵⁶ [In every kind of disloyalty and disobedience the barons are the most blameworthy, since they either do not want to share their fortune with that of the king, or, because they are unhappy with their condition, they plot subversive plans in order to expand their territories; and that is enough to be said on this aspect of loyalty and obedience; further information can be found in the verdicts that have been promulgated by the judges on these issues.]

In view of these ideas, whoever is culpable of such execrable crimes must be considered ‘humanae societatis hostis ac naturae ipsi rebellans’ (f. 64r; ‘an enemy of human society and rebel against nature itself ’) and must be punished. This point is made also to justify the king’s reactions to the conspiracy and to legitimize both his rule and the measures he took against the traitors. Significantly, the very same approach emerges in an important letter that Ferrante, and Pontano on behalf of him, wrote to his daughter Eleonora d’Aragona, duchess of Ferrara, on 6 July 1487, with reference to the ‘second’ conspiracy of the barons (1485–6), when, after signing a peace agreement, some barons kept plotting against the king.⁵⁷ This moderna: argomenti nella letteratura giuridico-politica, edited by Angela De Benedictis and Ivo Mattozzi (Bologna: CLUEB, 1994), pp. 55‒71. ⁵⁵ On this issue see also Finzi, Re, baroni, popolo, p. 70, where the source is given as Dig. 48, 4, 11. ⁵⁶ The passages of the De obedientia are always quoted from Ioannis Ioviani Pontani ad Robertum Sanseverinium principem salernitanum in libros obedientiae prohemium incipit feliciter (Neapoli: Per Mathiam Moravum, 25 October 1490) (f. 67r). Punctuation and capitalization have been modernized. ⁵⁷ The letter was written by Pontano, as the signature reveals, since the king’s name is followed by the humanist’s name: ‘Iohannes Pontanus, secretarius’. The letter is published in Corrispondenza di Giovanni Pontano segretario dei dinasti di aragonesi di Napoli (2 novembre 1474‒20 gennaio 1495), edited by Bruno Figliuolo (Battipaglia: Laveglia e Carlone, 2012), pp. 383‒5. This is the rebellion that is defined by modern historiography as the actual ‘conspiracy of the barons’, while the insubordinations of the noblemen that took place between 1459 and 1465 are regarded as part of the ‘war of succession’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

136

     

drove Ferdinando to proceed neither with pity, nor with respect for the previous accord, jailing the traitors and confiscating their territories. Although this letter was written more than twenty years after the war of succession and the first major rebellion of the noblemen, we know that Pontano kept revising the De bello Neapolitano throughout his life and the new political plot certainly demonstrated to him that the issue of seditions and conspiracies was still very topical and was more and more relevant for the maintenance of Aragonese power.⁵⁸ This relevance emerges both in Pontano’s political theorizing and, most of all, in his historical work. In the letter, as well as in the De bello Neapolitano and De obedientia, the insubordinate noblemen are presented as the only ones who bear the blame for the war and the atrocities caused by the uprising; while the king has always shown generosity and has repeatedly attempted to reconcile with them. In light of this, Ferdinando’s ruthless reaction is seen as the extrema ratio. In the letter Pontano also employs medical metaphors⁵⁹ to describe the measures taken against the barons, a treatment that was initially lenient, but became more severe as a consequence of the barons’ obduracy: De po’ le turbatione del’ anno passato, essendo sequita la pace, lo nostro intento non è stato ad altro che pacare li animi di ciascuno, et maxime de quilli che più ne haveano offiso, usando tutte manere et tractamenti apti et convenienti ad quisto effecto. Et per benché con li mezi dele forteze cercassemo de assecurarene . . . et reposato vivere de ipsi baroni, . . . ad fine de quietare et assecurare li animi loro, non havemo facti altri deportamenti, che da patre ad figlioli. . . . Li havemo sempre confortati ad stantiare in Napoli appresso de nui, accarizandoli et honorandoli continuamente più presto como figlioli che como subditi. . . . Pur sempre havemo cercato con bone et piacevole manere de destraherle . . . havendo questo disegno avanti li occhi: che col tempo et con piacevoli modi non solo le piaghe serriano sanate, ma etiam extricate le cicatrice de quelle, et con el bene vincere omne mala dispositione che in l’animo de alcuno fosse restata. Et però tanto ne è più grave et più intimamente me dole che siamo stati frustrati de questo nostro fine, et che per le loro perverse nature et inveterati defecti siamo stati necessitati ad mutare designi, et non bastandoce grati et piacevoli cibi, siamo constrecti ad usare medecine et remedii de admalati, anco de infirmitate desperate et incurabile.⁶⁰

⁵⁸ Pontano did not significantly change his work in light of the events of the second conspiracy of the barons, although many crucial episodes could have influenced his political view and his work, such as the later defection of Ferdinando’s ally Roberto Sanseverino, on which see section 3.5. ⁵⁹ The use of medical metaphors is acknowledged by Scarton, Elisabetta, ‘La congiura dei baroni del 1485‒87 e la sorte dei ribelli’, in Poteri, relazioni, guerra nel Regno di Ferrante d’Aragona, edited by Francesco Senatore and Francesco Storti (Naples: ClioPress, 2011), pp. 213‒90: 261. ⁶⁰ Corrispondenza di Giovanni Pontano, p. 383 (my emphasis).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

137

[After the upheaval of the last year, since the peace was achieved, our aim was solely to appease everyone’s spirit and in particular of those who offended us the most, using all means and treatments which were appropriate and suitable for this goal. And since we tried to guarantee the barons’ quiet life with all our strengths, . . . to appease and protect their spirits, we have behaved just like a father with his sons . . . . We have always encouraged them to stay in Naples as our guests, and we have always cherished and honoured them continuously as sons more than subjects . . . . Moreover, we always tried to distract them with good and kind manners . . . having this plan before our eyes, that with pleasing ways and the passing of time, we aimed not just at healing wounds, but also at eliminating their scars, and with goodness we aimed at overcoming every bad disposition which might have been in anyone’s mind. But it is a serious problem and it grieves us all the more intimately that our hopes of achieving this goal have been frustrated and, because of their evil nature and inveterate faults, we had to change our plans; and since pleasing and good nourishment was not enough, we have been forced to use medicines and remedies for sick people, and for a desperate and incurable infirmity.]

What is most remarkable is that the relationship between the king and the noblemen is explicitly described as the mutual relation that links the father with his sons, on the basis of the very same organic political view that implicitly informs the De bello Neapolitano and that is openly stated in the De obedientia.⁶¹ In particular in the chapter on the principles of political obedience, An homo cum liber natus sit parere debeat (‘Whether a man who was born free must obey’), Pontano explains that kings are called ‘fathers’, a common phrase in a customary simile, and that any subject, similar to a son who lives under the ‘patria potestate’, could never be regarded as a slave.⁶² So, the rebel barons, who are supposed to be loyal to their prince as to a father, are guilty of such a dangerous crime that in the letter they are accused of jeopardizing not only the Neapolitan kingdom, but all Italian states; hence, since the king-pater is guided by the defence of his people, he has to punish them: . . . machinavano contra de noi et nostro stato nove practiche; et . . . havendo possuto consequire loro perverso designo, noi et nostro stato haveriano posto in confusione. Et non solo noi, ma serriano stati causa ponere Italia in fuoco . . . De che, vedendo poco valerce el bono, et che la detectione de una machinatione era principio et causa de l’altra, . . . per non mancare al bisogno del publico bene,

⁶¹ This idea appears also in Pontano, De principe, § 50, p. 60: ‘Praesens eum te erga cives geres ut necessitatibus suis paterfamilias’ (‘Behave towards your citizens in such a way as they regard your presence like that of a head of a family . . . ’; my translation). ⁶² Ioannis Ioviani Pontani . . . libros obedientiae . . . , ff. 59v‒60r.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

138

     

al che principalmente siamo tenuti, la necessità medesima et la cura del regno et de’ nostri subditi, ala quale la divina bontà ne ha preposti, ne ha inducti ala detentione deli predicti . . . ⁶³ [ . . . they plotted new conspiracies against us and our state; and . . . if they had been able to achieve their wicked plan, both we and our state would have been brought to a condition of turmoil. And this would have been dangerous not just for us, but would have set ablaze the whole of Italy . . . Consequently, since we had seen that it was not productive to behave in a good manner, and that the detection of one plot coincided with the beginning of another . . . in order to pursue the common good, which is our main duty, we have been forced to incarcerate them, because of the necessity caused by this situation and with the aim of protecting our kingdom and subjects, an aim for which divine goodness appointed us.]

The king’s actions are totally justified in view of this political scenario and his duty of preserving the ‘publico bene’: the major concern and responsibility of the head of state. Furthermore, in Pontano’s works the princeps acquires traits of an incontestable authority, to the extent that in the De principe (§ 57) his verdicts are regarded as more legitimate and fair than law itself, in a view that fosters a highly personalistic idea of power.⁶⁴ As stated in the De obedientia and in the official letter and recalled in many passages in the De bello Neapolitano, it is only by virtue of the king’s liberalitas that the noblemen are given territories to run: for example, this is what the king did with Antonio Centelles and Giosia Acquaviva— I, III, 4—and many others mentioned in the historical text. Conversely, the barons’ obligations towards the monarch are irrevocable and precisely fixed and can be encapsulated in the principle of total obedience to his orders, to the extent of even sacrificing their own life, as Pontano explicitly claimed in the De obedientia: Subiectorum duo sunt genera; quorum unum qui simpliciter dicuntur subiecti; illorum alterum qui regum liberalitate ac virtutis gratia tum agros possident tum oppida urbesque sui iuris habent, pro quibus annua pendere tributa debeant et ad militiam cogantur, quorum e numero sunt quos hodie tum barones dicimus tum comites aut duces. . . . Horum omnium una est regula: fidem ut teneant ac pace belloque imperata faciant. Quo tempore et adversa constanter ferenda sunt et vita

⁶³ Corrispondenza di Giovanni Pontano, p. 384. ⁶⁴ Pontano, De principe: § 57, ‘In hos severum, in illos facilem, pro causis, ingeniis, temporibus locisque te exhibebis, sciens summum ius summam interdum iniuriam esse; non raro etiam magis ex aequo et bono quam iure agendum . . . ’ (‘Depending on the causes, nature of men, and places, you will show yourself as strict with someone and more accommodating with someone else, knowing that sometimes the highest law corresponds to the highest injustice; moreover, not rarely, you need to act following the idea of good and justice rather than law . . . ’; my translation): cf. Cicero, De off. I, 133; Terentius, Heaut. 796.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

139

ipsa saepius obiectanda est periculis; nam et tempora contingunt quibus fides a popularibus suae liberorumque vitae sit anteponenda nec veterum tantum, sed et nostra memoria florentissimae quoque urbes, dum servare illam volunt et in officio permanere, aliae direptae sunt, aliae incensae, quaedam etiam funditus excisae. Quae res notior est quam ut exemplis indigeat.⁶⁵ [Subjects are divided into two categories: those who are simply called subjects and those who, thanks to the liberality of the kings and their virtues, own lands or have fortresses and independent cities. In return for this, they have to pay an annual tax and perform military service; among these, there are those who today we call barons, counts or dukes. . . . The rule for all of them is just one: they have to respect the obligation of loyalty and do what they are ordered both in peace and war. There is a time when one has to bear adversity and risk one’s own life facing dangers. There are also times when the people have to put loyalty before their life and their children’s lives; and not only in the past, but also in our age, even among the most flourishing cities, some maintained their loyalty and remained faithful to their duty and for this reason some were destroyed by enemies, some were set on fire, and some were burnt down. This is very well known so no example is needed.]

As in the De bello Neapolitano, the obligation of loyalty that links the noblemen to the king is justified by the liberality of the monarch, who is placed at the top of the hierarchical system of the state and appears as endowed with an almost unlimited power in virtue of his superior status. Moreover, besides the more theoretical definition of the perfect monarchical state provided in the De obedientia, both in the diplomatic letter and in the historical account, the defence of the monarch’s actual behaviour in the concrete historical circumstances is articulated in opposition to the description of the blameworthy conduct of the rebel noblemen. This angle of representation portrays the treacherous noblemen as the negative pole of society, in contrast with the opposite positive counterpart represented by the monarchical power.

3.5 The loyal noblemen and the repentant traitors Besides the condemnation of the state’s internal enemies, the construction of Pontano’s political theory is nurtured not only by the negative exempla of the most outrageous crimes against the monarchy but also by the exemplary image of positive and upright conduct. This latter function is mainly fulfilled by the ⁶⁵ Ioannis Ioviani Pontani . . . libros obedientiae . . . , ff. 66v‒67r. On this passage, see also Cappelli, Guido, ‘La realtà fatta dottrina. Sarno e dintorni nel pensiero politico aragonese’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 116 (2014), pp. 193‒216, 213.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

140

     

category of the loyal barons and, still more relevantly, by the noblemen and military leaders who, after siding against the king, change their mind and turn into devoted supporters of political authority. It is noteworthy that the most significant example employed to explain the tenet of fidelity in the De obedientia is drawn directly from the actual historical events of the conspiracy, revealing again the close link between the theoretical treatise and the historical work. Pontano mentions the cities that during the war did not defect to the enemy, but, despite the difficult situation, remained loyal to Ferrante: Bello Neapolitano quod Ioannes Andegaviensis contra Ferdinandum gessit aliquot oppida, quanquam longa obsidione ac fame coacta, non prius ab hoste conditionem acceperunt quam capiendae illius ius potestasque a Ferdinando facta esset, fidelitatis iure hoc modo exoluto.⁶⁶ [During the Neapolitan war waged by John of Anjou against Ferrante, some cities, although besieged by a long siege and famine, did not accept the conditions imposed by the enemies until Ferrante gave them the permission to do so, freeing them from the juridical obligation of loyalty.]

In the De bello Neapolitano, in addition to the barons and cities faithful to Ferdinando, the most remarkable exemplum of the relationship that must connect the princeps and the political community is provided by the men who become obedient to the monarchy after having opposed it. This exemplary element emerges in the emblematic and extremely detailed description of the oath of allegiance that captain Orso Orsini, who had fought on the side of the French and the seditious barons, swore to Ferdinando, in an official and highly formalized ceremony (II, VII).⁶⁷ Orso Orsini was a condottiero at the service of the leader of the rebels, Giovanni Antonio Orsini, but in December 1461 he decided to take the Aragonese side and on 1 January 1462 the new alliance between the king and the captain was ratified by a formal celebration. In this rite the king bestowed on him the status of nobleman, naming him count of Nola and other territories (with the promise of appointing him duke of Ascoli Satriano, a title that was given in 1464)⁶⁸ and, in turn, the ruler received from Orsini the formal promise of total and everlasting loyalty. But what is most striking is that the historical account illustrates meticulously the procedure that ratified the oath, describing the gestures

⁶⁶ Ioannis Ioviani Pontani . . . libros obedientiae . . . , f. 67r. ⁶⁷ On Orso Orsini, see Vitale, Giuliana, ‘Rituali di sottomissione nel Mezzogiorno aragonese: l’omaggio ligio di Orso Orsini’, Rassegna storica salernitana 53 (2010), pp. 11‒22; Senatore, Francesco, ‘Nella corte e nella vita di Orso Orsini conte di Nola e duca d’Ascoli’, in Ingenita curiositas: Studi sull’Italia medievale per Giovanni Vitolo, vol. 3, edited by Bruno Figliuolo, Rosalba Di Meglio, and Antonella Ambrosio (Battipaglia: Laveglia e Carlone, 2018), pp. 1459‒84. ⁶⁸ Senatore, ‘Nella corte’, p. 1459.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

141

made as a traditional ritual and quoting the exact words on which the bond was founded (II, VII, 5): Ursus ego Ursinus . . . tibi Ferdinando Regi liberisque successoribusque in regno Neapolitano tuis polliceor, promitto, spondeo pro liberis successoribusque item in hisce urbibus, oppidis, agris ac finibus meis fideles meque illosque utique futuros, tuisque illorumque imperiis ubique meque illosque parituros atque imperata facturos cum hisce urbibus, oppidis, agris, finibus popularibusque perpetua cum constantia et fide. Siquid vero adversus teve illosve parari fraudis dolive insidiarumve audiero, sciero, compertumve significatumve habuero, indicaturum illud e vestigio ac facturum palam tibique illisque, officia demum obiturum meque illosque omnia domi forisque pace belloque adversum quoscunque ac pro imperio quae probi et fidelis subiecti iure, lege, natura obeunda ac praestanda sunt Regi. [I, Orso Orsini . . . promise, swear, give pledge to you, king Ferdinando, and to your sons and successors in the Neapolitan kingdom, on behalf of our sons and successors in these cities, fortresses, fields and my territories, that both they and I will be loyal to your authorities and domains, and everywhere I with them will obey you and carry out your commands in these cities, fortresses, fields, territories and people, with eternal constance and loyalty. If I hear, find out, have an indication, or know about someone planning betrayals and criminal actions against you or them, I will reveal this to you and them immediately, and I will do it openly and I and my sons will certainly carry out our duties to you and them, inside and outside our fatherland, in peace and in war, against anyone and respecting your authority we will carry out all the duties that are owed to a king according to the oath taken by a good, loyal subject, and according to law and nature.]

Pontano also carefully describes the single phases of the ceremony. At the end of it, Orso Orsini, who is on his knees in front of the king, after repeating three times a formula which includes the significant words ‘Ego me . . . Ligium hominem statuo’ (‘I declare myself a loyal man’), receives a kiss on his forehead from the monarch, who puts his hands around the nobleman’s hands. These gestures represent both the verticality of the relationship between the two elements of society, its head and the subject who is elected as a beneficiary, and the bond that ties them. But, despite this long-established rite, this emphasis on fides (a recurrent semantic field in this passage, as the terminology shows) is no longer rooted in medieval feudal tenets, but, as the De obedientia reveals, it is totally political and becomes the pivot of the modern centralized state. The oath described in the De bello Neapolitano corresponds precisely to the tenets formulated in the De obedientia and it governs the conduct of the barons, who must help the king in every contingency, in both peace and war, and against every enemy, displaying a

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

142

     

perpetua fides. But this obligation goes even further and it also includes the moral and juridical duty of denouncing traitors, even if they are members of the baron’s family. The exemplary significance of the section in the De bello Neapolitiano about Orso Orsini’s oath is stressed by the remark with which Pontano closes the episode: he tells us that after the official celebration the baron was always loyal to Ferrante and ready to help him, behaving in all circumstances with virtue, prudence, and wisdom (II, VII, 8). Therefore, in view of the whole description and the closing observations, the nobleman turns into a positive exemplum of just and fruitful behaviour that all honest subjects must follow. More generally, the importance of Orso Orsini’s turnaround and his new alliance with the Aragonese king was largely acknowledged in the contemporary political environment. Indeed, Orsini’s commitment to Ferdinando’s cause was regarded as capable of bringing more peaceful political conditions to the whole area controlled by the count of Nola and of working as an exemplary model for other leaders. Another meaningful case, this time of regained loyalty, is offered by Roberto Sanseverino, who was nominated prince of Salerno in 1463 and whose personal history is surrounded by crucial political implications. He is presented in the De bello Neapolitano as one of the most devoted and helpful allies of Ferdinando and he is the subject of a portrait that is one of the most eulogistic celebrations in the text (I, XII). However, the humanist could not avoid recounting the temporary defection of the noblemen, who, after the military defeat in Sarno, for some months (from July to December 1462) sided with the barons and then returned to the king’s party. This was such a problematic issue for Ferdinando, who had to publicly justify the double turnaround of one of his major allies, that the chancery and the king himself were committed to inventing a juridical excuse that would explain Sanseverino’s behaviour. They fabricated a fake licenza, along with official and diplomatic letters, that stated that the only occasion when a nobleman was allowed to be disloyal to his prince was the extreme situation in which the prince himself could not guarantee him protection and so, in this specific case, the baron was ‘obliged’ by ‘force majeure’ to defect.⁶⁹ This event demonstrates how the insight that public opinion could gain regarding the relationship between the monarchy and the barons was a crucial issue and a priority not only for the king and his officials, but also for Aragonese cultural politics. It is no accident that Pontano’s narration of this episode in the De bello Neapolitano perfectly matches the version of the event fabricated and spread by Ferdinando. If the humanist avoided mentioning the licenza, which had been soon recognized as an inapplicable stratagem by jurists, he insisted on presenting Sanseverino as ‘forced’ by the circumstances of the war to defect to the enemies, saying that ‘coactus est Robertus ⁶⁹ Senatore, Francesco, ‘Il principato di Salerno durante la Guerra dei baroni (1460‒1463). Dai carteggi diplomatici al De bello Neapolitano’, Rassegna storica salernitana 11, 2 (1994), pp. 29‒114: 49–59; Cappelli, ‘La realtà fatta dottrina’, p. 213.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

143

desperatis pene rebus suis consulere’ (I, XI, 2, ‘since the situation was desperate, Roberto was forced to try to save himself and his domain’). In fact, Sanseverino emerges in the text as one of the most positive exemplars, who embodies physical, human, and intellectual virtues, and represents the ideal faithful relationship that must unify the barons and the king. This emblematic role also accounts for the dedication to Sanseverino of the De obedientia, the humanist’s final theory of the social roles in the perfect state. Significantly, the treatise contains a brief description of the extreme conditions in which the barons’ loyalty can be disregarded, though with a stricter approach compared to the historical work: Multi tamen in dubiis atque asperis rebus ad hostem dum declinant necessitatem causantur quae saepissime voluntas est. Hos quis dubitat defectionis culpam debere luere? Sed excusanda necessitas est dum talis fuerit cui alia obsisti ratione nequeat.⁷⁰ [However, many people in conditions of uncertainty and adversity, while they turn to the enemies, claim that they do so for necessity, but this depends very often only on their will. Who could ever doubt that they should be punished for their rebellion? But the condition of necessity can be excused, as long as it such, namely a condition which he cannot resist on any other grounds.]

Nevertheless, in 1485 Sanseverino would turn into a traitor in the new conspiracy and this further rebellion would show how difficult it could be to apply the humanist’s political ideas to concrete society. But Pontano did not modify the overall perspective of his historical work, which remained essentially unchanged, also because it would not have been possible for him to insert so many amendments that it would have resulted in a complete alteration of his text. However, the symbolic and exemplary function played by the protagonists and the events in the historia, and more in general by the historia itself, proves to be a cornerstone in Pontano’s political theory and in his concrete and systematic operation of supporting the monarchy.

3.6 The princeps and his people In Pontano’s view, as we have seen, the king is the vertex of the state and he ultimately coincides with the patria itself. If the De principe is dedicated to the young successor to the throne, Ferdinando’s son Alfonso, displaying traditional edifying and didactic intents, it is the actual King Ferrante and more often his father Alfonso the Magnanimous who occur in most treatises as the

⁷⁰ Ioannis Ioviani Pontani . . . libros obedientiae . . . , f. 66v.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

144

     

personification of princely traits and kingship (and, more generally, Alfonso I was extensively celebrated in the Neapolitan cultural politics during his rule, becoming an iconic symbol of political virtue widely used also in the following years).⁷¹ Moreover, Ferdinando is of course the undisputed protagonist of the De bello Neapolitano, as the king who had to tackle the conspiracy and fight the war of succession. Therefore, his historical profile turns out to be the personification of both the ideal and the actual image of the princeps, offering the concrete substratum beneath Pontano’s theoretical elaboration. Due to the specific prerogatives of the different literary genres, it is the theoretical treatises that are characterized by the main prescriptive (and at the same time openly eulogistic) elements and provide the fully rounded description of the perfect prince, with the detailed illustration and discussion of his virtues.⁷² On the other hand, in the historical account the ideal profile of the monarch, Ferrante, is never systematically depicted, but it is implicitly and continuously outlined by the narration of his deeds, the quotation of his speeches, and the reference to his thoughts.⁷³ An analogous difference between different literary genres had already been established by Bartolomeo Facio in his epistolary correspondence with Francesco Barbaro in 1451.⁷⁴ Facio, despite being committed to writing a highly propagandistic history of the Aragonese monarchy, set a precise and programmatic distinction between the literary forms of the laudatio, that is, the panegyric, the res gestae, that correspond to history, and the vita that coincides with biography. Consequently he excluded from the historia mere eulogy, since it was considered too naive and was regarded as distinctive of panegyrics. Accordingly, historical writing was conceived as a pure narration of events, although political and militant in its nature. This is the theoretical and rhetorical horizon in which Pontano’s work can also be placed. Thus, if history penetrates speculative political literature, by concretely providing exempla for treatises, theoretical and ideological elements nevertheless remain out of the historical account. Here it is the historiographical narration that allows the political perspective and ideology to emerge in the whole work. This is probably the reason why the De bello Neapolitano does not include a fully rounded portrait of Ferdinando, though many other characters receive one. Although this surprising ⁷¹ On the celebration of Alfonso and the legitimization of his rule through literary and artistic channels see Delle Donne, Fulvio, Alfonso il Magnanimo e l’invenzione dell’Umanesimo monarchico. Ideologia e strategie di legittimazione alla corte aragonese di Napoli (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2015); on the literary fashioning of the image of Ferdinando, also by emphasizing the connection with his father, see Iacono, ‘Ritratto ed encomio’. On Ferdinando and the ideology under his rule, see also Storti, Francesco, El buen marinero: psicologia politica e ideologia monarchica al tempo di Ferdinando I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Rome: Viella, 2014). ⁷² On this aspect see also Cappelli, ‘La realtà fatta dottrina’, p. 215. ⁷³ Iacono, ‘Ritratto ed encomio’, p. 44. ⁷⁴ Miglio, Massimo, ‘Biografie e raccolte biografiche nel Quattrocento italiano’, Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna. Classe di scienze morali 63 (1974‒1975), pp. 166‒99: 170‒3; Albanese, Studi, pp. 52‒79.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

145

omission might be reasonably explained with the supposition that Pontano wanted to avoid a flattering celebration of the king, this does not mean that the humanist did not aim to provide an overall eulogistic image of his prince. Conversely, this image rested on the political theory that is constantly evoked in the text by the narration of the actual historical events. It is also worth considering Pontano’s final changes to his text that affect Ferdinando’s profile. They consist in the description of Ferrante’s dissembling and simulating attitude, which is seen as a negative quality by the rebel barons (I, II, 7), and in the closing critical remarks on Ferdinando’s overall government, which depict him in his last peaceful years of government as not as virtuous and capable of ruling as in the early years (VI, V, 1). As Monti Sabia and Ferraù stated, these sharp observations do not cancel out the eulogistic image of the princeps in the whole work, but they evoke a profile that overlaps with the figure of the young, audacious, and bright king, who is portrayed as able to manage the extremely difficult situation of the rebellion.⁷⁵ This image ends up standing alongside the new final picture of a less virtuous ruler, who, according also to Pontano’s few remarks in his very last treatise, the De immanitate, is sometimes inclined to an inconsiderate use of violence.⁷⁶ However, it has to be taken into account that the comments on Ferrante’s tendency to feign and simulate are presented as the rebel barons’ opinion and we have already seen that this narrative strategy in texts on conspiracies usually cannot be interpreted as proof of the author’s personal view. Additionally, it is significant that in a considerable number of passages in the De bello Neapolitano Pontano mentions the king’s same feigning approach as a positive quality, which enables him to handle difficult situations and to confront the barons’ open and unspoken threats.⁷⁷ For example, this is highlighted in the descriptions of his behaviour towards his main enemies, Giovanni Antonio Orsini and Marzano (I, III, 4; V, VII, 2). Despite being aware of their dishonest plans and distrusting them, Ferrante conceals his thoughts and pretends he is adopting a conciliatory or neutral attitude, but he will be ready to defeat them at the right moment. Ferdinando indeed is often depicted as thoughtful, suspicious and capable of pondering all the problematic aspects of the barons’ subversion. These traits also emerge in the telling description of the intricate conditions of the kingdom

⁷⁵ See Ferraù, Il tessitore, 127; Monti Sabia, Pontano, pp. 67‒8; Iacono, ‘Ritratto ed encomio’, pp. 46‒7. ⁷⁶ The De immanitate is published in Ioannis Ioviani Pontani De immanitate liber, Edidit, italice vertit, commentariolo instruxit Liliana Monti Sabia (Naples: Loffredo, 1970). In particular in the De bello Neapolitano Pontano claims that Ferrante was too inflexible and unmerciful in imprisoning Maso Barrese (Monti Sabia, Pontano, II, XIV, 6), the violent condottiero who was always loyal to the king, but he was also guilty of such brutal actions that he is mentioned as a negative exemplum in the De immanitate. On Barrese, see n. 28 in this chapter. ⁷⁷ On the role of ‘dissimulazione’ as a key element in Ferdinando’s politics and on the importance of the ‘external’ image of the king: Storti, El buen marinero.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

146

     

and the noblemen’s untrustworthy natures, which are presented through the king’s thoughts (I, V). In this respect, the suspiciousness and, more importantly, the tendency to simulate ascribed to the princeps marks a significant turning point in the traditional humanistic representation of the ideal ruler. This canonical portrayal was considered mainly grounded on classical virtues and belonged to a mere theoretical projection. Conversely, in Pontano’s conception the image of the monarch encompasses the practical ability to adapt to reality, assuming traditionally negative behaviours, such as the capacity for simulating. The ruler’s feigning attitude in facing traitors will also be presented by Machiavelli as a fundamental quality in his famous chapter on conspiracies in the Discorsi (III, 6, 187‒8). Here he will also praise the means used by political leaders to thwart rebellions, in particular the ability to conceal the discovery of the plot and pretend not to know about it until the most suitable moment for the revenge comes.⁷⁸ Thus, Pontano’s works turn out to be pioneering in the all-embracing and premodern outlook that they provide. This feature ascribed to the princeps reveals that the humanist’s political theory is not simply based on mere ethical tenets, but it already presents elements that prefigure the more realistic and less ethically centred political philosophy of the following centuries, as well as the modern absolutistic idea of state (as the notion of obedientia at the core of the social system also shows).⁷⁹ Furthermore, the allusion to the punishment inflicted by Ferrante on some of his bitter enemies, who in some significant cases were relatives-in-law, such as Marino Marzano, appears in the text along with the representation of the king’s merciful nature. In Pontano’s work the balance between clemency and vengeance reveals the surfacing of a more ruthless conception of the exercise of princely power, which is subject to actual concrete needs. As we have seen in Ferdinando’s official letter written by Pontano, the merciless but legitimate punishment of the king’s enemies is presented as essential for the safeguarding of the state and betrays an embryonic notion of political realism, surpassing traditional ethical principles. This approach inspired by a developing notion of realpolitik comes to light also in the De principe: it is an embryonic form of realism that is certainly different from its actual definition as a proper political concept in the following century, but now displays distinctive traits that are influenced by the specific historical and ⁷⁸ On Machiavelli’s passage and the following exemplum drawn on Livy (7, 38, 5), the very same example mentioned by Pontano in his De prudentia (book V) to describe how a conspiracy can be thwarted, see Chapter 6, section 6.4. On this and other significant connections between Pontano’s work and Machiavelli’s Discorsi, see Richardson, Brian, ‘Pontano’s De prudentia and Machiavelli’s Discorsi’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 33, 2 (1971), pp. 353‒7. ⁷⁹ In particular, some correlations between Pontano and Machiavelli are analysed in Richardson, ‘Pontano’s De prudentia’; Ginzburg, Carlo, ‘Pontano, Machiavelli and Prudence: Some Further Reflections’, in From Florence to the Mediterranean and Beyond. Essays in Honour of Anthony Molho, edited by Diego Ramada Curto, Eric R. Dursteler, Julius Kirshner, and Francesca Trivellato (Florence: Olschki, 2009), pp. 117‒25; Bentley, Politics and Culture, pp. 249‒52. See also Chapter 6, section 6.4. More generally, on this form of political realism see also Chapter 5, section 5.3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

147

cultural circumstances of the fifteenth century. In particular in the De principe considerable emphasis is put on the ‘exterior’ behaviour of the ruler and on the ‘exterior’ image that he is able to give to his subjects. His power does not lie only in his virtues, but, most importantly, in the appearance of his virtues and in what people perceive of him. This is the only element that allows the king to gain political favour and it is for this reason that, for the first time, the virtue of maiestas is extensively illustrated and is placed at the core of the theorization of princely conduct. This is a totally external virtue that corresponds to the distinctive royal image of the king and includes all strategies that serve to gain the people’s acquiescence.⁸⁰ It is no accident that at the end of the century the very same virtue would become so central to political speculation as to embody the whole idea of kingship itself, as Giuniano Maio’s treatise, De maiestate (1492), proves.⁸¹ In this mirror for princes the majesty theorized by Pontano becomes the essence of statecraft and the ‘exteriority’ of power is further enhanced as the cornerstone of princely rule. What is more remarkable is that in Maio’s text the whole construction of this centralized and personalistic concept of authority is articulated by constant reference to Ferrante’s deeds, and in particular to the events of the conspiracy. These episodes provide the most suitable historical exempla to prove the prince’s virtue in ruling and fighting his enemies and ultimately maintaining his supremacy. This is a case in point that demonstrates the direct interconnection in humanist literature between the theory of princely power and the concrete issue of conspiracies: a connection that at the end of the century became even closer. Coming back to the critical remarks on Ferdinando’s rule that Pontano adds at the end of the De bello Neapolitano, as Ferraù rightly claimed, this presents the king as a felix princeps rather than an optimus princeps, a man who is fortunatus and successful in his life thanks to a sort of inner vocation and to the circumstances that surrounded his choices. This is a general idea that emerges in Pontano’s late treatise De fortuna (1502‒3) and that regards fortune as a key factor in human history and in the success and felicitas of any leader.⁸² By contrast, in Pontano’s previous works the individual was seen as having more power in dealing with fortune. This theme is brought forth in the De prudentia (composed in 1498) and in most of the speeches of military leaders quoted in the

⁸⁰ For an in-depth discussion of this virtue in Pontano’s work, see Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, in Pontano, De principe, pp. XCIII‒CVI. On Machiavelli’s view on maiestas in relation to conspiracies see Chapter 6, section 6.4. ⁸¹ Maio, Giuniano, De maiestate, edited by Franco Gaeta (Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1956). See Barreto, Joana, La majesté en images: portraits du pouvoir dans la Naples des Aragon (Rome: École française de Rome, 2013), pp. 230‒49; Cappelli, Maiestas, pp. 188‒94; Celati, Marta, ‘Teoria politica e realtà storica nel De maiestate di Giuniano Maio: tra letteratura e arte figurativa’, Medioevo e Rinascimento 29 (2018), pp. 203‒35; Celati, Marta, ‘La virtù e la storia: il principe nel De maiestate di Giuniano Maio’, Archivum Mentis 8 (2019), pp. 71‒102. ⁸² Ferraù, Il tessitore, pp. 124, 128

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

148

     

De bello Neapolitano, where the influence of fortune in war and in human deeds is a recurrent topic, along with the importance of prudence and fortitude (I, IX, 8‒ 22; I, X, 2‒21).⁸³ Moreover, the final reference to Ferrante’s rather deficient abilities in running his state in peace and otium (VI, V, 1)—abilities that are not as notable as those he clearly had at the beginning of his rule—could have been drawn, as both a topos and stylistic echo, from the famous passage in Livy’s work (XXXVIII, 53) where Scipio Africanus is judged by a similar remark: ‘vir memorabilis bellicis tamen magis quam pacis artibus’ (‘a man memorable more for his military skills than for the skills he showed in peace’).⁸⁴ This allusion to the classical hero, who is also recalled as an exemplary figure in the De principe (§§ 1, 5) especially for his famous virtue of continence, seems to evoke a literary topos that links the Aragonese monarch to the illustrious classical figure of Scipio and therefore diminishes the negative overtone that surrounds Pontano’s closing statement. In addition, Pontano’s partial re-evaluation of Ferrante’s rule conceived after the king’s death, which was very soon followed by the fall of the Aragonese monarchy after Charles VIII’s invasion, can be explained by the drastic change of political conditions in the realm that had occurred in the late years of the humanist’s life. In this new scenario, the initially urgent need to elaborate a cohesive monarchic theory to back the Aragonese king was over. Now, at this later stage, the author could indulge in comments that perhaps would not have been appropriate in a previous phase, although, apart from this sole modification, he did leave the whole political perspective of his work totally unaltered. It is true that the implications that the burning subject of conspiracies held in the concrete scenario of fifteenth-century states had a profound influence on all humanist texts on this topic, which were usually written in the aftermath of the plots. Nonetheless, from this point of view, Pontano’s work is different from other works in so far as it is the result of a longer process of composition and revision over more than thirty years, a broad time frame that could have made him consider the original political aims he had projected onto his work not as important as in previous years. What is most remarkable is that Pontano’s overall profile of Ferdinando emerges throughout the text mainly by the representation of his deeds and words. In particular, some specific historical events are chosen to play a prominent paradigmatic role in conveying this ideal princely image. Moreover, through the influence that Pontano’s text had on later works, they became crucial episodes in the subsequent historiographical and cultural tradition. The main events to

⁸³ On Pontano’s conception of war as an emblematic situation in which fortune and prudence play a prominent role, see Finzi, Re, baroni, popolo, pp. 171. ⁸⁴ The reference to Livy is mentioned in Tateo, I miti, p. 67. Another source for Pontano’s statement could be Sallust Cat. 2, 4, as suggested by Ferraù, Il tessitore, p. 128.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

149

which Pontano assigns this exemplary function are the ambush in Teano against Ferdinando (I, VIII), the military defeat at Sarno (I, IX), both in 1460, and the victory of the Aragonese troops in Troia, in 1462 (IV, IV). This last episode acquires the traits of the prince’s decisive and final triumph over the rebels, not only in Pontano’s work, where the episode also underscores the military virtue of the king, but in the whole Aragonese propagandistic apparatus. Not only is it chosen as the subject of literary works, such as Porcelio de’ Pandoni’s poem De proelio apud Troiam,⁸⁵ but it was also celebrated in visual representations. In particular, it is represented in the bas-reliefs on the bronze gate of the Castel Nuovo in Naples (the so called ‘Maschio Angioino’), which was commissioned by Ferdinando from the artist Guglielmo Monaco around 1475 (see Figure 3.1).⁸⁶ It is no accident that another panel of the same gate portrays Marzano’s abortive attack against the king in Teano (see Figure 3.2). Significantly, this episode was considered such a crucial event in the history of the kingdom and in Ferdinando’s heroic biography that it was depicted also as one of the thirty beautiful illuminations (but only twenty-six are still extant) in the precious manuscript of Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. Italien 1711 (see Figure 3.3).⁸⁷ This important codex, where the battle of Troia is also represented in one of the illuminations, was commissioned by Ferdinando himself to became part of the royal library between 1492 and 1493: it was copied by Giovan Matteo de Russis and illuminated by Nardo Rapicano, a famous artist active in the courtly scriptorium, who depicted the visual illustrations of the king’s deeds and virtues presented in Maio’s text.⁸⁸ This fruitful interaction between literature and art clearly demonstrates the multifaceted articulation and efficiency of Aragonese cultural politics, which worked in different directions to create and convey through various channels an idealized image of the prince and his rule. In the realm of historical literature, in the De bello Neapolitiano, Pontano dwells on the narration of both the victory of Troia and the attack in Teano. So, not only a triumphant success but also a dangerous situation could be enlisted to eternalize ⁸⁵ Iacono, Antonietta, Porcelio de’ Pandoni: l’umanista e i suoi mecenati: momenti di storia e di poesia: con un’appendice di testi (Naples: Paolo Loffredo, 2017); Tateo, I miti, pp. 239‒40, 223‒56. ⁸⁶ This work of art is mentioned in Ryder, ‘Ferdinando’, p. 182. ⁸⁷ On this manuscript, see Toscano, Gennaro, ‘A la gloire de Ferdinand d'Aragon, roi de Naples, le De majestate de Iuniano Maio enluminé par Nardo Rapicano’, in L’illustration. Essais d’iconographie, Études réunies par Maria Teresa Caracciolo et Ségolène Le Men. Actes du Séminaire CNRS, Parigi, 1993‒1994 (Parigi: Klincksieck, 1999), pp. 125‒39; De Marinis, Tammaro, La Biblioteca napoletana dei re d’Aragona (Milan: Hoepli, 1947‒52): vol. 1, pp. 41, 50, 174; vol. 2, pp. 103‒4; 193; Supplemento, 2, pp. 20‒1. The illuminations were originally thirty, but only twenty-six have survived, because of the loss of two folios in the manuscript: ff. 58‒9. ⁸⁸ See De Marinis, La Biblioteca, vol. 2, pp. 301‒2, 306, documents n. 850, 859, 864, 915. On the illuminations, see Toscano, A la gloire, pp. 129‒33; Celati, ‘Teoria politica’; Barreto, La majesté en images, pp. 230‒49; on Nardo Rapicano, see Toscano, Gennaro, ‘La bottega di Cola e Nardo Rapicano’, in La biblioteca reale di Napoli al tempo della dinastia aragonese, edited by Gennaro Toscano, (Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana, 1998), pp. 393‒415.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

150

     

Figure 3.1 Guglielmo Monaco, Bronze gate of Castel Nuovo, Naples (1475ca.). Particular: the battle of Troia won by Ferdinando of Aragon.

the image of the monarch’s valour. In particular in the description of the ambush against Ferdinando, Pontano focuses on telling how the king managed to save himself and scare away his enemies. This account is placed in a central position in the first book of the historiographical work and it symbolically encapsulates all the key ideological elements associated with the narrative of conspiracies in the humanist literature. While it underlines the criminal behaviours of the plotters, it also emphasizes, in contrast with this image, the celebration of the king’s virtues and skills: his smart and suspicious attitude that allows him to discover the imminent danger (I, VIII, 7); his prompt and intrepid reaction against his attackers and his strength in fighting with his enemies and making them flee (I, VIII, 8‒9); the solemn return to his soldiers in the camp, where he shows himself safe and vigorous in both his body and mind (I, VIII, 10). Finally, the closing observation intensifies the contrast between, on the one hand, the highly

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

151

Figure 3.2 Guglielmo Monaco, Bronze gate of Castel Nuovo, Naples (1475ca.). Particular: the ambush in Teano against Ferdinando of Aragon.

sacred conception of kingship that is embodied in the image of Ferdinando, who is loved by all his people, and, on the other, the hideous crime against the monarchy committed by Marzano, who stands as a symbol of the rebels and is hated by everyone (I, VIII, 13): Videri enim supra hominum improbitatem facinus indignum et atrox, Regem, cuius nomen apud mortales sanctum esset . . . [‘Indeed the crime was seen more atrocious and heinous than any human wickedness, and the king’s name was considered holy among mortals . . . ’]

From this perspective, this representation is parallel to two sections in Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium. The first is the narration of Lorenzo de’ Medici’s bold reaction against the conspirators (§§ 35‒6), which focuses on the promptness and courage of the leader of Florence; the second is the description, significantly placed at the centre of the Commentarium, of the favour shown to Lorenzo by the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

152

     

Figure 3.3 Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. Italien, 1711, f. 8r: The ambush in Teano against Ferdinando of Aragon, illumination by Nardo Rapicano (1493).

Florentine people, who take an active part in the revenge against the ruler’s attackers (§§ 62‒4).⁸⁹ The narrative of the ambush in Teano brings to the fore two fundamental aspects in the portrayal of the ideal image of the princeps in the De bello Neapolitano: the virtue of fortitudo, seen as an essential trait of the ruler (Pontano openly claims: ‘Illi [scil. the enemies] . . . Regis fortitudinem admirati suspiciunt’, ‘they [the enemies] looked up with admiration at the king’s fortitude’, I, VIII, 10); and the mutual relationship between the king and his people, which plays a decisive function in the maintenance of political power. Both these key factors are further enhanced in the account of the huge defeat that the Aragonese

⁸⁹ On these sections in Poliziano’s text, see Chapter 4, section 4.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

153

troops suffered in Sarno.⁹⁰ This episode demonstrates how even a debacle can be interpreted as to convey an eulogistic image of the defeated protagonist. Firstly, the humanist outlines Ferdinando’s main virtues by the speech the king delivers before the battle (I, IX, 18‒22): here his alacrity, dynamism, vigour, and the capacity to seize the opportunity come to light as his positive qualities.⁹¹ These virtues are ascribed to Ferrante throughout the whole text and are underlined with a similar technique in the speech delivered by the king before the battle in Troia (IV, IV, 5‒9). Pontano also tries to justify Ferdinando’s rash decision to attack the enemies in Sarno as due to the fear that his ally Pius II could defect (the humanist adds this comment when revising his text: I, IX, 15‒16). The humanist also implicitly imputes the main blame for the defeat to the soldiers’ greed, since they disobeyed the orders given by the king and focused only on looting. But most importantly, this episode allows the author to put emphasis on the king’s fortitudo, namely the capacity to accept and face misfortune and negative events, and to react with strength and courage to them. If in the De bello Neapolitano the humanist simply alludes to this aspect, in the De principe (§§ 15‒16) he mentions the specific episode of the defeat at Sarno, and more in general the whole conspiracy, as a paradigmatic example of the prince’s fortitude, a virtue that Pontano sees as perfectly embodied in Ferdinando.⁹² Significantly, this is the only direct reference to Ferdinando as the personification of a specific virtus in the De principe. It is no accident that he is mentioned also in Pontano’s treatise that is entirely devoted to this princely quality, the De fortitudine, where fortitude is not seen as a mere military virtue but mainly as a remedy against misfortune.⁹³ Therefore, this can be seen as the chief virtue that the humanist ascribes to Ferrante and it is assigned a key position in the elaboration of the profile of the ideal prince. This is also proved by an important publishing project: indeed in 1490 Pontano included the text of the De principe within the editio princeps of his newly written De fortitudine.⁹⁴ The association in the same edition of the work on fortitude with the treatise written twenty-five years previously shows the major relevance of this specific virtue to the theory of princely power that Pontano was constructing in his works. Besides the focus on this attribute, the other most pivotal political factor that is incorporated into the narrative of the defeat in Sarno is the fundamental role ⁹⁰ On this battle see Squitieri, Marialuisa, ‘La battaglia di Sarno. 7 luglio 1460’, in Poteri, relazioni, pp. 15‒40. ⁹¹ For these virtues as distinctive of Ferrante see Finzi, Re, baroni, popolo, p. 172. ⁹² Pontano, De principe, §§ 15‒16. This very same standpoint was at the core of other texts composed by humanists close to the Aragonese monarchy, such as Giovanni Brancato’s oration to Ferdinando written in 1472: Cappelli, ‘La realtà fatta dottrina’, pp. 201‒9. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Giovanni Brancato e una sua inedita orazione politica’, Filologia&Critica 27 (2002), pp. 64‒101 (with an edition of the text). ⁹³ Ferraù, Il tessitore, p. 100. ⁹⁴ On this edition, see Monti Sabia, Liliana, ‘Un ritrovato epigramma del Pontano e l’editio princeps del De fortitudine-De principe’, in Monti Sabia, Monti, Studi, vol. 2, pp. 1059‒71.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

154

     

played by the subjects in support of the king. The common people’s closeness to their ruler in Pontano’s work, as well as in other texts on conspiracies, is considered invaluable, especially when the government has to face difficult circumstances. In particular, immediately after pointing out the critical situation brought about by the military collapse at Sarno, Pontano engages in a long description of the concrete help that all citizens—knights, plebeians, merchants, and so on— gave to the monarchy and he significantly claims that the civium benevolentia is the princeps’ real wealth, not just money kept as treasury in the aerarium (I, XIV, 1‒2): Ferdinandus accepta Sarnensi clade⁹⁵ cum se Neapolim recepisset . . . Hoc tempore maxime cognitum est civium benevolentiam divitiasque popularium, non eos qui in aerarium illati essent Regum thesauros esse. Nanque eques, mercator, opifex, nobilis, ignobilis, inquilinus, etiam sacerdos certatim Regi pecuniam maxima pars sponte, pauci rogati, offerre atque elargiri, alii bellatorem equum, alii mulum clitellarium, erant qui thoraces, loricas, arma, tela, hastas, qui pannos vestiendis militibus, qui coria loricandis equis, tela faciendis tabernaculis: nullum denique rerum genus omitti, quod reficiendis copiis atque instruendis militibus conduceret. [Ferdinando, having known about the defeat in Sarno, went back to Naples . . . It is well known that in this situation the real treasure of the kings is the love of the citizens and the people’s wealth, not the money in the aerarium. Indeed the knight, merchant, craftsman, noble, plebeian, tenants, and even the priest eagerly went to offer and give their money to the king, partly spontaneously, partly after having been asked; others gave a warhorse, others a mule of burden, and there were people who gave breastplates, cuirass, weapons, spears, javelins, others who gave clothes to dress soldiers, others who gave leather to protect horses, canvas to build tents: in short, nothing was left aside that could help restore resources and equip soldiers.]

This is a crucial passage where the rhetorical tools of amplificatio and enumeratio serve to intensify the ideas of both the totality of people who show devotion to the king and the considerable amount of goods that they generously donate to the monarch. This representation, once again, seems to parallel the equivalent picture in Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium of the help given by the Florentine people to Lorenzo de’ Medici (§ 63).⁹⁶ This image in the De bello Neapolitano directly recalls the classical principle of the mutua caritas which is traditionally seen as cornerstones of princely political ⁹⁵ This is the very same formula by which the passage concerning the defeat of Sarno is introduced in the De principe, underlining the virtue of fortitudo: § 16 ‘Accepta Sarnensi clade . . . ’, p. 18. ⁹⁶ See Chapter 4, section 4.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

 ’    

155

theory since antiquity and is extensively illustrated in Pontano’s De principe (§§ 35‒6).⁹⁷ Here the humanist also concretely discusses the strategy by which the king can gain this fundamental support and, in doing so, the author seems to go beyond the traditional idea of a direct connection between the goodness of the prince and his people’s love, revealing, once more, a dawning realistic ideological approach that implies calculated behaviour. Significantly, in the De bello Neapolitano we do not have only the representation of the people’s favour towards the sovereigns, but also the description of the deep affection that the monarchs show to their subjects in order to comfort them in that difficult situation (I, XIV). This role is assigned to queen Isabella (whose eulogistic portrayal logically follows this section: I, XV), in a representation that emphasizes the reciprocal bond that should link the prince and his community. Isabella is depicted as she appears in public places with her children and claims that they are Italian and Neapolitans as the common people are, so that they all would live or die together. She reassures her subjects and urges them to be faithful and steadfast; she reminds them of the flourishing conditions that the Aragonese rulers had brought to the Neapolitans, but she also states that the royal family’s riches are all in the citizens’ hands (I, XIV). In general, besides the Sarno episode, the portrayal of the Neapolitan people’s devotion to the king is a recurrent and crucial component in the De bello Neapolitano, and Pontano insists on underlining it especially at the end of his work, in order to suggest a reunification of the whole social body after the conspiracy and the war. He describes the jubilant affection with which Ferdinando was welcomed in every city of his realm after Antonio Orsini’s death and the grand homage that was paid to him when he returned victorious to Naples (V, VI, 1‒2). Finally, the humanist depicts the joyous populace who celebrate the final victory in the war, a passage that relies again on an amplifying style achieved through the juxtaposition of short clauses connected by asyndeton, which emphasizes the image of the jubilant city (VI, III, 1: this stylistic construction is similar to that in the aforementioned passage I, XIV, 1‒2). It is also significant that Pontano makes specific reference to Ferdinando’s clemency towards some of his enemies and prisoners (IV, IV, 40; VI, IV, 3). This princely virtue, as already observed, is opposite but complementary to vengeful actions and contributes to the well-rounded image of the autocratic and fair ruler, who is able to show his benevolent attitude towards the subjects who deserve his mercy, but who is also ready to punish the bitterest opponents. In conclusion, in the De bello Neapolitano all the fundamental constituents of the organicistic social body illustrated in Pontano’s political theory are represented through the historical events that see them as protagonists: the kings, the

⁹⁷ On mutua caritas: Cappelli, ‘Introduzione’, in Pontano, De principe, pp. LXXXI‒LXXXVII.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

156

     

barons, and the common people. In this substantial mutual influence between political theorization and historiographical narration, the historical events and characters acquire a prominent exemplary function, whether positive or negative, which is at the core of the humanist’s whole articulation of his political ideology. In accordance with the rhetorical prerogatives of literary genres, the theoretical elements are not openly included within the historiographical account but they still imbue the political perspective of the whole text. Vice versa, the historiographical components are frequently enlisted in Pontano’s theoretical works, where they provide genuine examples drawn from contemporary historical episodes. So the exemplary function played by contemporary history, and especially by the history of the conspiracy, makes a pivotal contribution to the formulation of a systematic and concrete political theory.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

4 Angelo Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium The Conspiracy Narrative as ‘Official’ Historiography

4.1 Composition, publication, and circulation of the Coniurationis commentarium The Coniurationis commentarium is the first historical account of the Pazzi conspiracy and it is the only historiographical work composed by Poliziano.¹ This text was written immediately after the attack against the Medici brothers in the Church of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, on 26 April 1478, when Giuliano was murdered and Lorenzo managed to save himself. Poliziano, who was in the church, was a witness of the assault by the conspirators. Only twenty-four years old, he was already one of the most distinguished humanists of the Florentine cultural environment and was actively involved in the Medici’s system of cultural politics. A few years earlier he had been appointed as Lorenzo’s personal secretary and the tutor of his eldest son, Piero, becoming Il Magnifico’s right-hand man. Poliziano’s ‘official’ commitment to consolidate the Medici’s prestige and power through his literary activity was also manifest in the Stanze (1475–8), the poetic work in the vernacular by which he was universally recognized as the poet laureate of Laurentian Florence. However, his political engagement alongside the Medici becomes still more apparent with the composition of the Commentarium. He worked on this historical text not only in the aftermath of the conspiracy, when it was immediately published, but also in the following years, revising it in 1480. This revision led to the publication of a new edition printed in Rome: in this new version the Commentarium appears more finished from both a stylistic and a political perspective, and it is adapted to the new historical scenario through a series of slight but significant changes. The pivotal political function that Poliziano’s work was intended to play in the intricate and troubled scenario of the failure of the conspiracy is proved by its ¹ The most recent edition of the text is Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium. See also the first critical edition: Poliziano, Angelo, Della congiura dei Pazzi (Coniurationis commentarium), edited by Alessandro Perosa (Padova: Antenore, 1958).

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

158

     

immediate publication in Florence by Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna,² the printer who published all the documents through which Lorenzo’s programme of propaganda was articulated after the plot: in particular Gentile Becchi’s Florentina synodus, which was presented as the outcome of a holy synod that actually never took place, and Bartolomeo Scala’s Excusatio Florentinorum, an official text composed by the chancellor of the Florentine Republic.³ The aim of both works was to support the Medici government and defend Lorenzo from the allegations made by Pope Sixtus IV. The pope was the main instigator of the conspiracy and, after the plot, in June, he issued three belligerent bulls to excommunicate Lorenzo and threaten the whole city with an interdict, so as to punish the leader of Florence for the violent reprisal that was carried out against the plotters, which included some religious figures.⁴ As is well known, some of the most powerful Italian rulers were involved in the conspiracy: Sixtus IV, who had been in conflict with Lorenzo from 1474 (the disagreements mainly concerned the election of the Archbishop of Pisa, Francesco Salviati, one of the leaders of the future plot, and the dismissal of the Medici as bankers of the Camera Apostolica, a role that was assumed de facto by the Pazzi); the king of Naples, Ferdinando of Aragon, who was an ally of the pope also in the war that followed the failure of the conspiracy; and Federico of Montefeltro, the Duke of Urbino, who had worked as condottiero of the papal troops and had been nominated a duke by Sixtus IV himself.⁵ In Florence it was the Pazzi family that planned the conspiracy: this role was mainly played by Iacopo Pazzi, the old leader of the clan, and Francesco Pazzi, his nephew, who lived mostly in Rome as emissary of the family’s bank and was in contact with the pope’s men, in particular his nephew Girolamo Riario, who had crucial responsibility in organizing the plot. The conspiracy had been planned since 1477, but the attack took place only one year later, and, after the failure of the endeavour, Sixtus IV and Ferdinando waged a war against Florence that lasted until March 1480.

² Politianus, Angelus, Pactianae coniurationis commentariolum ([Florence: Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna], 1478). ³ The Florentina synodus is now published in Poliziano, Angelo and Becchi, Gentile, La congiura della verità, edited by Marcello Simonetta, translated by Gerardo Fortunato (Naples: La scuola di Pitagora editrice, 2012); Daniels, Tobias, La congiura dei Pazzi: i documenti del conflitto fra Lorenzo de’ Medici e Sisto IV. Le bolle di scomunica, la Florentina synodus, e la Dissentio insorta tra la Santità del Papa e i Fiorentini. Edizione critica e commento (Florence: Edifir, 2013). The Excusatio Florentinorum (the editio princeps was printed after 11 August 1478) is published in Scala, Bartolomeo, Humanistic and Political Writings, edited by Alison Brown (Tempe: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997), pp. 199‒202. ⁴ On the bulls see section 4, n. 75. The texts are now published in Daniels, La congiura. ⁵ On the historical circumstances that led to the conspiracy, see Fubini, Riccardo, Italia quattrocentesca: politica e diplomazia nell’età di Lorenzo de’ Medici (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1994), pp. 87‒106, 253‒327; Martines, Lauro, La congiura dei Pazzi: intrighi politici, sangue e vendetta nella Firenze dei Medici, translated by Nadia Cannata (Milan: Mondadori, 2005); Simonetta, Marcello, L’enigma Montefeltro (Milan: BUR, 2008); Daniels, La congiura, pp. 9‒21.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

159

In this turbulent and difficult situation for the Medici’s regime, Lorenzo needed to build up an efficient and coordinated defence, not only from a political and military point of view but also, and most importantly, from a cultural perspective, elaborating a multifaceted system of propaganda. This political and cultural operation involved all the chief intellectuals committed to the Medici’s politics, such as Gentile Becchi, the bishop of Arezzo and the former tutor of Lorenzo when he was a child, Bartolomeo Scala, the chancellor of the Republic of Florence at that time, and Poliziano himself, the distinguished humanist and poet who was called on to provide his authoritative contribution with his literary work. Thus, the Commentarium, among all humanists works on conspiracies in the corpus analysed in this volume, is the text that most openly shows the deep connections between this literature on plots and the rulers’ need for support and legitimacy after the subversive attack. Although there is no proof that Lorenzo directly commissioned the Commentarium, this interplay between the literary dimension and the political purposes subtends the whole of Poliziano’s narration and its rhetorical, stylistic, and thematic structure, which is perfectly framed to convey a specific ideological viewpoint. The intricate historical circumstances in the aftermath of the plot account for the immediate composition and publication of the text by Poliziano. As Alessandro Perosa supposed,⁶ the humanist probably did not prolong the writing beyond the summer of 1478, since, due to the outbreak of plague, he had to leave Florence with Lorenzo’s sons and wife, Clarice Orsini: they left the city on 12 August to move temporarily to Pistoia,⁷ and after that, in autumn, the humanist travelled between Fiesole, Careggi, and Cafaggiolo. As he lived in a condition of instability and uncertainty and did not know when he could go back to Florence, he probably completed his work, concerning such a burning issue, before leaving for Pistoia, and gave it to the printer. It is no coincidence that all the texts on which the Medici’s propaganda rested were published in the same months, between the summer and the autumn of 1478: the Florentina synodus, which was almost certainly published after the Commentarium (not before August 1478);⁸ the Excusatio Florentinorum, printed after 11 August 1478; and the Lamento in morte di Giuliano, an anonymous poem in the vernacular, directed at an audience of common people and published on 9 October 1478 by the printshop of San Iacopo di Ripoli, where the text was edited by Bartolomeo Fonzio, another humanist of Lorenzo’s entourage.⁹ These editions prove that the ⁶ Poliziano, Della congiura, pp. VI‒VIII. ⁷ For this date see Chiappelli, Alberto, ‘Sopra due avvenimenti notevoli nella vita pistoiese dell’anno 1478’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 31 (1929), pp. 94–111: 94. ⁸ Daniels, La congiura, p. 62; Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 4n. ⁹ Lamento in morte di Giuliano in Flamini, Francesco, ‘Versi in morte di Giuliano de’ Medici’, Il Propugnatore 2 (1889), pp. 318‒30. For the date of publication see Rhodes, Dennis E., Gli annali tipografici fiorentini del XV secolo (Florence: Olschki, 1988), n. 390, p. 74; on the printshop see Nesi, Emilia, Il Diario della Stamperia di Ripoli (Florence: B. Seeber, 1903); Conway, Melissa, The Diario of

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

160

     

ramification of the literary and publishing activity in support of Florentine cultural politics in this critical situation was all-pervading and varied, aimed at addressing different targets by means of various kinds of documents and works: doctrinal, juridical, historiographical, literary, and popular texts. Although the publishing note on the editio princeps of the Commentarium provides only the general indication of the year 1478, it is possible to suppose that the work was printed in this very same period, between the end of summer and autumn. The specific examination I have conducted on the four copies of the edition still extant allows us to hypothesize that, after the printing, some volumes were kept in store to be disseminated in the following year, in order to put onto the market some new and ‘fresh’ books in 1479.¹⁰ This might be proved by a significant handwritten ‘double’ amendment that appears on two exemplars out of the four copies still extant:¹¹ in these two volumes the date of publication of ‘1478’ is corrected to ‘1479’, by adding one unit to the Roman numeral (‘MCCCCLXXVIII’), and then it is again amended back to ‘1478’ by eliminating the Roman numeral added. A possible explanation for this complex double change could be found in the strategy of storing some copies for a new ‘issue’ onto the market in the following year, 1479, in order to keep selling the most important pro-Medici work on the conspiracy but presenting the books as newly published copies. Nevertheless, probably, a large number of books was already sold by the end of 1478 and, consequently, the copies with the changed date ‘1479’ had to be corrected again back to ‘1478’.¹² This would demonstrate that the diffusion of Poliziano’s text, a cornerstone of Medici propaganda, was as widespread as it was intended to be. Even though this is only a hypothesis, what is clear is that the printer, Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna, and his collaborators took an active part in the publishing and editing process. Indeed, all four exemplars of the editio princeps still extant the Printing Press of San Jacopo di Ripoli, 1476‒1484. Commentary and Transcription (Florence: Olschki, 1999). ¹⁰ This practice of storing some copies of an edition, bearing a different date, so as to sell the following year was common amongst printers and could cause some mistakes in the publishing date: see Fahy, Conor, Le edizioni veneziane dei Paradossi di Ortensio Lando, in Conor Fahy, Saggi di bibliografia testuale (Padova: Editrice Antenore, 1988), pp. 169‒211. For an analysis of the copies of the Commentarium editions: Celati, Marta, ‘L’editio princeps fiorentina del Coniurationis commentarium di Angelo Poliziano e il tipografo Niccolò Tedesco: nuove acquisizioni’, Archivum Mentis 2 (2013), pp. 161‒80. ¹¹ The four copies are now in: the Biblioteca Corsiniana in Rome (52.E.62); Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome (Inc. 1432); and Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence (two copies: E.6.3.26; M.6.21). ¹² Moreover, according to the Florentine calendar ab Incarnatione Domini, the first day of the year is 25 March: this element might have also caused the second amendment of the date, since the note indicating ‘1479’ would be consistent only for the copies sold after the 25 March 1479. For some cases of incunabula with mistakes in the date of publication due to the use of different calendars cf. Marzi, Demetrio, ‘I tipografi tedeschi in Italia durante il sec. XV’, in Festschrift zum fünfhundertjährigen Geburtstage von Johann Gutenberg, edited by von Otto Hartwing (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1900), pp. 568‒9: 508‒9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

161

contain a considerable number of handwritten variants, most of them executed in series in all copies. This element reveals that the publication and dissemination of Poliziano’s work was so important that it had to be printed as accurately as possible, to the extent that even small spelling mistakes are amended.¹³ But the need for a quick publication, along with the high cost of paper, meant it was not possible to reprint the pages with mistakes and thus a number of ink corrections were added systematically to the exemplars by the printer himself or his co-workers. Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna, who moved from Germany to Tuscany and was one of the most distinguished printers in Florence in the fifteenth century, was actively involved in this important publishing operation. As we have seen, he also printed the chief pro-Medici texts on the Pazzi conspiracy, although there is no proof of an official commission. And it is no accident that he was also commissioned to publish official texts by the Florentine government during the years of his activity: these included chancery documents (the Uffici della Città and the Stratto dei Gabellieri) and some orations, published between 1480 and 1486.¹⁴ These further elements cast additional light on the political significance of the publication of the Commentarium, revealing more plainly the political implications of the printing project of the editio princeps and the crucial role played by the new revolutionary invention of the printing press in the historical and cultural scenario of the Renaissance.¹⁵ From this point of view, Poliziano’s text may represent an emblematic case in point that allows us to gain a better understanding of the various dynamics associated with the early diffusion of the groundbreaking ‘art’ of printing in Italy: an innovation that would change forever the history of culture. The political perspective subtending the whole Commentarium emerges clearly if we consider the effective framing of the text’s political message in connection with Poliziano’s concrete involvement in the Florentine politics of those years. His commitment to helping Lorenzo, especially in the critical situation after the conspiracy, demonstrates that the humanist was fully aware of all the slightest issues concerning the intricate diplomatic relationships between Florence and the other states. Hence, these concrete political factors had to be taken into account by him in the process of writing and had a direct influence on the historical ¹³ This proves that it was not Poliziano himself who corrected the editio princeps, otherwise more significant mistakes, but less easily detectable, would have been amended. On these minor corrections see Celati, ‘L’editio princeps fiorentina’. ¹⁴ On the activity of the printer: Celati, ‘L’editio princeps fiorentina’. On the edition of these official documents see also Ridolfi, Roberto, La stampa in Firenze nel secolo XV (Florence: Olschki, 1958), p. 20; Bianca, Concetta, ‘Le dediche a Lorenzo de’ Medici nell’editoria fiorentina’, in Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli, edited by Francesco Bausi and Vincenzo Fera (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 51‒89: 70. ¹⁵ On the introduction of the printing press in Renaissance Italy see in particular Richardson, Brian, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Richardson, Brian, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470‒1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

162

     

reconstruction provided by his text. In particular Poliziano wrote a considerable number of letters addressed to allies or emissaries of Lorenzo between May and June 1478.¹⁶ He also played an active role in the collection of the legal consilia put together by Il Magnifico to hinder the excommunication and interdict promulgated by the pope. Lorenzo consulted the most distinguished legal experts in Tuscany, among whom was Poliziano’s friend, Bartolomeo Sozzini. It was Poliziano who sent to his patron in a letter from Pistoia, dated 24 August 1478, the consilium written by the Sienese jurist and he was also in contact with him to supervise and revise his work (as we know from the letter where the humanist tells Lorenzo that he had already asked Sozzini to emend his text).¹⁷ As part of this systematic propaganda programme, a productive and close collaboration must have linked Poliziano and Gentile Becchi, who in those days was commissioned to write the Florentina synodus, the legal defence against the pope’s allegations that was mostly based on the results of the consultations of the jurists. These connections show the interplay of the political, juridical, and literary spheres in the elaboration of these texts, in particular the Commentarium. Moreover, Poliziano’s revision of his work and its publication in a new edition in Rome in 1480 also prove to be linked with political reasons, as we will see; but this new publishing project has significant implications also in the humanist’s life. He probably decided to come back to the text he had written two years earlier and revise it in order to also reaffirm his loyalty and devotion to Lorenzo, presenting a perfected version of his most openly pro-Medici work. This need to show a new and stronger fidelity to his patron was in part due to the voluntary exile that had kept the humanist out of his city for several months, from December 1479 to the spring of 1480. This absence from Florence was almost certainly caused by a misunderstanding with Lorenzo: Poliziano was to have accompanied him in the diplomatic mission to Naples, the important travel that would put an end to the war with Ferdinando of Aragon, but he did not and, after Lorenzo’s departure in December 1479, he left Florence.¹⁸ It is the humanist himself who explains and justifies his behaviour in a famous letter, called Apologia, that he wrote to Lorenzo in March 1480 from Mantua.¹⁹ Here he claims that he was ready to follow his

¹⁶ De’ Medici, Lorenzo, Lettere, edited by Riccardo Fubini, vols. 1‒2; Rubinstein, Nicolai, vols. 3‒4; Mallet, Michael, vols. 5‒7 (Florence: Giunti-Barbera, 1977–): vol. 3, pp. 9, 11, 31, 58, 75, 83, 101 (letters from July to December at pp. 145, 309). See also Poliziano, Becchi, La congiura, p. 36. ¹⁷ Cf. Chiappelli, ‘Sopra due avvenimenti’, p. 103. See also Daniels, La congiura, p. 62; Poliziano, Becchi, La congiura, p. 19. On the consilia see section 4.4 in this chapter. ¹⁸ On this important diplomatic mission, see De Angelis, Laura, ‘Lorenzo a Napoli, progetti di pace e conflitti politici dopo la congiura dei Pazzi’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150 (1992), pp. 385‒421; De Frede, Carlo, ‘La venuta di Lorenzo de’ Medici a Napoli nel 1479’, in De Frede, Carlo, La crisi del Regno di Napoli nella riflessione politica di Machiavelli e Guicciardini (Naples: Liguori, 2006), pp. 167‒87. ¹⁹ The letter is published in Picotti, Giovanni Battista, Tra il poeta e il lauro. Pagina della vita di Agnolo Poliziano, in Picotti, Giovanni Battista, Ricerche umanistiche (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1955), pp. 73‒82. A relevant passage of the epistle is published and commented in Martelli, Mario, Angelo Poliziano, storia e metastoria (Lecce: Conte Editore, 1995), pp. 29‒31, 34‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

163

patron in his journey to Naples, but, after waiting for a while to meet him and suddenly finding out that he had been replaced by Francesco Gaddi, he did not have an opportunity to meet Lorenzo again to clarify what had happened.²⁰ In the letter Poliziano tries to make peace with his signore and reminds him of literary works he had composed to support and to celebrate the Medici, a statement that can be regarded as an allusion to the Commentarium itself. He also hints at the considerable contribution that he can still make with new literary texts. So, Lorenzo did not wait too long to call him back to Florence and already in May appointed him as professor of Latin and Greek at the Studio fiorentino,²¹ a highly prestigious role that Poliziano carried out until his death. Thus, at the end of June the humanist returned to the city that had welcomed him when, as a young boy, he had left Montepulciano, and he came back with a new important position that reintegrated him in the Medici’s cultural programme. Poliziano had proved to be an invaluable support to Medici’s rule in the delicate historical context of the conspiracy and the fundamental significance of his Commentarium is confirmed by its immediate publication, in both its first and second versions. Consequently, the history of the diffusion and circulation of this work has always been exclusively connected with the tradition of its printed editions. However, now the study can be extended to the manuscript tradition, thanks to the important codices of the texts that have been identified and analysed through new philological research. If it is true that the main vehicle of dissemination of the Commentarium was certainly the channel of printed books, it is also significant that a group of manuscripts, four out of the total of twelve still extant, are not copies of printed editions, but prove to derive from an archetype independent of the editio princeps (the other eight manuscripts, instead, are copied from exemplars of either the editio princeps—four—or the editions of the second version of the text printed in Rome—two—while two codices derive from the edition of Poliziano’s Opera omnia published in Basle in 1553).²² This new element shows that, in contrast to what was generally believed up till now, the circulation of the Commentarium did not only rest on the printed editions and that a considerable group of manuscripts is independent of these. What is most noteworthy is that the oldest and most important of these codices (Vat. Lat. 13679), from which two manuscripts originated (Oxford, Bodleian Library, D’Orville 59; Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale Augusta, I 100), was owned by one of the leading figures of Neapolitan humanism and culture in the second half of the Quattrocento: Giovanni Pontano. This codex is a miscellany of ²⁰ Cf. Martelli, pp. 34‒5. ²¹ His appointment was registered on the 29 May 1480: cf. Verde, Armando, Lo Studio fiorentino, 1473‒1503: ricerche e documenti, vol. 2 (Florence: Olschki, 1973‒2010), p. 26. On these events in Poliziano’s life see also Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, pp. 26–7. ²² For these philological results and a complete list of the manuscripts see Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, pp. 27‒33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

164

     

historical and political works, mainly by Tuscan authors, and it was probably copied in Florence around the mid-1480s (as the watermark reveals). It is likely that, after the volume was put together, Pontano came into its possession thanks to his relationship with the Florentine environment. So, this important manuscript confirms the close connection between two of the most advanced cultural centres in fifteenth-century Italy²³ and their most illustrious representatives, Poliziano and Pontano, who were also deeply involved in politics. But, most importantly, this codex also discloses some possible correlations between two of the most important humanist literary works on the topic of political plots: the Commentarium and the De bello Neapolitano. In particular, Pontano’s work, revised by the author up until his death, displays significant parallels with the text on the Pazzi conspiracy, in terms of motifs and descriptive topoi.²⁴ After Pontano’s death, the manuscript was inherited by his daughter Eugenia and, together with other books of his library, was given to the Convent of San Domenico Maggiore in Naples (as stated by the handwritten note in the first folio of the volume).²⁵ It was probably in the convent that the two copies of the miscellany were transcribed: the first codex was acquired in the first half of the eighteenth century by the Neapolitan intellectual Francesco Valletta, who some years later sold it to his friend Jacques Philippe D’Orville, the Dutch antiquarian from whose library the D’Orville collection of the Bodleian Library originated;²⁶ the second manuscript was transferred to the Biblioteca Augusta of Perugia in the seventeenth century. Another codex that contains the Commentarium and is independent of the printed editions is an old miscellany owned by the famous bibliophile Carlo Tommaso Strozzi (Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Magliabechiano XXI 151). It was certainly copied in the Florentine area, from a lost copy that was probably close to Poliziano’s environment. The presence of this text in the Strozzi’s library can be correlated with the deep interest that he must have had for the Pazzi conspiracy, and that is proved by the important documents

²³ The cultural relationship between Florence and Naples has its roots in the previous years and is emblematically represented by the famous Raccolta Aragonese, the anthology of vernacular texts collected between 1476 and 1477 and given as a gift to Federico of Aragon by Lorenzo, with a preface almost certainly written by Poliziano himself: the dedicatory epistle is published in Prosatori volgari del Quattrocento, edited by Claudio Varese (Milan: Ricciardi, 1955), pp. 985‒90; cf. De Robertis, Domenico, ‘Lorenzo Aragonese’, Rinascimento 34 (1994), pp. 3‒14. ²⁴ See Chapter 3, section 3.2. ²⁵ The manuscript and the document that ratifies the donation to the convent is mentioned in Rinaldi, Michele, ‘Per un nuovo inventario della biblioteca di Giovanni Pontano’, Studi medievali e umanistici 5‒6 (2007‒2008), pp. 163‒97. The codex was identified for the first time by Kaeppelli, Thomas, ‘Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 36 (1966), pp. 5‒80: 48‒50. ²⁶ The discovery of the manuscript in the convent by Valletta and the sale to D’Orville is recorded in the epistolary correspondence between Valletta and D’Orville, in the manuscript D’Orville 497 of the Bodleian Library in Oxford (ff. 139‒248): letter of 5 August 1729 (ff. 180‒1); letter of 1749 (ff. 235‒7). See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 32.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

165

concerning this historical event preserved in his collection, such as an important autograph copy of Becchi’s Florentina synodus.²⁷ The other codices are copied from printed editions, but the manuscript tradition reveals an unexpected circulation of Poliziano’s historical work that does not originate from the world of print. Furthermore, it proves also that the Commentarium had a significant diffusion in the Italian humanist environment between the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Besides the manuscript owned by Pontano, another important codex that contains the text, this time copied from the editio princeps, belonged to Paolo Giovio (Como, Biblioteca della Società Storica Comense, Archivio Aliati, 5), who paid specific attention to Poliziano’s work and mentioned it in his elogium devoted to the Florentine humanist.²⁸ More generally, there is no doubt that the Commentarium enjoyed a considerable fortune throughout the whole of the sixteenth century, when it was used by historians and intellectuals as the main source for one of the most important political events of the Italian Renaissance. It was included in the edition of Poliziano’s Opera omnia printed in Basel in 1553, while it had been left out from the editio princeps of the Opera omnia printed in Venice by Aldo Manuzio in 1498 and edited by Pietro Crinito and Alessandro Sarti, probably because, after the fall of the Medici in 1494 and in a changed historical scenario, the editors did not want to associate Poliziano’s name directly with his most explicit pro-Medici work.²⁹ After the sixteenth century, in the 1600s, the Commentarium was gradually neglected and no edition was published until the second half of the eighteenth century. This temporary oblivion was due to the criticism of the biased standpoint of the work’s historical reconstruction, which ended up clouding the Commentarium’s success in this period. But from the late eighteenth century onwards, thanks to the rebirth of a profound new interest in national history and a new scientific approach in studying past events, Poliziano’s work was again published in a number of editions, the most important of which also contained historical documents.³⁰

²⁷ This copy of the Florentina synodus is now in Florence, Archivo di Stato, Carte Strozziane, Appendice, Filza 3, 1: cf. Arrighi, Vanna, ‘Lettere inedite di Lorenzo il Magnifico in un’Appendice delle carte Strozziane’, Archivio Storico Italiano 169 (2011), pp. 113‒33: 124; see now Poliziano, Becchi, La congiura, p. 51; and for a more general study of the manuscript traditions of Becchi’s work see the introduction to Daniels, La congiura. ²⁸ Giovio, Paolo, Ritratti degli uomini illustri, edited by Carlo Caruso (Palermo: Sellerio, 1999), p. 119. ²⁹ Opera omnia Angeli Politiani et alia quaedam lectu digna quorum nomina in sequenti indice videre licet (Venice: Aldo Manuzio, edited by Alessandro Sarti, July 1498) [anastatic reproduction: Roma, Bibliopola, 1968]; Angeli Politiani Opera quae quidem extitere hactenus omnia . . . (Basileae: apud Nicolaum Episcopium Juniorem, 1553) [anastatic reproduction: Politianus, Angelus, Opera omnia (scripta in editione Basilensi anno MDLIII collecta), edited by Ida Maïer (Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1971)]. On these editions, and in particular on the text published in the edition of 1553, see Poliziano, Della congiura, pp. XVII‒XX. ³⁰ For a complete list of the editions: Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 33 (and Bibliography, pp. 89‒91). On the recovery of the topic of Renaissance conspiracies, in particular the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

166

     

The critical study of the text presented in this chapter has been carried out on the basis of a philological analysis of the whole tradition of the Commentarium, including both manuscript and printed editions, an investigation of the variants introduced by Poliziano in the process of revision of his work, and a thorough examination of the classical sources employed by the author in composing the text. This study can help us to better contextualize Poliziano’s work in the development of literature on conspiracies in the fifteenth century.

4.2 Classical models: varietas in the historical account As the title itself shows, Poliziano’s work is directly associated with the literary genre of the commentarium, a rhetorical choice that, in the realm of historiography, corresponds to specific thematic and stylistic features. From this perspective, the narration clearly proves to be conceived and articulated on the basis of the principle of ‘autopsy’, that is, as the account of a witness. Poliziano, indeed, was present during the whole development of the conspiracy and, therefore, the figure of the historian/narrator turns out to play an active role in the events told, supporting arguments for the truthfulness of the account itself. But the straightforward and trustworthy report of the episodes is also framed through an extremely refined and studied literary construction, which makes this text a highly sophisticated piece of literature, whose artistic greatness and political effectiveness are interconnected. The classical historiographical genre of the commentary enjoyed remarkable diffusion in Italian humanism, especially between the 1460s and 1480s, when this kind of historical writing was employed in a number of works as the ideal rhetorical framework to perfectly fit with the propagandistic and political intentions of most of fifteenth-century historiography.³¹ As for Poliziano’s work, the thematic structure of the narration that revolves around a single crucial historical episode accounts for his choice of this specific genre,³² which is more suitable for monographic writing than the wider and loftier genre of the historia. Other stylistic traits of the Coniurationis commentarium are linked to this specific rhetorical pattern: for example, the literary function of the author who often Pazzi conspiracy, also in nineteenth-century art, see Celati, Marta, ‘Renaissance Conspiracies in Nineteenth-Century Italian Art: The Rediscovery of History between Literature and Visual Culture’, Comitatus. A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 48 (2017), pp 161‒84. ³¹ On this genre in humanist historiography: Ianziti, Gary, ‘Storiografia come propaganda: il caso dei Commentarii rinascimentali’, Società e storia 22 (1983), pp. 909‒18; Ianziti, Gary, ‘I Commentarii: appunti per la storia di un genere storiografico quattrocentesco’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150 (1992), pp. 1029‒63. ³² In particular this accounts also for the choice of the singular form of the title: Commentarium, and not Commentarii (on the use of this terminology see also section 4.3).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

167

appears in the narration as a character and underlines his presence in the scene or his emotional involvement (frequently using the first personal pronoun highlighting his own position, §§ 29, 39, 43, 86);³³ more generally, the realistic style of the entire representation of the events. If in terms of rhetorical genres this choice recalls the classical model of Caesar’s Commentarii, in this specific case, due to the thematic focus of the text, Poliziano’s work is openly shaped after the historiographical prototype of Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae.³⁴ This classical model, which was the main resource for all humanists who wrote accounts of conspiracies, is one of the chief sources for Poliziano from many points of view: ideological, structural, thematic, and stylistic. The perspective that informs the Commentarium is inspired by the moral dimension that predominates in the Latin model, especially in the description of the conspirators who are sketched as men corrupted by vices that are characteristic of Sallust’s plotters: ambitio, immorality, unscrupulousness, and eagerness for social upheaval. Nonetheless, in Poliziano’s text the narrative angle is slightly changed to be adapted to the specific historical scenario of fifteenth-century Florence, and in particular to the needs of its leader. Indeed, the envy and yearning for power that are identified as the main causes of the plot are ascribed only to the individual conspirators, so as to emphasize the isolation of the Medici’s enemies from the whole body of society, which instead is portrayed as totally loyal to Florence’s rulers. Conversely, in Sallust’s work, although the plotters are colourfully characterized, the moral decline is seen as a fault that is everywhere in the entire Roman community, through a historical analysis that is certainly wider than in Poliziano’s text. The symmetrical structure of the Commentarium, divided into complementary descriptive and narrative sections, is also inspired by Sallust’s text. The actual narration of the conspiracy, which is introduced by the Sallustian formula ‘Res ipsa postulat uti coniurationis consilium explicemus’ (§ 27; ‘Now the subject matter itself demands that we explain the plan of the conspiracy’),³⁵ is indeed preceded by the description of the plotters, who are emphatically depicted with ³³ In this chapter, references are always to the paragraph numbers in the edition of Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium. ³⁴ All references to Sallust’s works are illustrated at length in the commentary on the text in Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium. For a thorough analysis of Poliziano’s theory and practice of imitation, with a specific section on the Commentarium, see McLaughlin, Martin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 188‒226 (in particular pp. 192‒3). See also Tateo, Francesco, ‘Poliziano e la storiografia umanistica’, in Agnolo Poliziano poeta, scrittore, filologo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Montepulciano, 3‒6 novembreNovember 1994, edited by Vincenzo Fera and Mario Martelli (Florence: Le Lettere, 1998), pp. 195‒205. ³⁵ Translations are from Poliziano, Angelo, The Pazzi conspiracy, translated by Elizabeth B. Welles, in The earthly republic: Italian humanists on government and society, edited by Benjamin G. Kohl and Ronald G. Witt, with Elizabeth B. Welles (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978), pp. 305‒22, unless otherwise stated (the text is adapted when necessary). Cf. Sall. Cat. 5, 9 ‘Res ipsa hortari videtur . . . ’ (‘The subject matter itself seems to encourage me . . . ’).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

168

     

negative traits in a series of vivid portraits. These characters are represented with a pictorial style by which their most intimate and dark sides are laid bare. Again, by means of a descriptive technique frequently used in Sallust’s work, the conspirators’ physical appearance becomes the visible stigmatization of their moral vices and dishonesty. Moreover, the most recurrent negative features that Poliziano ascribes to the plotters appear in the most illustrious literary tradition of classical texts on Catiline’s conspiracy, not only Sallust’s monograph, but also Cicero’s Catilinarian orations: in these works the category of the conspirators is characterized by specific vices and moral stains, such as the addiction to gambling and the poverty due to their profligacy with money and property (§§ 4; 8; 17; 19; 20; 77).³⁶ Therefore, it is in the footsteps of this ennobling tradition that Poliziano composed his work, establishing a close connection and continuity with the most illustrious classical texts related to the topic of political conspiracy. But predictably Poliziano also enriched his works by means of a mosaic of references, allusions, and echoes derived from a wider horizon of classical sources, displaying in his historical writing his artistic ideal of a harmonious and sophisticated varietas.³⁷ Besides Sallust, another classical model that plays a prominent role in the Commentarium is Suetonius. His biographical work, although less openly evoked, permeates the whole text and emerges significantly in some of the most pivotal sections of the narration. The recovery of this source as a prominent model for the historical narrative of the conspiracy was certainly influenced by the new study of Suetonius that Poliziano carried out in his philological activity. This reuse reveals a new and more in-depth reception of this auctoritas, which had been more marginal until that moment in the canon of historiography in comparison with other historical sources, such as Livy and Sallust. Suetonius was already considered an important classical model by Petrarch, who owned and studied three manuscripts containing the biographer’s work.³⁸ But Poliziano turns out to have what can be deservedly called an actual predilection for Suetonius, which is proved by both his philological work and the academic courses he taught on the Lives of the Caesars in the periods 1482‒3 and 1490‒1. In particular a number of Poliziano’s handwritten notes and commentaries on Suetonius’s texts are still extant and are contained in the famous codex Lat. 754 of the Staatsbibliothek in Munich. It was put together by Poliziano’s pupil, Pietro Crinito, and is divided into two sections that date from different periods of the philologist’s activity, the first between 1482 and 1483, when he taught his course on the first Vitae (from Caesar to Tiberius), and the second to the early 1490s, when he gave some lectures

³⁶ As for Cicero see in particular Cic. Catil. 2, 23. ³⁷ On varietas in Poliziano, see also Gardini, Nicola, Rinascimento (Torino: Einaudi, 2010), pp. 254‒62. ³⁸ See in particular Berté, Monica, Petrarca lettore di Svetonio (Messina: Università degli Studi di Messina, Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2011).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

169

on the later biographies (from Caligula to Domitian).³⁹ However, already in the first half of 1480 Poliziano had finished his collation of Suetonius’s work, as is revealed by the handwritten note, dated 17 June 1480, on the copy of the edition of the Latin biographer’s texts that is now preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence (Inc. B. R. 91).⁴⁰ This thorough philological study certainly had a deep effect on Poliziano’s literary activity, especially on his historiographical work, where the adoption of this classical model was particularly substantial and relevant. The humanist resorts to Suetonius in the passages that most closely match biographical writing, such as the physical descriptions of some characters, which recall the portrayals of the Roman emperors. Suetonius’s descriptive style and lexis is used, for example, to sketch the figure of Francesco Pazzi (§ 15 ‘Statura fuit brevi, gracili corpusculo, colore sublivido, candida coma, cuius et in cultu nimium ferebatur occupatus’; ‘He was small of stature, with a puny body, livid complexion, blond hair, the care of which immoderately preoccupied him’): this image adheres to a physical description in the Vita Terentii, 6 ‘Fuisse dicitur mediocri statura, gracili corpore, colore fusco’ (‘It is said that he was small of stature, with a puny body, dark complexion’), while the allusion to the hair care, and in general to body care, is a motif that appears in the biographies of Caesar and Augustus (Iul. 45, 2; Aug. 79, 1). But the section of the text where the influence of Suetonius is most apparent and relevant is the famous final portrayal of Giuliano (§§ 87–90), which is modelled in particular on the pictures of Caesar and Tiberius, from which Poliziano drew the reference to stature, body traits, complexion, eyes, and hair of the young man.⁴¹ Among Suetonius’s Vitae, it is the biography of Caesar that most pervasively underlies Poliziano’s Commentarium. This correlation binds the two works also from a thematic point of view, as the classical model includes the narration of one of the most famous conspiracies in history. It is no coincidence that the description of the assault against Lorenzo (§§ 35–6) is formulated by means of subtle but meaningful echoes of the narration of the attack on Caesar (Iul. 82):

³⁹ On Poliziano’s studies on Suetonius: Gardenal, Gianna, Il Poliziano e Svetonio. Contributo alla storia della filologia umanistica (Florence: Olschki, 1975); Cesarini Martinelli, Lucia, ‘Il Poliziano e Svetonio. Osservazioni su un recente contributo alla storia della filologia umanistica’, Rinascimento 16 (1976), pp. 111‒31; Fera, Vincenzo, ‘La Praefatio in Suetoni expositionem del Poliziano’, in Laurentia Laurus, pp. 139‒59: 140‒1. On Poliziano’s lectures on the Latin biographer: Fera, Vincenzo, Un’ignota Expositio Suetoni del Poliziano (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di Studi Umanistici, 1983). ⁴⁰ Perosa, Alessandro, ed., Mostra del Poliziano nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana: manoscritti, libri rari, autografi e documenti, Florence, 23 September–30 November 1954, Biblioteca medicea laurenziana, Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento (Florence: Sansoni, 1955), pp. 20‒1; Maïer, Ida, Les Manuscrits d’Ange Politien. Catalogue descriptif. Avec dix-neuf documents inédits en appendice (Genève: Libraire Droz, 1965), pp. 342‒3. ⁴¹ Suet. Iul. 45, 1; Tib. 68, 1; Dom. 18, 1: see Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 88.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

170

     

Interim et Laurentium delecti sicarii invadunt, ac primo quidem Antonius manum sinistro eius humero iniicit, ictum in iugulum destinat. Ille imperterritus humeralem amictum exuit laevoque advolvit brachio, simul gladium vagina liberat; uno tamen ictu petitur, nam, dum sese expedit, vulnus in collo accipit. Mox se homo acer et animosus stricto gladiolo ad sicarios vertere, circumspectare se caute et tueri. Illi exterriti fugam capiunt . . . [Meanwhile, the chosen assassins attacked Lorenzo, and Antonio, first laying a hand on his left shoulder, aimed his dagger at Lorenzo’s throat. The latter, undaunted, let his mantel fall and wrapped it around his left arm, drawing his sword out of its scabbard at the same time; however, he received one more blow, and, as he freed himself, was wounded in the neck. Then, as a man both astute and brave, he turned upon his murderers with his unsheathed sword, watching carefully and guarding himself. They were terrified and took flight . . . ] (Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 82, 1‒2) Assidentem conspirati specie officii circumsteterunt, ilicoque Cimber Tillius qui primas partes susceperat, quasi aliquid rogaturus propius accessit renuentique et gestu in aliud tempus differenti ab utroque umero togam adprehendit, deinde clamantem ‘’ista quidem vis est!’ alter e Cascis aversum vulnerat paulum infra iugulum. Caesar Cascae brachium arreptum graphio traiecit conatusque prosilire alio vulnere tardatus est; utque animadvertit undique se strictis pugionibus peti, toga caput obvoluit, simul sinistra manu sinum ad ima crura deduxit, quo honestius caderet etiam inferiore corporis parte velata. [As he took his seat, the conspirators gathered about him as if to pay their respects, and straightway Tillius Cimber, who had assumed the lead, came nearer as though to ask something; and when Caesar with a gesture put him off to another time, Cimber caught his toga by both shoulders; then as Caesar cried, ‘Why, this is violence!’ one of the Cascas stabbed him from one side just below the throat. Caesar caught Casca’s arm and ran it through with his stylus, but as he tried to leap to his feet, he was stopped by another wound. When he saw that he was beset on every side by drawn daggers, he muffled his head in his robe, and at the same time drew down its fold to his feet with his left hand, in order to fall more decently, with the lower part of his body also covered.]⁴²

Besides lexical connections, parallel descriptive elements come to light: the conspirators’ gesture of approaching and catching the victim from behind; the wound in the throat; the heroic reaction by the hurt man who protects himself with his

⁴² All passages and translations of Suetonius’s work are quoted from the edition Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, vol. 1, Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula, translated by John Carew Rolfe. Introduction by Keith R. Bradley (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

171

clothes (Lorenzo deftly moves his cape and bravely tries to escape; Caesar covers his body with his toga to die in a dignified way). Lorenzo managed to save himself, but the implicit correspondence with Caesar evoked by Poliziano emphasizes the heroic tone of the representation of the ruler of Florence, whose valorous figure acquires an epic overtone and stands out more vividly in light of the parallelism with the classical hero. Moreover, this correlation evokes the ideal profile of a prince and indirectly ascribes this trait to Lorenzo. This is a crucial ideological element in the Commentarium that, although not openly, pervades the whole political perspective of the text and is the cornerstone on which Lorenzo’s image is built. As we have seen, more generally, the political dimension that subtends the humanist literary output on the topic of conspiracy is dominated by a princely ideology that, though with different outcomes, was burgeoning in most Italian states in the same years. This phenomenon took place also in Florence, where, despite the formal maintenance of the traditional republican institutions, power had gradually become concentrated in the hands of the Medici family, already with the government of Cosimo and still more under Lorenzo.⁴³ This progressive transition to a personalistic and centralized political system, which was disguised as a longlasting republican organism, was a complex process that affected not only the political sphere, but also, as a consequence of mutual influence, the cultural horizon. In this scenario, Lorenzo’s cultural politics played a decisive function in creating, spreading, and consolidating this new ideological scheme,⁴⁴ and the artistic and literary output produced after the conspiracy, especially the Commentarium, allows us to gain a better insight into this complex operation. It is well known that the failure of the Pazzi conspiracy ended up consolidating still more the Medici’s power and we may claim that Lorenzo’s figure can be now associated with the actual profile of a prince. It is no accident that in Poliziano’s work, the image of Lorenzo is represented as a personification of both the state itself and the whole Florentine people, whose safety coincides with the safety of their ruler. In this perspective, the subtle parallel with the heroic figure of Caesar, the classical emblem of monarchical power, implicitly fulfils the function of highlighting the princely traits of Il Magnifico and ennobling his profile and authority. As for the model of Suetonius, it does not only emerge in the sections hitherto mentioned but is pervasive throughout the text, with multiple functions. For

⁴³ See the fundamental volume by Rubinstein, Nicolai, The Government of Florence Under the Medici, 1434–1494 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966; second ed., 1997); and now Black, Robert and Law, John Easton, eds., The Medici Citizens and Masters (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2015). ⁴⁴ See in particular Bullard, Melissa Miriam, Lorenzo il Magnifico. Image and Anxiety, Politics and Finance (Florence: Olschki, 1994). On this political perspective in the Commentarium, see section 4.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

172

     

example, Poliziano recovers a motif from the classical biographer (Suet. Iul. 85, 1) to depict the macabre and ghoulish image of the Florentine people who, in order to show their closeness to the Medici and support their revenge, carry their spears with pieces of corpses on the top around the city (§ 54): Omnia direpta, cadavera ipsa foede lacerata: iam ante Laurentii fores caput humanum lanceae praefixum, iam humeri partem attulerant. Nihil tum magis undique exaudiri quam populi voces ‘Pilas, Pilas’ (id enim Medicae familiae insigne est) clamitantis. [Everything was plundered, corpses were brutally torn apart: in front of Lorenzo’s doors some brought now a human head fixed on a spear, now a piece of a shoulder. Nothing else could be heard but the voices of the people shouting everywhere ‘Palle, Palle’ [‘balls, balls’], for that is the Medici insignia] (Suet. Iul. 85, 1) Plebs statim a funere ad domum Bruti et Cassii cum facibus tetendit atque aegre repulsa obvium sibi Helvium Cinnam . . . occidit caputque eius praefixum hastae circumtulit. [Immediately after the funeral people ran to the houses of Brutus and Cassius with firebrands, and after being repelled with difficulty, they slew Helvius Cinna . . . and they set his head upon a spear and paraded it about the streets.]

The humanist also relies on Suetonius’s Vita divi Iuli to shape the anecdote of the Pazzi’s palace that was pointlessly demolished and then rebuilt by Iacopo Pazzi (§ 6), ‘Domum paternam magnifice exstructam a fundamentis diruit, novam de integro exaedificare aggressus est’ (‘He tore down the magnificently built palace he inherited from his father and undertook to build it entirely new from its foundation’). This episode is narrated to represent the tendency to dissipate the family possessions typical of the conspirator and is drawn from the biography of Caesar, who is said to have destroyed a villa just to indulge his whim (Iul. 46, 1 ‘villam in Nemorensi a fundamentis incohatam magnoque sumptu absolutam, quia non tota ad animum ei responderat, totam diruisse’; ‘having laid the foundations of a country-house on his estate at Nemi and finished it at great cost, he tore it all down because it did not suit him in every particular’). This correlation (also underlined by lexical borrowings) reveals even more clearly Poliziano’s penchant for Suetonius’s literary style, which often encompasses refined exempla and anecdotes, a typical trait of the biographical genre frequently used as a narrative technique also in the Commentarium. The adherence of Poliziano’s work to the prototype of Suetonius appears also in the stylistic and lexical veneer of the humanist’s historical work, which often duplicates the classical model’s original and sophisticated lexis, its lively realism, and fragmented narrative architecture. In Poliziano’s academic lectures delivered in 1490‒1 he

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

173

openly claimed that he particularly prized the essentialness and expressivity of Suetonius’s vocabulary and wording, which is never verbose or redundant.⁴⁵ In addition, Poliziano explicitly showed his predilection for Suetonius from a historiographical, and therefore more theoretical, perspective. Only a few years after the composition of the Commentarium, in 1482‒3, he wrote his famous oration devoted to the Latin biographer and aimed at both eulogizing and defining the principles of the historia: the Praefatio in Suetoni expositionem.⁴⁶ This speech was probably composed in order to be delivered as the inaugural lecture of Poliziano’s academic course on Suetonius of the same years. It consists of an actual encomium of historical writing and displays a significant celebration of Suetonius as Poliziano’s favourite historiographical auctoritas: a choice that associates the biographer with the major historians selected as chief models in humanist culture. This rather unconventional claim corresponds to Poliziano’s parallel affirmation in favour of the biographical genre, a statement that is mainly grounded on stylistic and rhetorical reasons. More specifically, the classical historiographical prototypes of Suetonius and Plutarch are explicitly compared to Herodotus and Sallust, so as to contrast an exemplary biographical history, which tends to emphasize the dramatic elements in the narration, with a political history.⁴⁷ These critical reflections, if read in conjunction with the numerous connections between the Commentarium and Suetonius’s Vitae, shed light on the centrality of this classical model in Poliziano’s historical work. If the source of Sallust was in some respect an unavoidable choice, this predominant auctoritas is combined with the pervasive, although more unspoken, presence of Suetonius, in particular his biography of Caesar. Thus, since the prototype of Sallust was predictable, but at the same time the most illustrious and obligatory, Poliziano merges it with wide-ranging combination of references and echoes of multiple sources, following his eclectic artistic poetics and taking care also to dissimulate his main model. As the Commentarium belongs to the broad genre of historiography, Poliziano extensively relies also on the other most important historians of classical antiquity: Livy and Caesar, whose works are especially used as sources for vocabulary, iuncturae, and verbal expressions. In particular, the technical military terminology, although not very frequent in the text, derives from Livy’s prose (e.g. § 67),⁴⁸ while it is from Caesar’s ⁴⁵ Poliziano’s opinion is encapsulated in the definition ‘singula singulis correspondere’ used by Poliziano to describe the accuracy and conciseness of Suetonius’s language in one of his comments on a passage of Caligula’s biography (Suet. Cal. 52): cf. Fera, Un’ignota Expositio Suetoni, p. 53. ⁴⁶ The Praefatio is published in Angeli Politiani Opera quae quidem extitere hactenus omnia . . . , pp. 499‒506, and now in Poliziano, Angelo, Praelectiones, vol. 2, edited by Giorgia Zollino (Florence: Olschki 2016). On this work see Fera, ‘La Praefatio’, pp. 139‒60. The text has an important position in the humanist debate on the theory and practice of historiography (see Introduction, I.3 and Chapter 3, section 3.2 in this volume). ⁴⁷ Among the Greek historiographical models, it is Lucian of Samosata who plays a prominent role in Poliziano’s Praefatio (on this classical author see Chapter 2, section 2.3). ⁴⁸ See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 84.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

174

     

Commentarii that Poliziano quotes some rather lengthy expressions (such as in §§ 50‒1).⁴⁹ Nevertheless, as already noted, the Commentarium comes across as the homogenized and balanced fusion of manifold sources of varied nature, not only historiographical, but also poetic, comic, and technical. In this perfect interplay of various references, the function played by classical poetic works is most noteworthy, despite the rhetorical distance between historiographical prose and poetry. In particular poetic models are most frequently employed in specific thematic sections of the texts, where they fulfil the function of amplifying the tragic dimension of the narration. This stylistic strategy is adopted in the description of the murder of Giuliano, the narrative centre of the whole work, where the dramatic tension reaches its climax and the prose style is elevated to a kind of tragic level, thanks to the smooth intermingling of quotations from the major classical poets, in particular Vergil and Ovid (§ 31).⁵⁰ Additionally, many allusions are made to works from the classical comic traditions, which contribute to intensifying the realistic and colourful overtones of the Commenarium. Again, the references to Plautus and (more often) Terence are concentrated in specific sections of the narration, where the linguistic expressiveness is enhanced. An emblematic example is the narration of the revenge inflicted by the Florentine people on Iacopo Pazzi’s dead body, a passage that is couched in a vocabulary mainly derived from classical comic authors and aimed at creating stylistic effects of expressionism (§ 83‒4).⁵¹ In his historical work Poliziano also reveals his predilection for erudite, encyclopaedic, and technical works: this tendency emerges in the employment of expressions derived from Pliny, Columella, and most of all Celsus (e.g. § 87).⁵² The sophisticated and, at the ⁴⁹ (§§ 50‒1) ‘Iacobus autem Pactius, ubi spem Laurentii necandi se fefellisse intellexit, haud ignarus quantum sceleris in se admisisset, utraque palma suam ipse faciem caeciderat; mox, dum se domum e templo corriperet, ad terram prae angustia collapsus est. Tandem, ubi rem in angusto esse videt, fortunam tentare aggressus, cum paucis ex necessariis recta in forum contendit, populum ad arma convocat.’ (‘Iacopo Pazzi, however, when he understood that his hope for killing Lorenzo had failed, admitted with full knowledge how evil his crime was, striking his face with one hand, then the other, and he ran out the church to his house, where he collapsed on the floor in great anguish. Then, when he saw that his predicament was critical, he began to tempt the fate. With a few relatives he went right into the piazza and called the people to arms’): Caes. Gall. 2, 10, 4 ‘hostes . . . spem se fefellisse intellexerunt’ (‘the enemies understood that their hope had failed’); 3, 9, 3 ‘quantum in se facinus admisissent intellegebant’ (‘they admitted with full knowledge their crime’); 2, 25, 1 ‘rem esse in angusto vidit’ (‘he saw that the predicament was critical’). ⁵⁰ (§ 34) ‘Princeps Bandinus, ense per pectus adacto, iuvenem transverberat. Ille moribundus aliquot passus fugitare, insequi illi. Iuvenis, deficiente spiritu, terrae concidit; iacentem Franciscus, repetito saepe ictu, pugione traiicit. Ita pium iuvenem neci dedunt. Qui Iulianum sequebatur famulus, terrore exanimatus, in latebras se turpiter coniecerat.’ (‘First Bandini struck the young man, forcing his sword through his chest. Giuliano, dying, fled a few steps; they followed. Gasping for breath the youth fell to the ground. Francesco stabbed him again and again with his dagger. Thus, this upright young man was murdered. His servant, breathless with terror, flung himself into hiding in a most contemptible fashion’): Ov. Met. 6, 271 ‘ferro per pectus adacto’; Apuleius Met. 9, 37 ‘exanimatus adulescens ille terrae concidit’; Verg. Aen. 10, 657 ‘conicit in latebras’; Ovid, Fasti, 6, 739 and 6, 747 ‘pium iuvenem’. ⁵¹ See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 87. ⁵² The expressions ‘quadrato corpore’ (‘well-proportioned body’) and ‘subnigro colore’ (‘with a dark complexion’) derive from Celsus’s De medicina (2, 1; 5, 28).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

175

same time, unaffected usage of these authors discloses, already at this early stage in Poliziano’s artistic career, the humanist’s eclectic and learned interest in multiple cultural and literary models.⁵³ The clarity and expressiveness of Poliziano’s prose is therefore a reflection of his brilliant erudition and his intellectual and linguistic curiosity, through which he is able to give life to a literary text where every word is an echo of the most illustrious and variegated cultural traditions. Hence, the Commentarium turns out to be a work whose refined and perfectly fashioned artistic features totally fulfil its political and propagandistic aims: a multifaceted text conceived in order to convey a univocal and consistent perspective, capable of reaching peaks of both strong descriptive realism and tragic touching intensity.

4.3 The stylistic revision of the text In the second version of the text, besides substantial variants that affect the content (which will be analysed in section 4.5), a large number of stylistic variants are introduced by the author in order to perfect and polish his work. The amendments are mostly aimed at eliminating some improprieties in the lexis with more exact terminology and refining the syntactical construction, usually in search of a more concise style. In some significant cases the variants also concern the imitation of classical models. Thus, these changes may help us to better understand how Poliziano’s stylistic tenet of varietas is applied in his historical work. In particular a considerable number of amendments can be explained as being aimed at intensifying the Sallustian stylistic tone in the text. But this imitation is not pursued by the conventional insertion of references to the Latin source, on the contrary it is performed by unaffectedly modelling the style on the classical model. This elegant result is achieved, by employing verbs in the historic infinitive, typical of Sallust’s prose,⁵⁴ and by condensing sentences and expressions that could have been perceived as too wordy,⁵⁵ adhering again to a characteristic trait ⁵³ This predilection had been already extensively shown in the virtuosistic Sylva in Scabiem, where, in particular, many references to Celsus are enlisted in the poetic diction: Poliziano, Angelo, Sylva in Scabiem, edited by Alessandro Perosa (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1954); a new edition is edited by Paolo Orvieto (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1989). ⁵⁴ The first quotation in what follows is the first version of the text and the second quotation gives the second version: § 4 ‘Iacobus Pactius . . . diem noctemque aleae vacabat’/ ‘Iacobus Pactius . . . diem noctemque aleae vacare’ (‘Iacopo Pazzi played dice day and night’); ‘Deos atque homines diris agebat’/ ‘Deos atque homines diris agere’ (‘he swore fearfully at God and men’); ‘alveolum tessararium . . . iaculabatur’/ ‘alveolum tessararium . . . iaculari’ (‘he hurled the gambling table’); § 6 ‘pauperculosque homines . . . defraudabat’/ ‘pauperculos homines . . . defraudare’ (‘he defrauded poor men); § 84 “alii . . . iubebant”/ ‘alii . . . iubere’ (‘Others ordered . . . ’). ⁵⁵ See the commentary on the text in the edition Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium: §§ 34; 47; 48; 50; 55; 84.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

176

     

of Sallustian style, which is famous for its brevitas and laconic constructions imbued with dramatic intensity. Nevertheless, Poliziano’s imitation is not passive and unoriginal. This is proved by the elimination of some quotations from classical sources that must have been considered by the humanist too explicit and ordinary. Significantly these cuts appear in references to Suetonius and, most of all, Sallust, the authors who are most frequently evoked in the text (§§ 86; 87; 88).⁵⁶ This dissimulating aspect of the process of imitation, together with the indirect and sophisticated adherence to the Sallustian style (rather than a colourless collage of quotations), reveals that the humanist, two years after the rapid and urgently needed composition of the pamphlet, came back to his work to refine it and to make it conform still more to his personal poetics of docta varietas. In general, from a stylistic point of view, the revision proves to be intended to polish Poliziano’s historical text and elevate it to a loftier level. This seems to be confirmed by the cutting of some passages containing narrative and descriptive elements that could be considered too colloquial and popularizing. For example, in the second version of the text he omits the image of the gambling table used to hurt a man’s head in a temper tantrum, which is recurrent in the tradition of the cantari⁵⁷ (§ 4): ‘alveolum tessararium . . . temere in proximum quemque iaculabatur, saepe et ad ipsum alveolum furiosi instar frontem allidebat’ (‘he would blindly hurl the gambling table at anyone close to him, and often, in anger, would hurt the head against the same table’). Poliziano also cut the reference to the common people’s superstition according to which after the disinterment of Iacopo Pazzi’s dead body, which was buried a second time along the city’s walls (outside the sacred territory of the city), the rain stopped and the sun started again to shine, an anecdote that probably, for the author, lowered the tone of the description (§ 82).⁵⁸ This overall refinement of the text is reflected by a slight but significant variant in the title of the work, which in the first version was defined ‘commentariolum’, and in the second and final redaction becomes ‘commentarium’.⁵⁹ The unconventional and rare diminutive used in the first instance is replaced with the more traditional and classical term ‘commentarium’. The diminutive is infrequently used as a title and generally means ‘brief notes’, without any literary meaning; while the standard form ‘commentarium’ (or commentarius, in the masculine, or in the plural commentarii/commentaria) is generally used with reference to the historiographical genre, both in the classical tradition and in humanism. Thus, the transition from the rare and rhetorically limiting diminutive to the classical form, ⁵⁶ See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium: §§ 86; 87; 88 (pp. 87‒8). ⁵⁷ The connection of this detail with the cantari is pointed out by Martelli, p. 30. ⁵⁸ See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium: pp. 86‒7. ⁵⁹ For a more detailed analysis of this variant in the title: Celati, Marta, ‘La seconda redazione del Coniurationis commentarium di Angelo Poliziano e l’edizione romana di Johannes Bulle’, Humanistica 11, 1‒2 (2016), pp. 283‒92: 291‒2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

177

in light of the considerable number of stylistic variants introduced in the text, seems to formally state, even in the title, the overall stylistic improvement of the work, which, as we have seen, is a perfect expression of Poliziano’s elegant and erudite poetics of imitation.

4.4 The Commentarium in Medici cultural politics The events of the conspiracy are narrated by Poliziano from a political angle, which is characteristic of this specific monographic and thematic genre of fifteenth-century literature on conspiracies. In the Commentarium in particular the perspective of the historical reconstruction is totally focused on Florence, leaving out the wider political dimension of the episode. This approach fulfils the purpose of isolating the event from the Italian historical context and, simultaneously, underlining the marginalization of the conspirators from the totality of the Florentine people, who instead are represented as loyal to the rulers of the state. Consequently, the plotters are depicted as individual corrupt figures, motivated by their ruthless ambition and unscrupulousness, features that are idiosyncratic characteristics of most conspirators in fifteenth-century literature. Furthermore, Poliziano’s work is carefully articulated in four complementary sections in order to both highlight the wickedness of the crime committed and, at the same time, put emphasis on the celebration of the Medici regime. The text opens with the presentation of the plotters, which is followed by the narration of the assault in the church; symmetrically, the second half of the work contains the description of the vengeance triggered by the Florentine government against the conspirators and finally ends with the eulogistic portrayal of Giuliano, the commemoration of the young man murdered. In the opening section the plotters are represented with emphatically negative traits and by an expressionistic tone aimed at underscoring their immorality and viciousness. These characters are implicitly presented as divided into two groups on the basis of their contribution to the plot: on the one hand, the organizers, who are considered more responsible for the evil crime and among whom are the Archbishop of Pisa Francesco Salviati, Iacopo Pazzi, and his nephew Francesco; on the other hand, the actual perpetrators of the attack and other figures involved in it.⁶⁰ The account of the events opens with the first unsuccessful attempt to carry out the plot in the Medici palace. Then Poliziano narrates the assault in the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, Giuliano’s tragic death, and the brave reaction of his brother, who succeeds in saving himself by seeking refuge in the sacristy, where the humanist himself flees. With a quick narrative transfer, the author

⁶⁰ On this subdivision, see Poliziano, Della congiura, p. 19.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

178

     

describes the abortive attempt to occupy the Palace of the Signoria by Francesco Salviati and some armed men, who are arrested by Cesare Petrucci, the gonfaloniere of justice. Once the conspiracy fails, the whole city becomes the scene of the harsh revenge against the plotters, who are captured and brutally killed. Poliziano indulges in the depiction of these macabre and violent images with an expressionistic style and an almost decadent taste. This emerges in the picture of the hanging of Francesco Salviati (§ 58) and in the description of the torture inflicted on Iacopo Pazzi’s corpse, which was unearthed twice, dragged around the city and abused by a group of young boys, and finally thrown into the river Arno (§§ 82‒5). Finally, the Commentarium ends with the portrait of Giuliano, a fully rounded apologetic representation that solemnly concludes the work. This portrayal culminates in the elegant closing quotation from Vergil’s Georgicae (1, 500), which evokes again the figure of Lorenzo, who is continuously celebrated in the background: ‘Deum tamen optimum maximumque, ne prohibeat precamur: hunc saltem everso iuvenem succurrere saeclo’ (§ 90; ‘We pray to God most high and most good “that at least this young man be not hindered from helping this shipwrecked age” ’). Form the very beginning the conspiracy is immediately presented as a subversive attack against the whole community of Florence, and not just against its leader Lorenzo, who was the actual target of the plot (§1): Pactianam coniurationem paucis describere instituo, nam id in primis memorabile facinus tempestate mea accidit parumque abfuit quin Florentinam omnem rem publicam penitus everteret. Cum is igitur esset eius urbis status, ut omnes boni a Laurentio et Iuliano fratribus reliquaque Medicum familia starent, Pactiorum una gens ac Salviatorum nonnulli coepere praesentibus rebus clam primo, mox etiam palam adversari. [I am resolved to describe briefly the Pazzi conspiracy, a crime most worthy of record that occurred in my own times, for indeed it almost overthrew the whole Florentine Republic from within. The state of this city was then that while all the good people were on the side of the brothers Lorenzo and Giuliano and the rest of the Medici family, a branch of the Pazzi family and some of the Salviati began, first in secret and then even openly, to oppose the existing government.]

The subversion is seen as a dangerous threat that can jeopardize the entire state, the fatherland, and the common good. This propagandistic reconstruction achieves the goal of disseminating a cohesive image of public concordia, which is functional to the maintenance of power by the ruling family. Here Poliziano also contrasts this with the isolation of the plotters, a motif that is recurrent in the Commentarium. This element is also highlighted in the episode in which Iacopo Pazzi tries to urge the Florentine people to rebel against the Medici but nobody answers (§ 51):

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

179

Tandem, ubi rem in angusto esse videt, fortunam tentare aggressus, cum paucis ex necessariis recta in forum contendit, populum ad arma convocat. Nihil succedere illi, verum omnes hominem scelestum et tum prae formidine vix sonum vocis qui exaudiretur erumpentem, contemptui habere facinusque detestari. Is, ubi nihil in populo auxilii videt, trepidare animoque destitui. [Then, when he saw that his predicament was critical, he began to tempt fate. With a few relatives he went right into the piazza and called the people to arms. He had no success, and in fact, everyone called him an evil man; indeed, his voice was so broken by terror that he could scarcely be heard, and all men held him in contempt and cursed his crime. When he saw there was no backing from the people, he began to tremble and lose courage.]

The adoption of this narrative strategy, once again, ends up laying emphasis on the indissoluble bond between Florence and the Medici. In particular Lorenzo becomes the actual personification of the whole Florentine community. As already observed, he gradually assumed the traits of an ideal prince, an image that he succeeded in strengthening further immediately after the failure of the conspiracy. In Poliziano’s Commentarium, the princely image of Lorenzo is conveyed continuously: he is portrayed as the saviour of Florence and the embodiment of the state itself—a state whose safety is totally dependent on safeguarding its ruler. The section of the text that most effectively conveys the celebration of Lorenzo and the Medici is the description of the close link that ties the common people to their signore, who is supported and helped by all citizens after the attack (§§ 62‒4). Here the author suggests the idea of a strong mutual relationship between Florence and Lorenzo, who is depicted as a one-man ruler endowed with heroic traits and loved by his people: Fremebant omnes . . . ipsum . . . Laurentium, in quem unum Florentina omnis res publica recumberet, ipsum illum Laurentium, in quo spes omnes opesque populi sitae forent, ferro petitum, id vero indignissimum clamitabant. Iam ex omnibus municipiis, ut quaeque urbi viciniora essent, magna vis armatorum in forum, in trivia, in Medicam praecipue domum confluere, ostentare pro se quisque suum studium; cives catervatim cum liberis et clientibus polliceri suam operam, suas vires atque opes; omnes ex uno Laurentio et publicam et privatam pendere ipsorum salutem dictitare. Videre erat continuos aliquot dies undique in domum Laurentianam arma convehi, importari carnes et panes quaeque essent victui oportuna. Ipse Laurentius non vulnere, non metu, non dolore, quem ex fratris nece maximum ceperat, impediri quo minus rebus suis prospiceret: prehensare cives omnis, gratiam se singulis habere, ipsis omnibus suam dicere salutem referre acceptam; populo sese de ipsius salute anxio non nunquam e fenestris ostentare. Ibi acclamare omnis populus, manus ad caelum tollere, gratari eius saluti, exultare gaudio. Ipse rebus omnibus intentus agere, neque animo neque consilio destitui.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

180

     

[Everyone was indignant that . . . Lorenzo himself, on whose single person the whole Florentine Republic depended, in whom the hope and the resources of all the people were concentrated, had been attacked by armed men. Against all this there was a deep indignation. Soon, from all the various towns near the city, a large force of armed men streamed into the piazza of the Signoria, the other piazzas, and especially the Medici palace. Everyone was eager to show his own personal zeal—people flocking with their children and retainers to offer their help, protection, and support. All men declared that on Lorenzo alone their public and private safety depended. For days you could see a continuous stream of arms pouring from everywhere into the Medici palace, as well as bread and meat and whatever else was available in the way of provision. Neither his wound nor his fear nor his great sorrow for his brother’s death prevented Lorenzo from overseeing his affairs. He hugged all citizens, thanked them individually and saying that his safety was due to all of them. Since the public was anxious about his health, he had to appear often at the windows of the palace. Thereupon the whole people would acclaim him, cheer and wave, rejoice in his safety, and revel in their joy. He in turn was determined to expedite all that had to be done, and never faltered in courage or in wisdom.]⁶¹

This political standpoint corresponds to the main ideological linchpin of the whole Commentarium and is the expression of one of the chief pillars of Medici cultural politics in this period. The emblematic image of Lorenzo as the saviour of Florence is also represented through the artistic medium, particularly in the very famous medal that the sculptor and medallist Bertoldo di Giovanni created after the conspiracy and that was commissioned by Lorenzo himself. In this emblematic artwork, Lorenzo’s heroic profile is accompanied by the significant words ‘salus publica’, ‘public safety’, while, on the reverse of the medal, the figure of Giuliano, murdered in the plot, is combined with the symmetrical expression ‘luctus publicus’ (‘public grief ’).⁶² This work of art along with Poliziano’s literary text reveals clearly the ramification of Lorenzo’s multifaceted political and cultural strategy. Poliziano was perfectly integrated into the Medici’s political programme and played an active role in the aftermath of the conspiracy as Lorenzo’s personal secretary; so the humanist’s concrete political engagement also accounts for the perfect correspondence of the Commentarium’s narrative perspective with

⁶¹ This translation is quoted from Poliziano, Angelo, ‘The Pazzi Conspiracy’, translated by Renée Neu Watkins with David Marsh, in Humanism and Liberty: Writing on freedom from Fifteenth Century Florence, edited by Renée Neu Watkins (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1978), pp. 171‒83. ⁶² On the medal see cf. Langedijk, Karla, The Portraits of the Medici, 15th‒18th Centuries, vol. 1 (Florence: S.P.E.S., 1981‒7), p. 27; Bullard, Lorenzo, p. 11. More generally, on this political perspective, which is common also to other texts on plots, see Chapter 5, section 5.3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

181

Lorenzo de’ Medici’s political guidelines after the plot. Not only does the text contribute to legitimizing and consolidating the authority of the family who ruled Florence, but it also closely mirrors some specific political strategies designed to defend the Medici from their enemies’ attacks. In fact, Poliziano in his work does not contextualize the plot within the broader Italian political scenario, but instead totally overlooks the most important political figures responsible for the attacks: the pope, the king of Naples, and Federico da Montefeltro. In the Commentarium we do not find even a single slight allusion to the wider context of the conspiracy. This narrative scheme, which appears as mainly based on the literary component rather than on the historiographical one, has been often labelled as evidence of Poliziano’s limited historiographical skills. Nevertheless, an accurate analysis of the tendencies of Florentine politics in that period shows that these substantial omissions reflect Lorenzo’s aim to cover up the responsibilities of the major Italian political actors, especially as, initially, the direct involvement of these instigators in the conspiracy had been hidden by the Florentine government itself. This strategy comes to light, for example, in the epistolary correspondence between the rulers of Milan, Florence’s allies, and Lorenzo, immediately after the conspiracy. Indeed, the Milanese allies suggested that Florence should behave extremely prudently with all those who had been the instigators and perpetrators of this wicked crime (‘auctori, fauctori, conscii et partecipi di questa sceleratagine’), and advised that the most prudent and recommended conduct was to pretend with them not to have seen or understood, and keep everything quiet and as secret as possible (‘cum epsi fingere non vedere né havere inteso et governare tutto sotto silentio et cum secretanza che si po’).⁶³ Significantly, an analogous political approach emerges in the famous confession delivered by Giovanni Battista Montesecco on 4 May 1478: he was a condottiero who worked for Sixtus IV and his nephew Girolamo Riario and was involved in planning the plot. The confession, given after his capture, is an important historical source that shows how the conspiracy was organized step by step. Nonetheless, this document is never mentioned in the Commentarium, not even by indirect reference. It is again noteworthy that immediately after the failure of the attack the confession was kept secret by the Florentine government itself. It was only in August that it was finally disseminated and printed in the edition of Scala’s Excusatio Florentinorum. Before that, the document had only been divulged to the Medici’s allies, such as Milan, where it was sent already on 6 May 1478. What is striking is that, when this text was disseminated, it was published with considerable omissions aimed at removing all the references to Ferdinando of Aragon and Federico of Montefeltro, with the main purpose of covering any evidence of their involvement in the plot. The purpose of this

⁶³ Letter of 9 May 1478: Lorenzo, Lettere, vol. 3, p. 22n.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

182

     

operation was to downplay publicly the guilt of the most powerful external enemies of the Medici in order not to exacerbate political conflicts and not to hinder possible negotiations, so as to protect Florence from a military attack: an outcome that was never accomplished.⁶⁴ Significantly, also the anonymous Lamento in morte di Giuliano alludes to the concealment of the more illustrious instigators of the attack, although their names were probably very well known among the Florentine people: ‘Furonvi certi di maggiore stato,/ che per miglior non dico e nomi loro,/ ma di vil gesta ciascheduno è nato,/ sì che pensilo ogniun(o) chi sono costoro’ (‘There were some people of high status whose name I should not mention, but they were capable of such evil misdeeds that everyone can figure out who they actually are’).⁶⁵ Additionally, in May the Medici government promulgated extremely harsh measures against the Pazzi family, which are also mentioned in the first version of Poliziano’s Commentarium.⁶⁶ These laws were proclaimed in order to punish the Medici’s enemies and isolate them from the Florentine community, on which these severe measures had a strong emotional impact. This effect was achieved also by means of the violent execution of the conspirators, once again fully described in Commentarium. Hence Poliziano’s work reflects the Medici’s political guidelines and it ends up emphasizing the cohesion between the rulers and their people. The humanist’s main goal is to highlight the culpability of the internal enemies of the Florentine regime, the Pazzi, alongside whom he lists only a few foreign plotters, placing a particular focus on the Archbishop Salviati. So, Poliziano’s historical-literary account completes the accusatory picture outlined by Lorenzo and works alongside the other propagandistic texts composed after the plot to support and spread the Medici’s standpoint (the Florentina synodus and the Excusatio Florentinorum were focused on defending Florence from the allegations made by Sixtus IV in June, when he was publicly recognized as Florence’s chief enemy). Poliziano’s account also shows direct correlations with the legal consilia commissioned by Lorenzo from the most eminent jurists, who formulated the Medici’s official defence against the pope.⁶⁷ As we have seen, the humanist himself collaborated on the collection of the consilia, in particular revising and sending ⁶⁴ Cf. Fubini, Italia quattrocentesca, pp. 264‒8. ⁶⁵ Flamini, ‘Versi’, I, vv. 94‒7. ⁶⁶ On this passage in the first version of the Commentarium see section 4.5. ⁶⁷ On the consilia see Spagnesi, Enrico, ‘In difesa del Magnifico. A proposito di alcuni Consilia legali al tempo della Congiura dei Pazzi’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: politica, economia, cultura, arte. Convegno di studi promosso dalle Università di Firenze, Pisa e Siena (5‒8 novembreNovember 1992), vol. 3 (Pisa: Pacini, 1996), pp. 1235‒53; De Benedictis, Anna, ‘Abbattere i tiranni, punire i ribelli. Diritto e violenza negli interdetti del Rinascimento’, Rechtsgeschichte 11 (2007), pp. 76‒93; De Benedictis, Anna, ‘Il principe prima e dopo Machiavelli’, in Principi prima del Principe, edited by Lorenzo Geri [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 9‒24: 21‒3; Pennington, Kenneth, The Prince and the Law, 1200‒1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 238–68; Bizzocchi, Roberto, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1987), pp. 264‒6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

183

Bartolomeo Sozzini’s work to his patron. The strongest accusation against Lorenzo concerned the murder of the Archbishop Salviati and the imprisonment of Cardinal Raffaello Sansoni Riario, Sixtus IV’s grandnephew, who was released only after the publication of the excommunication.⁶⁸ Since they were religious men, according to the pope, the jurisdiction of their behaviour (and therefore of their punishment) had to be an exclusive prerogative of the Church, and not of a secular institution like the Florentine state. It is significant that in his narration Poliziano dwells on the description of the archbishop’s attempt to siege and occupy the Palazzo of the Signoria (§§ 45‒9) and highlights Salviati’s criminal behaviour and his evil nature, not least by adding in the second edition of the text three mordant epigrams against him. This viewpoint is perfectly consistent with the strategy of defence conceived by the jurists and formulated in the consilia. Here, the execution of Salviati is justified with the evidence that his religious status was not identifiable when he tried to overthrow the Medici regime by occupying the palace with his armed men. Consequently, the government of Florence was rightful in pursuing its self-defence by punishing him through exceptional measures. As for the detention of Cardinal Sansoni Riario, all the texts of the Medici’s propaganda—the consilia, the Florentina synodus, the Excusatio Florentinorum, and the Commentarium—agree in reporting that the clergyman was taken into custody to save him from the spontaneous violent vengeance carried out by the common people in Florence, otherwise he would have been murdered: an explanation that is openly illustrated in Poliziano’s text (§ 53 ‘Cardinalem comprehensum magno praesidio in curiam subducunt aegreque hominem a populi impetu tuentur. Qui eum assectari consueverant, plerique a plebe occisi’; ‘They led the captive cardinal to the Palace with a large group of guards and defended him with much difficulty from the people’s violent attack. Most of those who were part of his entourage were killed by the common people’). Thus, the Commentarium, despite not mentioning any of the foreign states involved in the plot, conformed to the political programme planned by Lorenzo. In light of this, Poliziano’s text may be defined as an ‘official’ historiographical work: the loftiest literary component of Lorenzo’s multifaceted politics, which was composed by the most eminent Florentine humanist, who had already played the role of ‘poet laureate’ with the composition of the Stanze per la giostra di Giuliano de’ Medici written to celebrate Giuliano’s victory in the famous tournament in 1475. A close reading of both the Commentarium and the Stanze reveals a considerable number of correlations that link the two masterpieces. In particular, the very same ideological and political perspective imbues both works: despite being openly intended to celebrate Giuliano, they are both permeated by the implicit but continuous eulogy of the older brother, and focus on ⁶⁸ The decision to release him was taken on the 4 June 1478 (cf. Lorenzo, Lettere, vol. 3, p. 47), while the Bulla that sanctioned the excommunication was promulgated on 1 June.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

184

     

boosting Lorenzo’s cultural and political programme and his hegemonic and magnetic figure.⁶⁹

4.5 The evolution of the political perspective: from the first to the second version Two years after the composition of the Commentarium, Poliziano edited his work stylistically and refined the political perspective of the historical account. The new version was published in Rome by the printer Johannes Bulle in two editions (one a copy of the other) in 1480.⁷⁰ This was the same year in which the humanist carried out the revision and the same period that saw a fundamental turning point in both the political relationships among the Italian states and in the biography of Poliziano himself. The substantial changes introduced by the humanist into his text are connected with the profound evolution that Medici politics underwent in 1480. In particular 13 March is a crucial date, since it marks the conclusion of the negotiations between Florence and Naples, after Lorenzo de’ Medici’s famous journey to Naples to meet Ferdinando of Aragon. The important peace agreement between the two states was the outcome of a diplomatic mission that put an end to the military conflict waged after the conspiracy. This achievement was immediately and unanimously considered as the successful completion of the strategic policies executed by Lorenzo, who, as a result, succeeded in centralizing still more power in his hands. Nonetheless, the agreement also included some harsh conditions to be accepted by Florence and established that the punishing measures that had been proclaimed against the Pazzi two years before had to be revoked. This decision was put into effect in 1480, when the members of the Pazzi family who were still in prison in Volterra were released. In addition, the exile inflicted on Guglielmo Pazzi (who was Bianca de’ Medici’s husband and Lorenzo’s bother-inlaw, and for this reason was not sentenced to death) was rescinded, and the heavy ban on marriage that had been declared against the Pazzi was annulled.⁷¹ To be sure this political transition influenced deeply the second and final version of the Commentarium. Here, for example, Poliziano eliminated a lengthy description of Provvisione issued by the Florentine government against the Pazzi on 23 May 1478, a passage that in the first redaction followed the narration of the abuse of Iacopo Pazzi’s dead body:

⁶⁹ On this element in the Stanze see Gardini, Rinascimento, pp. 240‒6. ⁷⁰ Politianus, Angelus, Coniurationis commentarium [Rome: Johannes Bulle, 1480]. See Poliziano, Della congiura, pp. XI‒XII; Celati, ‘La seconda redazione’. ⁷¹ The text of the treaty is published in Lorenzo, Lettere, vol. 4, pp. 377‒89. On the agreement: Martines, pp. 198‒9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

185

Multa praeterea iocularia carmina in Iacobi Pactii contumeliam inque omnium coniuratorum detestationem passim per urbem a pueris cantitata, multi undique famosi libelli in eosdem conscripti. Bona eorum in publicum adducta factumque senatus consultum, nequis post eam diem eius nomen familiae usurparet, nequa usquam Pactiorum insignia remanerent, ne ve quis nostra in re publica affinitatem cum ipsis contraheret. Qui contra faceret eum contra rem publicam contraque senatus auctoritatem facere. [Moreover, many jocular songs against Iacopo Pazzi and the other conspirators were sung all around the city by boys and many famous pamphlets were written against the plotters. Their properties and belongings were confiscated and a public body was created for this purpose; after that day nobody could use the name of the Pazzi family anymore in our state; the exposition of any Pazzi emblem was forbidden; and nobody in our state was allowed to marry a member of this family. Whoever did not respect these measures acted against the state and the senate’s authority.]⁷²

This cut can be linked with a substantial group of minor changes that, read together, reveal the author’s intention of diminishing the blame assigned to the Pazzi and, simultaneously, indirectly emphasize the culpability of other figures. In particular Archbishop Salviati emerges as the main culprit and, uncoincidentally, he is the target of three mordant epigrams that Poliziano added to the final version of his Commentarium.⁷³ Although, overall, this is a minor change that does not completely overturn the political perspective of the text, it appreciably affects it and partially transforms its political angle. An emblematic example of this new overtone is provided by a brief but significant addition that the author inserted in the initial presentation of the conspirators: (§ 12) ‘Principes coniurationis post Salviatum, Iacobus et Franciscus Pactii’ (‘The principal conspirators after Salviati were Iacopo and Francesco Pazzi’). Here, by identifying the three main figures responsible for the plot—Iacopo and Francesco Pazzi and Francesco Salviati— Poliziano specifies that the foremost position of blame is that of Archbishop Salviati. Already in the first version of the text, particularly negative emphasis was put on this character and his hideous behaviour and actions. This standpoint can be related to the aim of supporting Lorenzo’s defence against the pope’s allegations of having executed a member of the Church with no legitimacy: an accusation that, as already mentioned, was contested in all texts of the pro-Medici propaganda by depicting the archbishop as an armed man actively involved in the violent attack. But it is in the final redaction that Salviati acquires an even more ⁷² My translation. See Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, p. 87. On the document (Florence State Archive, Provvisioni, Registri, 169, ff. 24‒6), see Poliziano, Della congiura, p. 61; and Martines, pp. 137‒41. ⁷³ These variants are discussed in Celati, ‘La seconda redazione’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

186

     

prominent evil role. This new narrative approach might have been influenced also by the general evolution of Medici politics in 1480, when Lorenzo was committed to ending the conflict with both Ferrante and Sixtus IV and to mitigating the punishment inflicted on the Pazzi. Now Salviati, who was already dead, seems to be the guiltiest instigator of the tragic events: an interpretation that perfectly matches the new pacifying directions of both the internal and foreign policies pursued by Lorenzo. Furthermore, the publication of the second version of the Commentarium in Rome—an aspect that remains enigmatic in this publishing operation—was probably somehow influenced by this changed historical scenario. This publication may be seen as one of the consequences of the more peaceful, although always circumspect, diplomatic relationship between Lorenzo and Sixtus IV. This reconciliation was the result of complex negotiations and was sanctioned by a delegation of twelve ambassadors sent from Florence, in November 1480, to present formal apologies to the pope on behalf of Lorenzo.⁷⁴ What is most remarkable is that the second edition of the Commentarium (see Figure 4.1) was published in Rome by the printer Johannes Bulle, who was personally engaged in printing not only religious texts and documents but also official Bulls promulgated by the Curia between 1478 and 1479, the years when his activity was at its peak. It is still more striking that Johannes Bulle was the printer who also published the Bulls by which Sixtus IV promulgated the excommunication and the interdict against Lorenzo and Florence in June 1478 after the conspiracy, as the analysis of the different editions and the typographical characters used by the printer has shown (see Figure 4.2).⁷⁵ Therefore, Bulle’s activity was put at the service of Sixtus IV on many occasions, in particular in the conflict that arose from the failure of the plot. Thus, it seems improbable that the pope did not know about the publication of the most important pro-Medici work in Rome, especially if we consider that it was printed by a typographer so close to the Curia. In light of this new element it is possible to suppose that Sixtus IV allowed, or at least did not oppose, the publication of the final version of Poliziano’s text in Rome. We should also consider that there is no allusion in the text to the pope’s direct responsibility in the conspiracy and that, in the second redaction, the main scapegoat among the curial plotters becomes Salviati, who was already dead. Hence the Roman editions of the Commentarium may be seen as being aimed at disseminating the text, two years after its first publication in Florence, in a wider area

⁷⁴ On this embassy cf. Martines, pp. 200‒1. ⁷⁵ Sixtus IV, Bulla ‘Ineffabilis et Summi Patris providentia’ de excommunicatione Laurentii de Medicis [Rome: Bulle, post 1 Jun. 1478]: ISTC is00545000. Sixtus IV, Bullae ‘Ad apostolicae dignitatis auctoritatem’ et ‘Inter cetera quorum nos cura sollicitat’ contra Laurentium de Medicis [Rome: Bulle, post 22 Jun. 1478]: ISTC is00545550. I have examined the exemplar in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich (Ink. S-437).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

Figure 4.1. Angelus Politianus, Coniurationis commentarium, s. l. et a. [Rome: Johannes Bulle, 1480]. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Ink. P-665, f. 1r.

187

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

188

     

Figure 4.2. Bullae ‘Ad apostolicæ dignitatis auctoritatem’ et ‘Inter cetera quorum nos cura sollicitat’ contra Laurentium de Medicis [Rome: Johannes Bulle, post 22 June 1478]. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Sixtus IV, Ink. S-437, f. 1r.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2020, SPi

 ’   

189

not limited to Tuscany: a work that had been perfected and that, despite its intrinsic pro-Medici viewpoint, could enjoy new diffusion in a phase of political reconciliation (at least on the surface) between the papal and Florentine governments. But the most noteworthy and evident change in the second version of the text appears in the title. In the first edition it was Pactianae coniurationis commentariolum,⁷⁶ while in the final redaction in the Roman edition it becomes Coniurationis commentarium. This slight but significant alteration, which excises the Pazzi name from the title, must have been for political reasons. Evidently, the necessity of adapting his text to the new political scenario was so important and urgent for Poliziano that he adopted an unusual and anomalous title that turns out to be ‘incomplete’. Indeed, this title leaves undetermined the subject of the text, the ‘conspiracy’, which appears as devoid of any historical specification that allows contextualization. Thus, once again, it is probably after the radical change in direction of the political situation in Florence (and the consequent strengthening of Lorenzo’s personal power) that Poliziano thought it inconvenient to include too many details on the official reprisal against the Pazzi and to identify the conspiracy with the name of the Medici’s enemies, although ‘Pazzi conspiracy’ is the definition with which the event has gone down in history. This analysis shows that among the fifteenth-century texts on conspiracies, the Coniurationis commentarium is perhaps the work that proves to be most directly correlated with political and propagandistic aims. It so closely reflects both the political guidelines of the Medici strategy and the evolution of the political situation in Florence that it can be regarded as a piece of ‘official’ historiography, even though there is no evidence of any commission by Lorenzo. The immediate printing of the pamphlet, the active involvement of the printer Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna in this project, and the widespread fortune that the text enjoyed support such an argument. The explicitly political nature of this work marks a fundamental step in the literary development of the topic of conspiracy that has been traced so far. Here the interaction of the literary, historical, and political realms reaches its climax and shapes a historical account that is effectively framed as a powerful political tool. However, the propagandistic dimension never obscures the pure artistic greatness of this work. The sophisticated literary framework and the studied stylistic formulation are intertwined with the historiographical components and the political overtones to give life to one of the most effective examples of ‘political historiography’ in fifteenth-century literature.

⁷⁶ The use of the diminutive has been already discussed in section 4.3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

5 The Conspiracy Against the Prince Political Perspective and Literary Patterns in Texts on Plots

5.1 The classical legacy: genres, models, symbolism, and political tradition After the in-depth examination of the four humanist works considered as case studies, this chapter consists in a complete comparative analysis, which summarizes the whole discourse of fifteenth-century literature on plots, identifying the main rhetorical, historiographical, and ideological aspects of these texts and preparing the ground for the final chapter on Machiavelli. The topic of conspiracy, directly intertwined with that of political subversion and internal dissent, was chosen as a frequent subject for historical narratives already in the classical world.¹ However, it is only in the Quattrocento that, in footsteps of the model of Sallust’s De coniuratione Catilinae, an actual ‘thematic genre’ of literature on contemporary plots was produced and enjoyed remarkable success. Humanists resorted to this classical prototype, but they radically renewed the traditional use of Sallust’s work. They combined it with manifold classical sources, employed in accordance with the rhetorical genre to which each text belongs, and adopted it as a literary archetype for a new specific kind of monographic writing. Often the stylistic veneer and moral ideological overtone of texts are also modelled on Sallust. Nevertheless, this historiographical model is not passively assumed, rather, it is projected into the more flexible sphere of literature and is reworked in the pursuit of creative and eclectic imitation. Although the historia is at the heart of this whole literary output, the narrative of plots does not only appear in purely historiographical works, as was the case in the classical age (when, beside Sallust, this topic was usually addressed in broader historical works, with the exception of Cicero’s orations on Catiline), but surfaces in various kinds of writings that prove the typically heterogeneous character of much of humanist literature. These texts therefore can be defined as literary and historical, with one of these two components prevailing over, and

¹ The comparative analysis in this chapter is based on the examination of the single texts in the previous chapters in this volume (where specific bibliography on the works and the issues treated is provided). On the topic of conspiracy in the classical tradition: Pagan, Victoria Emma, Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004).

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

191

interacting with, the other in each text: history is embedded in literature and, in other cases, the rhetorical nature of historiography is amplified by means of the exploitation of literary tools and structures. It is Alberti’s work that can be regarded as having opened the way for the proliferation of this literary output in the second half of the fifteenth century. The humanist recovered for the first time the structural and thematic prototype of the historical monograph on a conspiracy and re-elaborated it in the freer realm of literature, mixing the historical bedrock with the witness discourse typical of epistolary writing and with the harmonious intrusion of oratorical and dialogical elements. Orazio Romano’s Porcaria also displays a substantial use of Sallust, especially in the section of the poem containing the account of the historical events. But what is most remarkable is that the classical historiographical source is directly applied to poetry and is reworked into an other-worldly transfiguration. Yet, it is only in later works, such as in Poliziano’s Commentarium, that the employment of Sallust becomes all-encompassing and surfaces more overtly also in the stylistic and linguistic texture of the work, and in a more pronounced moral undertone subtending the political reading of the events. Although Poliziano, like Alberti, painstakingly pursues his well-known literary poetics of docta varietas in framing his work and dissembling somehow the use of his main model, he took the reworking of Sallust to a more extreme, and at the same time more sophisticated, level. He chose the major historiographical genre for the eyewitness narrative of contemporary history, the commentarium, adapting it to the monographic standpoint of his account and embroidering it by the fusion of a multifaceted variety of sources. Pontano also, before Poliziano (or rather at the same time, because of the forty-year long revision of the work on the Neapolitan conspiracy and war), resorted to Sallust’s model and combined it with elements from Livy, in an impeccably balanced lofty historiographical narrative, in which the monographic outlook is intertwined with a partially annalistic framework. As in the text on the Pazzi plot, so also in the De bello Neapolitano the influence of Sallust becomes more apparent in the pro-government view of events, which is imbued with an implicit but firmly decisive moral condemnation of the subversion. In these later works, the mark of the Latin historian informs the whole text as a more intrinsic trait running throughout the historical reconstruction and ending up by conferring on it a precise political overtone. It is above all in Poliziano’s Commentarium that the multifunctional recovery of Sallust proves to be one of the most distinguishing factors that contribute to producing the centralized political perspective that underlies the literary account. In general, in humanist works on plots, unlike texts from the previous century and the early Quattrocento,² this classical model is not merely enlisted as a source for historical exempla, images ² On the use of Sallust in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and in particular on the early Quattrocento, see Introduction, section I.1, n. 1; and section I.3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

192

     

and political principles, but as a literary archetype for a new kind of work. This process reflects the shift from a more varied political reading of the auctoritas to a more rigid interpretation of it, now distant from republican ideologies. This new literary use of Sallust clearly comes to light, for example, in the conspirator’s speech and in the colourful portrayals of the plotters, where the perfect conflation of rhetorical and historical components is aimed at conveying a specific political message (either overtly or less openly), by refashioning the image of the state’s enemies as modern Catilines. If already in the early 1400s the reference to Sallust was oriented in such a way as to condemn any attempt to undermine the state’s unity,³ nonetheless it is only in the second half of the century that the re-elaboration of this model gradually moves to a more all-embracing literary practice and becomes tied to a verticalized view of power. Despite the central position of Sallust, the overall architecture of these works— their stylistic, thematic, narrative, and ideological components—is built on the combination of multiple classical sources. In the Porcaria, for example, both the refined epic texture and the political perspective of the text are created by the studied overlapping of echoes derived from the most distinguished poetic auctoritates, from Vergil to Lucan, from Statius to Claudian. In particular a classical poetic prototype that could perfectly fit with the specific issue of conspiracy was Lucan, a model that was reframed by Orazio Romano to implicitly put across the propagandistic denunciation of political discordia, to the extent of covertly relating the conspiracy to a ferocious and unreasoning civil conflict. Accordingly, Lucan, because of the thematic link with civil wars, functions as a crucial model deployed to interpret and exorcise the threat of the political disintegration of the state. On the other hand, Vergil is more generally seen as the chief auctoritas constantly employed to connect the contemporary world with the noblest classical epic dimension. The genre of (historical-)epic, regarded as bordering with history and intruding into historical territory since antiquity, allowed humanists to intensify the propagandistic outlook on contemporary events and gave them more freedom to expand the political dimension in the more encomiastic poetic sphere. The transposition of the theme of conspiracy into different literary genres reveals also the hybridism of humanist literature and the extent to which its rhetorical experimentalism somehow extends the boundaries of canonical genres. This phenomenon characterizes especially historiography and the re-elaboration of classical tenets (derived from Lucian to Cicero, from Thucydides to Sallust) in a new theory and practice of historical literature. The Porcaria appears as a fantastic–historical–epic poem, while Poliziano’s Commentarium and Pontano’s ³ See in particular Skinner, Quentin, ‘The Vocabulary of Renaissance Republicanism: A Cultural longue durée?’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, edited by Alison Brown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 87‒110.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

193

De bello Neapolitano belong to different subgenres of historiography, with more prevailing and intense literary aspects in the former. In the Commentarium, indeed, the narration is framed by embedding allusions to a manifold variety of sources, from technical literature to lyric poetry, in a homogeneous amalgamation that consistently conveys the political representation of the event. But it is in Alberti’s epistle history, the first step in this trajectory of texts, that the interlacement of multiple kinds of literary writings ends up creating one of the most original readaptations of the classical monograph on plot. The role of the classical legacy in this composite corpus of works is not limited to what we may define generally as ‘literary imitation’, but it also affects the use of classical symbols associated with ‘exemplarity’.⁴ In this case, the connection with the classical tradition is aimed at evoking an ideal correlation between contemporary figures and events, on the one hand, and historical characters and episodes of the ancient world, on the other. Thus the classical references take on an exemplary role and an eternalizing function. The symbolism of ancient history is epitomized in exemplary characters (already immortalized by classical literature, such as Catiline) that are evoked as iconic images that crystallize contemporary personalities in their either positive or negative features, proving to be the keystone on which the political discourse is elaborated, on both a moral and literary level. In the Porcaria in particular the employment of classical historical figures as actual characters creates a seamless circularity between ancient and contemporary history and puts forward the author’s political message. What is even more striking is that these symbols are often divested of their authentic historical position that would link them to the specific political institution to which they belonged. They are not seen any more as personifications of an exclusivist form of government (republic, monarchy, etc.),⁵ but, in the intricate development of fifteenth-century political theories, they stand out as representative examples of a personalistic power intrinsically based on the idea of virtus⁶ and encapsulated (or rejected in the case of negative symbols) in the iconic images of the classical world. So the parallel with antiquity becomes the most effective tool to carry out any speculation on the contemporary epoch and the most solid element on which any immortalizing (and legitimizing) representation of the present was erected. ⁴ On exemplarity see Hampton, Timothy, Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990); and Chapter 1, section 1.4. ⁵ The main studies that reconsider the distinction between republican and monarchic governments in the humanist age are Hankins, James, ‘Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic’, Political Theory 38, 4 (2010), pp. 452‒82; Cappelli, Guido, ‘Conceptos transversales: República y monarquía en el Humanismo político’, Res publica 21 (2009), pp. 51‒69 (see also Introduction, section I.1). ⁶ On the centrality of the idea of virtue: Hankins, James, Virtue Politics. Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019), pp. 31‒45; Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). See also Lines, David and Ebbersmeyer, Sabrina, eds. Rethinking Virtue, Reforming Society: New Directions in Renaissance Ethics, c.1350‒c.1650 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

194

     

This ennobling link with the protagonists of the classical age surfaces also in Poliziano’s Commentarium in the more indirect evocation of the figure of Caesar, the victim of another of the most famous conspiracies in western history and, equally importantly, the symbolic personification of princely rule. The impalpable but pervasive echo of the image of Caesar in the intense description of Lorenzo’s fearless reaction to the plotters’ attack is framed by recalling Suetonius’s Life of Iulius.⁷ The use of this source reveals the significant modelling function played in humanist literature by another subgenre of historical writing: biographical history. This genre was revived also thanks to the new reception of the specific source of Suetonius, which, although already circulating in the previous centuries, was the subject of new philological studies, especially by Poliziano.⁸ Moreover, from a political perspective, Suetonius’s work is also obviously linked with the tradition of imperial power and, at this stage in the Quattrocento, implicitly harks back to the idea of a centralized state. So the Latin biographer, in particular through Poliziano’s Commentarium and his oration on the theory of ars historica, the Praefatio in Suetoni expositionem,⁹ is placed alongside the more canonical auctoritates of Sallust and Livy as a fundamental model for historical writing. However, Suetonius was actually mainly adopted as a stylistic reference point and, ultimately, turned out to be not as influential as the other Latin historians throughout the Renaissance. From a political perspective, in the Commentarium the connection between Lorenzo, the leader of a formally republican government, and Caesar, the emblem of monarchical power, could work against the Medici’s intentions of concealing their autocratic ambitions. Nevertheless, this sophisticated allusion, along with the princely political perspective that informs the whole text, depicts the ruler of Florence as a virtuous and heroic pater patriae and puts across this standpoint in an oblique but effective manner. This theory of statecraft subtending all these works, based on the idea of individualized and all-embracing authority, was anchored in the recovery of classical and medieval political thought, re-elaborated and adapted to the fifteenth-century scenario. In general, Platonic and, especially, Aristotelian philosophical tenets are filtered through the fundamental reappropriation of Ciceronian thought and are dovetailed with seminal Greek and Latin auctoritates,

⁷ Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, § 35. References are always to the paragraph numbers in this edition. ⁸ On Poliziano’s philological research on Suetonius, see Chapter 4, section 4.2. For the use of Suetonious in relation to the affirmation of monarchical ideologies in historical and biographical texts in the fifteenth century, an issue on which there is still little research, see Ianziti, Gary, ‘Pier Candido Decembrio and the Suetonian Path to Princely Biography’, in Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts, edited by Patrick Baker, Ronny Kaiser, Maike Priesterjahn, and Johannes Helmrath (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), pp. 237‒70. ⁹ On Poliziano’s studies on Suetonius and his oration on history, see Chapter 4, section 4.2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

195

from Isocrates to Xenophon and Seneca.¹⁰ These sources in particular contribute to the fashioning of the idea of a personalistic power that is able to maintain its legitimacy thanks to the exercise of the ruler’s virtues, such as justice, fortitude, clemency, and majesty. More specifically, in the wake of the gradual recovery of Isocrates’s thought, which was inaugurated by Guarino Veronese and his circle of disciples (such as Bernardo Giustiniani and Bartolomeo Facio), political authority is conceived as legitimized by the prince’s virtus and nourished by humanistic education and trust in paideia. This conception is shaped by means of the conflation of philosophy and rhetoric, with the recasting of a sophistic idea of ‘double morality’, applied to the political sphere.¹¹ This new concept of double morality emerges, for example, in the representation of the twofold face of the ruler’s power in the exercise of his right to act with either ruthlessness, in taking revenge on his enemies, or mercy, in forgiving them. But this element can also be traced back to the reinterpretation of the classical principle of concordia in the state in strictly monarchical terms as an absolute value. Among the more canonical cornerstones for the development of political thought, Cicero and Aristotle, whose reception was deep-rooted already in the previous centuries, retained a pivotal position in the fashioning of the fifteenthcentury theory of statecraft and also in literature on plots. In Cicero’s works (chiefly in his orations) his condemnation is addressed not only to Catiline’s plot, but more generally to the plotter’s political figure and the conspiracy as a criminal act. This decisive disapproving stance has to be paired with the moral perspective in Sallust’s historiographical writing as essentially foundational for the construction of the concept of conspiracy in Renaissance literature. Nonetheless the historiographical model is more directly recalled in these literary works on plots probably also in light of the centrality acquired by history in this thematic genre and more broadly in humanist culture. More generally, besides Cicero, Aristotle too maintains a key role as one of the main sources for the enhancement of the idea of virtue as the core of fifteenth-century political thought, but also for the consolidation of the political notion of obedience as a central pillar in theory of the monarchical state, especially in the Neapolitan area, as Pontano’s De obedientia and De bello Neapolitano prove. In this respect this hierarchical and organic conception of political association (and of the binding relationships in it) is also founded on the notion of body politics that was already an essential axis of Aristotle’s political tenets framed in his Politics.¹² Moreover, as for the specific issue of conspiracies and political attacks against rulers, Aristotle already recognized in his Politics the importance of men’s ambition as one of the main causes of ¹⁰ For the main bibliography on the recovery of the classical legacy in the Humanism, see Introduction, in particular section I.1. ¹¹ On the recovery of Isocrates, see Introduction, section I.1, n. 14. ¹² On body politics, see Chapter 3, section 3.4, n. 53. On the reception of Aristotle in the Italian Renaissance, see Introduction, section I.1, n. 18.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

196

     

these practices (e.g. Politics 1271a9 and 1312a21). This point was made also by most Renaissance authors and can be combined with the more explicit and influential reference to this human feature put forward in Sallust’s work, which can be deemed, though, the primary and more direct source for humanists in this respect. Hence the eclectic recovery of the classical legacy, in its multiple philosophical, historical, and literary ramifications, deeply affects different and intertwined components of these texts: the structural and thematic framework, the narrative and stylistic aspects, the political and ideological perspective, and the historiographical bedrock in all texts.

5.2 The centrality of history and its literary forms In the fifteenth century, the issue of political plot intruded into multiple literary genres, where the historical narrative, however, retained a fundamental position. The centrality of historia in the literary sphere concerns the whole of humanist literature, since it is on history that the interpretation of men’s lives is erected. This thematic literature in particular proves how crucial and many-sided the function of history is in fifteenth-century culture. Indeed, this entire corpus of texts does not only revolve around a specific typology of historical events but, most importantly, conveys a political meaning that was conceived to have concrete implications in the actual historical scenario and in the development of a theory of political power to be applied to states. In this interchange between the theoretical and practical dimension of both literature and politics, history developed into the key to interpretation of political facts, and historiography, consequently, was seen as the source of any learning experience to be put into practice in the contemporary political sphere.¹³ In these texts, the more traditional use of ancient history is enriched with the practical employment of contemporary history, in order to create and express a pedagogic message rooted in the classical tenet of the utilitas of historia. Through this conflation of ancient symbols and fifteenth-century events, this literature became the territory in which a new concrete political model of statecraft is theorized, framed, and put forward, through the intrusion of historiography into different kinds of texts displaying a pronounced propagandistic overtone. Thus the theoretical dimension of the speculation on the art of government (which is openly carried out in treatises but informs also other genres, such as this whole literature on plots) is intertwined with the historical account of episodes

¹³ On humanist historiography and its political character, see Introduction, section I.3 (and the bibliography mentioned in the footnotes in this section).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

197

that construct the exemplary elements in support of the political message.¹⁴ In particular the princely ideology blossoming in this period is shaped in literature by means of the amalgamation, with different proportions in different texts, of the theoretical illustration of the paradigmatic traits of the ideal ruler, on the one hand, and the representation of the tangible behaviour of the actual prince in concrete situations, on the other. So, following the principle encapsulated in the traditional symbol of the ‘mirror for princes’, the profiles of fifteenth-century rulers were outlined on the basis of the ideal image of the virtuous man deriving from the classical tradition, with a specific idealizing and didactic function; but, at the same time, this model corresponds to the concrete figure of the political leader in governance, who is implicitly and eulogistically seen as the embodiment of the best ruler possible in the practical sphere of contemporary history. A similar exemplary function can also be recognized in the depiction of the negative historical figures—mainly the plotters, or more generally the rebels—who are the evil protagonists and act in the same coeval historical reality. This interplay between the implicit theorization of an ideal government and the practical image of the leadership of the current ruler, along with the problems he has to confront, is dominant in Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano, the text most closely connected with treatises on kingship. But the reciprocal interdependence between the ideal and the real—between the prescriptive and descriptive components, the modelling and pragmatic dimensions—also characterizes the other texts on plots (and in general most of humanist political literature). In the Porcaria the eulogistic and exemplary nature of the text, as a vehicle of a precise papal political ideology, is amplified by the epic and fantastic texture of the poem. In Alberti’s epistle also the veiled formulation of the author’s political view is interlaced with (and based on) the truthful historical account of the event and the report of the various opinions on it. In Poliziano’s Commentarium, on the other hand, the propagandistic perspective prevails over the elaboration of a political theory, although the portrayal of the Florentine government is in itself the celebration of an actual centralized political model. It is therefore by the concrete means of history—as historical narrative and historiographical tenets—that the political viewpoint is articulated, even in its theoretical aspects. Because of its exemplary function, history performs a crucial role also in the literary realm of treatises, especially in Pontano’s work, since it upholds the ideological elaboration of the political theory supplying the direct connection with the tangible dimension of the contemporary scenario. From this ¹⁴ On this complex process, with a specific focus on Neapolitan culture, see Cappelli, Guido, Maiestas: politica e pensiero politico nella Napoli aragonese (1443‒1503) (Rome: Carocci, 2016); Delle Donne, Fulvio, Alfonso il Magnanimo e l’invenzione dell’Umanesimo monarchico. Ideologia e strategie di legittimazione alla corte aragonese di Napoli (Rome: Istituto Storico per il Medio Evo, 2015); Delle Donne, Fulvio and Iacono, Antonietta, eds. Linguaggi e ideologie del Rinascimento monarchico aragonese (1442‒1503). Forme della legittimazione e sistemi di governo (Naples: Federico II University Press, 2018). On fifteenth-century political treatises (in particular mirrors for princes), see Introduction, section I.2, n. 23.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

198

     

perspective, this interaction between the interlaced levels of political theorization and history (both ancient and contemporary) seems to anticipate Machiavelli’s groundbreaking meditation on statecraft as based on ‘the extensive knowledge of contemporary historical situations and the continuous study of the ancient world’ (Il Principe, Dedica, ‘una lunga esperienza delle cose moderne e una continua lezione delle antique’). In this respect, the humanists’ approach establishes the pragmatic and functional use of history as the territory of both exemplarity and practical experimentation in the art of governing. In humanist treatises and texts on conspiracy, the historical events and situations experienced by the princeps make him an actual speculum, in accordance with the philosophical tradition: a figure suspended between the reality of history and utopian idealization. In literature on plots, the pivotal position of history in the texts’ architecture is founded on the principles of veritas and utilitas, as the central pillars of historiography deriving from the classical legacy.¹⁵ Despite the distinguishing features of each work, the leading tenet of truthfulness is retained as one of the essential prerogatives and is combined with both the didactic utility and rhetorical perspective associated with historia in its different forms. In all works, even in Orazio Romano’s poem dominated by a completely imaginary dimension, the representation of the historical events is carried out in the pursuit of veracity and respect for historical reality. The facts are not usually altered, nor reconstructed in a counterfeit narrative, but, conversely the historiographical approach appears generally informed by documentary accuracy. This is underlined also by the position of the author in the texts, who usually does not openly comment on the events with personal remarks. It is the skilful literary depiction of the actions, thoughts, and behaviours of the protagonists, either positive or negative, that expresses in itself the political reading of the events. The anti-rebellious interpretation, consequently, is filtered through the political lens through which the episode is seen, even though omissions and amplifications are often used as rhetorical tools to intensify the political message. From this point of view, this literature turns out to be connected with the aims and prerogatives of humanist political historiography and represents a crossroads between the seeking of veritas, in order to convey a credible ideological conception, and the political aim itself.

5.3 Political ideology and narrative strategies: the practical model for an ideal state In the Roman tradition, historical narratives on conspiracies betrayed the implicit intention of containing the critical political situation arisen from the plot. They ¹⁵ On humanist historiography and these principles, see in particular Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Riflessioni umanistiche sullo “scrivere storia” ’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 3‒37; and Introduction, section I.3 (further bibliography at n. 41).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

199

created an authoritative version of the events, which was endowed with emotional and moral elements and resulted in a credible account that could deter citizens from further unrest.¹⁶ If the myths of Aeneas and Romulus celebrated the foundation of a national cohesiveness, the literary symbolism revolving around the account of conspiracies succeeded in preserving the same cohesiveness. A similar purpose shines through fifteenth-century literature on plots. But in these humanist texts, besides the aim of maintaining a political identity in order to preserve the state, the typology of conspiracy narrative is enriched with the purpose of legitimizing a new kind of power emerging in that period. Thus the ennobling link with classical principles was intended to empower and bestow authority on rulers who could not count on the longer and more consolidated tradition of Roman political institutions. Consequently, some of the main rhetorical constructions, narrative tools, and recurring topoi in these texts on plots are inextricably linked with the political implications they are intended to put forward. Firstly, a fundamental role in structuring and fashioning the narrative is played by the figure of the author (as a poet, letter writer, historian, witness) who coincides with both an omniscient narrator and, at the same time, an eye witness to the events. This produces the effect of a peculiar standpoint in the narration that is both internal, hence well informed, and external, therefore unbiased. Also in the fantasy epic poem Porcaria, the well-documented historical details provided in the account of the events perform this function. Although in this text, because of its poetic medium, the author can be seen as a more indefinite extradiegetic presence and is less perceptible (to the extent that it is the plotter himself who is made to tell his story), in the other works the author even appears within the narration as a protagonist. In Poliziano’s Commentarium and Pontano’s De bello Neapolitiano the author openly refers to himself as taking active part in some specific episodes; while in Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio he is still more directly involved because of the choice of the epistolary genre. This rhetorical format projects him to the centre of a ‘private’ form of writing, where he presents himself as part of the Roman curial environment that reacts to the turbulent political situation. But it is significant that, as already mentioned, in all texts the author does not intrude in the storyline with his open judgement, but lets it emerge through the moral and political perspective that pervasively shapes descriptions and narrations. Hence, the authoritative and trustworthy nature of the reconstruction is conveyed by this twofold position of the writer: as both witness and omniscient narrator. This structural element affects the reader’s perception of the account and strengthens the reliability of the political viewpoint that imbues the work. The author’s perspective stands out as the most dependable and respectable and, thanks to the creation of this outlook, the text succeeds in limiting all other

¹⁶ Pagan, Conspiracy, pp. 4‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

200

     

possible interpretations of the events, preventing any potential feeling of sympathy with the plotters (even in Alberti’s work, which passes on the author’s antisubversive political position, though with a general questioning approach). This specific narrative method also applies to the frequent introduction of speeches put into the mouth of the conspirators. In most works the writer lets the characters speak in order to represent their personality, nature, intentions, and contradictions, especially in the case of negative protagonists, who are key figures and are often ascribed the same iconic role, although negative, as the positive heroes opposed to them. In these sections the narrator/historian/poet steps aside and it is through the plotters’ words that their evil behaviour and plans are vividly put before the reader’s eyes, without the need of any external comment or judgement. This rhetorical tool, which ultimately stems from the Greco-Roman tradition of historiography,¹⁷ is employed in both the De bello Neapolitano and in the Porcaria coniuratio, and most remarkably also in Orazio Romano’s poem, where, as in Alberti’s epistle, the well-crafted oration delivered by Porcari is essential in creating the Sallustian overtone of disapproval of the plot. In addition, in the Porcaria, the whole account of the events is narrated by the plotter in a sort of report-confession. The use of either direct or indirect speeches, which are presented as actually delivered by characters, amplifies the effect of immediacy, veracity, and realism of the narration, and consequently the lack of bias of the author. He implicitly appears as so well informed of the facts and ‘inside’ them as to be able to reproduce the discourses uttered in specific circumstances; but, at the same time, he is also impartial and reliable, not intruding into the account and not filtering the events through his own words. Only in Poliziano’s Commentarium are there no speeches delivered by characters, but the humanist hints at two famous discourses: the first given by Iacopo Pazzi, the leader of the upheaval, and the second by Lorenzo de’ Medici, the head of state. In the first reference, Poliziano alludes to the famous words that Iacopo uttered in the Piazza della Signoria to urge the Florentine people to rise up against the Medici (§ 51). In an evocative description of the isolation and failure of the traitors, Poliziano says that Iacopo’s exhortation could hardly be heard because of the man’s trepidation, so that nobody could follow or answer him. In the other passage, the humanist depicts the glorious image of Il Magnifico showing himself to his people from his palace window and speaking to them (§ 64). So, even the mere evocation of direct speeches takes on pivotal meanings. It is noteworthy that these discourses were recalled by Machiavelli in his Istorie Fiorentine, where both scenes acquire a crucial significance. Lorenzo’s speech, in this case delivered in front of the assembly of the citizens’ representatives, is extensively quoted and

¹⁷ On speeches in classical historiography, in particular in Greek historians, see Walbank, Frank William, Speeches in Greek Historians (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966); and Marincola, John, Greek Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 42‒3, 77‒85.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

201

framed to convey the idea of the indissoluble bond between Florence and the Medici, one of the keystones of the ruling family’s propaganda (Istorie VIII, 10). On the other hand, Iacopo Pazzi’s emblematic words are immortalized by the bitter and meaningful remark on the Florentine political condition made by Machiavelli (Istorie VIII, 8): messer Iacopo . . . se ne andò alla piazza del palagio, chiamando in suo aiuto il popolo e la libertà. Ma perché l’uno era da la fortuna e liberalità de’ Medici fatto sordo, l’altra in Firenze non era cognosciuta, non gli fu risposto da alcuno. [Messer Jacopo . . . went to the piazza of the palace, calling to his aid the people and liberty. But because the one had been made deaf by the fortune and liberality of the Medici and the other was not known in Florence, he had no response from anyone.]¹⁸

The political perspective subtending the texts on conspiracies is immediately brought to light by evoking the exceptionality of the event, presented as an unprecedented and outrageous attack on the state and the common good. All authors, once again, follow in the footsteps of Sallust, who gave Catiline’s plot the very same connotation, labelling it as facinus and scelus, memorable over the centuries for its extraordinariness (Cat. 4, 3).¹⁹ By underscoring the abnormality and exceptionally dangerous nature of the threat, often at the outset of works, all humanists highlight the hideous character of the political attack, equating it with a criminal action. Moreover, the emphasis put on the aberration of the conspiracy works within the strategy of containment of possible further acts of sedition. It is because of the overall political framework in the texts that the crucial episode of the attack (either actual, or planned, if the conspiracy was thwarted) is placed at the core of each work and, as a consequence, is put into the foreground as the climax of the narrative. Albeit all texts display a different general structure, the central part is occupied by the account of the key event. Usually these sections coincide with the enhancement of the plotter’s plans and the conflict that followed, leading often to the description of the general climate of reprisal and chaos that is brought about in the city, along with the people’s tormented feelings. This textual architecture is clearly evident in Poliziano’s and Alberti’s works, though in the latter the author alludes to the different possible scenarios opened up by the

¹⁸ The passages of the Istorie fiorentine are quoted from Machiavelli, Niccolò, Istorie; translations from Machiavelli, Niccolò, Florentine histories. On Lorenzo de’ Medici’s speech in Machiavelli’s work, see Chapter 6, n. 51. ¹⁹ On the conspiracy seen as facinus see in particular Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Renaissance Conspiracy Histories: Hero or Villain? The case of Stefano Porcari’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 203‒16: 209–13; and the analysis in the previous chapters in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

202

     

various clergymen’s opinions on the plot, without narrating at length the actual consequences in the city. In Orazio Romano’s poem also, the heart of the epic narration is Porcari’s confession of his crimes, which contains a detailed account of the thwarted conspiracy. In this specific case, this part of the text also coincides with the conspirator’s own words, and in particular with the speech delivered to his fellow citizens, quoted as a manifestation of his evil intentions: the same pivotal position that is taken by the plotter’s oration in Alberti’s work. Besides, also in Pontano’s much longer historia the most representative event of the whole conspiracy of barons is placed at the ideal core of the first book: the ambush organized against the king in Teano by Marino Marzano. This episode, unsurprisingly, becomes one of the most famous exemplary episodes in Aragonese propaganda and encapsulates the idea of the conspiracy par excellence: the assault sneakily plotted in order to murder the legitimate ruler.²⁰ Hence, albeit not every storyline in the texts follows a linear progress, the main climax in all works is reached with the narrative of the subversive attack, or the symbolic image of it, which intensifies the dramatic relevance of the historical event. Another pivotal section is the portrait of the conspirators. In particular in Poliziano’s Commentarium, since the conspirators’ speeches are not quoted, their profiles assume a key position. They occupy almost the first half of the text and reveal more evidently the structural and ideological function that these descriptions play as epitomizing images of the wickedness of the plotters. In most of these works, the portrayal of the conspirators, either more detailed or just sketched, is a central pillar in the moulding of the general picture of the plot as a criminal action on an ethical and political level. Significantly, the profiles of the traitors depict them as guilty of some specific negative vices: moral corruption, ambition, avarice, envy, inconstancy, duplicity, unscrupulousness, inclination to crime, and, most of all, to subversive political change. Besides these main faults, other minor and more anecdotal blemishes are sometimes ascribed to the conspirators, such as the propensity for gambling, irascibility, or blasphemy, in order to emphasize their negative nature and provide a realistic and mocking profile of the historical figures. The literary characterization of these protagonists is obviously inspired by the emblematic icon of Sallust’s Catiline. This literary transposition of actual characters and events ends up deeply influencing the political reading of the historical facts, at the crossroads between history, literature, and politics. The confluence of these topoi builds the major topos of the conspirator’s profile and contributes to elaborating the ideology in support of the consolidated government, often presented through a moral angle overlapping with the political one. Even when the leader of the plot is not characterized only by heinous

²⁰ See Chapter 3, sections 3.1 and 3.6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

203

attributes, as in Alberti’s work, his ideas and attitudes are represented as extremely dangerous. The adoption of this viewpoint accounts for the focus placed on the most pivotal negative trait ascribed to conspirators: the eagerness for res novae. This expression, typical of Sallust’s vocabulary, conveys the concept of overturning the established government, which puts an end to the civic concord guaranteed by the government itself. This is presented as the major political threat and, consequently, the yearning for upheaval emerges as the main vice of conspirators, who are seen as driven by their nature to this antisocial behaviour. In light of this view, the inclination to overthrow the state appears as idiosyncratic and intrinsic to the plotters’ character and becomes not just a reflection of a radical view but a crime. From this perspective, the personalistic political ideology on which the legitimization of new fifteenth-century powers is based applies also to the decisive condemnation of the enemies of power itself. It is always on the basis of the possession (and displaying) of either virtue or vice that the ruler is accorded consensus and, conversely, his opponents are condemned by public opinion. Although, on the one hand, this appears as an ethically centred view, on the other, this political standpoint and its literary expressions already betray a more realistic attitude in the making of an ideology concretely applicable to a specific turbulent historical context. The preservation of centralized government and the defence of the state as the incarnation of social unity become the foremost principles and goals to achieve, within a new political pragmatism that starts to see in these tenets the actual aims of ruling. In light of this new view of sovereignty, the recognition of the authority and the condemnation of its adversaries are based on the judgement of single political figures and their qualities, both rulers and plotters. This idea leads to the gradual identification of the state with the leader in charge and, conversely, of the antisocial forces with the rebel. The new vicious Catiline epitomizes the symbol of the illegitimate pretender to power and therefore of the tyrant. This political interpretation completely erases the anti-despotic ideals often affirmed by conspirators, who, instead, appear as usurpers and criminals, also in light of their moral corruption. Consequently, following and reworking the previous centuries’ political and juridical speculation on tyranny,²¹ now the profile of the plotter coincides with that of the tyrant (a potential and often unfulfilled tyrant): the political figure lacking legitimacy and trying to occupy the state unfairly. Hence, the image of virtue and fairness that the ruler is able to project onto the outside world, along with the contrasting representation of viciousness associated with his enemies, is what brings political

²¹ See in particular Quaglioni, Diego, Politica e diritto nel Trecento italiano. Il ‘De tyranno’ di Bartolo da Sassoferrato (Florence: Olschki, 1983); Panou, Nikos and Schadee, Hester, eds., Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

204

     

consensus and constructs the backbone of the state’s solidity. The fight against tyranny now is not as crucial and relevant as in the past, on the other hand, only the cohesiveness of the state really matters. So, the traditional concept of tyranny begins to be surpassed and overturned with the diffusion of a political idea that, although anchored in the re-elaboration of classical ethical principles, adjusts them to the actual political reality of the times and in so doing already goes beyond them. This political dimension in texts on conspiracies adheres to the burgeoning princely ideology subtending also pre-Machiavellian mirror-for-princes works and proves fifteenth-century political thought to be more pragmatic than is usually considered to be the case. Literature on political plots reveals that the figure of the prince is now dominant and all-embracing. This idea of rulership starts to epitomize also the pope’s power, which turns into that of a ‘papal prince’, and even Lorenzo de’ Medici’s profile can now be assimilated to that of a princeps. The historical circumstances of relative stability in Italy after the middle of the Quattrocento form the background to the development of this theory of statecraft and the literature in support of it. This context accounts for another feature that these texts share with treatises de principe: the exclusivist focus on ‘internal’ power and on its dynamics and prerogatives seen within the state, rather than in relation to a broader geographical and political context. In works on conspiracies in particular the historical reconstruction of the events is entirely oriented towards domestic issues concerning the current government and the defence against internal enemies. Interestingly, this focus corresponds to the outlook that Machiavelli would claim to adopt in his programmatic statement in the preface to the Istorie fiorentine, stressing the divide between his work and early fifteenth-century historiography on Florence, where the ‘civili discordie’ and the ‘intrinseche inimicizie’ have been overlooked by historians (Istorie fiorentine, Proemio).²² This internal perspective in texts on conspiracies also contributes to framing the reassuring propagandistic image of a consolidated regime, whose opponents are isolated figures driven by personal and inconsiderate foolish aims. Furthermore, the omission of any references to any possible responsibility of foreign states as instigators and supporters of the plotters produces the effect of not exacerbating the critical situation of the government that has been attacked and preserves its chances to act in the delicate sphere of diplomacy. Obviously, this cannot be said about Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano, which is devoted to the war between the Aragonese and the barons allied with the French troops. Nevertheless, even in this text, the most relevant political analysis concerning the state is wholly centred on the delicate issues of the management of internal dissent and the relationship with the various components of the social body in the Neapolitan kingdom.

²² See Chapter 6, section 6.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

205

This shows that the common ground on which political speculation is carried out in this thematic literature is that of the exercise of power within the state and as the state itself, in an ideal coincidence between the ruler, the power he has the right to exert, and the state he embodies. On this basis, the defence of the leader from any attack coincides with the protection of the whole civic community that he impersonates. Moreover, the threats coming from internal enemies appear to be the most dangerous because they can reveal instability in the load-bearing axis of the political organism. This viewpoint also underlies mirrors for princes, where the focal point is almost entirely on the exercise of power within the state, rather than on foreign politics. This approach appears as a reflection of the tenet according to which internal concordia is the supreme value to be pursued and is a reflection of the potestas of the state itself. Thus this literature advocates a political theory based on the ideal image of a government that succeeds in acquiring ‘external’ prestige also thanks to the ‘internal’ legitimacy it obtains. In the literary construction of this theory a key function is played by the collective entity of the common people, a fundamental constituent of the social body and a prominent protagonist in the historical scene and, as a consequence, in the literary projection of historical facts. In all texts on conspiracies the people are evoked, or concretely depicted, as an active character in the political conflict, and therefore are ascribed a crucial role in the conclusion of the internal struggle. Their influence in the course of events can be twofold. Following a pessimistic characterization, the common people are often seen as changing, fickle, and easily manipulable by the instigators of the subversive attack, such as in Alberti’s work, where the danger arising from the control exerted over unstable masses appears as the most troubling threat to any state. A similar connotation surfaces also in Pontano’s text, but here it is combined with the other, more frequent, opposite image associated with the people: the embodiment of the unified civic community that supports the ruler in fighting the traitors and celebrates his victory as a triumph of the whole state. It is no coincidence that in some texts, especially in Poliziano’s Commentarium, the common people react vigorously in first person in the vengeance against the attackers. This element underlines both the isolation of the plotters and the long-lasting mutual link between Lorenzo, who survived the attack, and the Florentine people, who back him and react to the assault. This approach in the representation of the common people in the aftermath of a conspiracy significantly emerges also in an official letter written to some castellans by Bona di Savoia, the widow of Duke Galeazzo Maria Sforza and the ruler of Milan after her husband’s murder in 1476: Havereti inteso del inopinato et infelice caso de la morte intervenuta al nostro illustrissimo consorte, el quale heri matina . . . fu percoso da più ferite da uno traditore Johanne Andrea da Lampugnano et certi altri pochi suoi seguaci et lui poi fu subito tagliato a pezi e stracinato per li piedi per tutta la nostra cità da li puti. La qual cità ha facto e fa grande demonstratione de la fede et devotione sua

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

206

     

verso nuy et Stato nostro et sta costante in la solita fedeltà soa et piange la missione et la perdita del suo signore; il simili han facto et fano le altre citadi del dominio nostro.²³ [You have certainly heard about the unexpected and sad event of the death of my illustrious husband, who yesterday morning . . . was stabbed, receiving several wounds, by the traitor Giovanni Andrea Lampugnani and other few fellowplotters. Lampugnani was immediately cut into pieces and dragged by his feet all over the city by boys. This city has shown and is still showing considerably its great faith and devotion towards us and our state, and it constantly keeps its usual loyalty and weeps for the loss of its lord; the other cities in our domain have done and still do the same.]

The attack by the traitor is avenged by the reaction of the citizens, who are depicted as collectively faithful to the ruling family, so as to convey the idea of unity in the state. Thus in the literary portrait the contrasting images of the revenge perpetrated against the plotters and, either implicitly or overtly, supported by citizens, and the manifestations of love towards the ruler, build up the ideological framework of most works. This studied representation conveys the image of an indissoluble connection between the prince, the state, and the people: three elements that are unified in a theory of statecraft based on the tenets of political centralism and organicism, as illustrated in Pontano’s treatises. But works on conspiracies also reveal a burgeoning realistic approach to politics and its dynamics already growing in this theory. Since the image of the ruler overlaps both with that of a pater patriae and with the head of the social body, his will and right of decision are elevated above all single citizens, in the name of a notion of common good that becomes deeply affected by a new autocratic view. In general, the unconditional and verticalized relation that binds the people and the leader is the cornerstone of the humanist concept of the state and it will deeply influence also the principles on which the conceptual backbone of the modern state will be constructed: a state that, though gradually losing its personalistic nature, appears as an absolute, superior, and all-encompassing entity.²⁴ ²³ The quotation is in Andenna, Giancarlo, ‘ “L’opportunità persa” ovvero la residenza ducale di Galliate nel secondo Quattrocento’, in Vigevano e i territori circostanti alla fine del Medioevo, edited by Giorgio Chittolini (Milan: UNICOPLI, 1997), pp. 341–65: 354; see Vaglienti, Francesca, ‘Giovanni Andrea Lampugnani’, DBI, 63 (2004), pp. 272‒5. ²⁴ See Cappelli, Maiestas, pp. 159‒61. In general, on the development of the idea of state between the Middle Ages and the modern era: Gamberini, Andrea and Lazzarini, Isabella, The Italian Renaissance State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Chittolini, Giorgio, Molho, Anthony, and Pierangelo Schiera, eds., Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994); and Cappelli, Guido, ‘Lo stato umanistico. Genesi dello stato moderno nella cultura italiana del XV secolo’, in La determinación de la humanitas del hombre en la Crítica del Juicio y en el humanismo clásico, edited by Guillermo Villaverde López and Sara Barquinero del Toro (Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores S. L., 2018), pp. 35‒70.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

207

In light of this conception of power, the legitimacy of the head of government comes from the people’s favour. Hence public opinion is perceived as an instrument of political realism in so far as it is the most important factor that allows the ruler to strengthen his internal authority and even prevent threats coming from foreign political entities, as fifteenth-century conspiracies prove. For this reason, in this view, the building of political consensus is already the major goal to be achieved and the image of virtue that the princeps displays is fundamental. The contribution of humanist literature was crucial not only in conceiving this political theory but also, and most importantly, in fashioning and spreading this image of power and, in some cases, in creating a mythology around it. Now, in humanist texts a new focus is placed on the most ‘exterior’ virtues of the prince, such as majesty (which in Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate becomes the essence of princely power), and, implicitly, on the external image that he is able to project on the outside, with significant reference to the capacity to feign and dissemble.²⁵ Additionally, most texts reveal that the ruler is also allowed to act both unmercifully and ruthlessly, as long as the ‘image’ of his behaviour is justified by his virtues and is preserved in an ideal sphere of fairness, which is often forged by a propagandistic dimension. From this perspective, the ethical dimension is combined with, but at the same time makes way for, a more practical attitude rooted in an advanced idea of prudence, which is seen as the ability to adapt to different conditions.²⁶ In particular this growing not merely ethically centred standpoint emerges in the depiction, or in the simple evocation, of the reprisal inflicted on the plotters. The ruler’s heartlessness, although analogous to the viciousness of the conspirators in abstract terms, is described as implicitly characterized by a different origin and proves to be opposed to the cruel actions perpetrated by the enemies of the fatherland. So, the plotters’ ferociousness is reflected, in a kind of mirror-like correspondence, in the violence carried out by rulers, who, after managing to survive, react harshly to defeat their antagonists with the active support of their people. In Poliziano’s Commentarium in particular once the conspiracy fails the city becomes the scene of brutal reprisal. Also in Orazio Romano’s poem, this vengeful violence characterizes both the ‘infernal’ and ‘earthly’ punishment, underlying the images of the plotters’ hanged corpses and the description of torment they undergo in the underworld. In light of the emphasis put on the picture of the cruel attack, the unmerciful punishment inflicted on the conspirators turns out to be the emblem of a fair revenge. From this point of view, this idea of violence reveals its dual nature and becomes the expression of a ‘double morality’. This realistic approach, which comes to light also in Pontano’s work, is

²⁵ On Maio’s work and the focus on the external image of power, see Chapter 3, section 3.6. ²⁶ On prudence see in particular Kahn, Victoria, Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

208

     

closely linked with an unspoken idea of contrappasso that underlies the whole autocratic perspective of these texts and is intended to show the undisputed character of the ruler’s power. He is a pater patriae whose pitiless revenge coincides with the justified reaction of the union of all citizens against their enemies. Thus the two overlapping images of violence, which belong respectively to the crime and the punishment, coexist and foster the same propagandistic view. But in this representation, another crucial element must be considered, which is symmetrical, and at the same time opposite, to the revenge: it is the concept of clemency, one of the most important princely virtues traditionally ascribed to monarchs.²⁷ In most humanist texts on plots mercy is regarded as a distinctive trait of political leaders in dealing with enemies, and, in some cases, is evoked by the author in order to urge the ruler to be merciful with the conspirators, as in the Porcaria. From this perspective, clemency proves to be the counterpart of reprisal, and, though it is its political antithesis, it appears as a key factor within the same propagandistic outlook. Clementia is, indeed, the fundamental virtue of a just political power, which is violent and revengeful with the guiltiest adversaries, but is forgiving with people who deserve mercy. This is one of the most distinguishing traits of a personalistic power, since, in this view, it is only the head of the government who has the right to decide on the destiny of the traitors of the state, and his decision is exclusively dependent on his judgement, virtues, and capacity to adapt his choices to the actual circumstances.²⁸ In this respect, the humanists’ groundbreaking attention to princely attributes that go beyond traditional ethics, especially in Pontano’s work, marks a fundamental turning point between medieval and modern political thought. The uneasy balance between clemency and vengeance reveals the surfacing of a more flexible conception of the exercise of power, which is subject to whatever the specific conditions require. In addition, we have to consider that in fifteenth-century works on political plots the idea of clemency also had concrete implications for historical reasons, since, after the conspiracies, the rulers had to face threats of further uprisings.²⁹ This is the reason why they needed to justify their vindictive reaction against the conspirators and avoid new rebellions. From this point of view, the focus on the idea of mercy is crucial: the humanists spread the image of a virtuous prince, who is merciful with

²⁷ On clemency and its relation with justice see in particular Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, pp. 124‒5; and on the role of these virtues in the system of princely virtues in the Italian Humanism see Cappelli, Guido, ‘Introduzione’, in Giovanni Pontano, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003), pp. LXXIII, LXXIX‒LXXXI; and the commentary to the oration by Angelo de Grassis in de Grassis, Angelus, Oratio panigerica dicta domino Alfonso, edited by Fulvio Delle Donne (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2006), pp. 67‒71. ²⁸ On these characteristics of political power as represented by this idea of clemency, see Cappelli, Maiestas, p. 96. ²⁹ For these implications in the scenario of Porcari’s conspiracy, see Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013), pp. 23‒36.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

209

people who are worthy of his clemency, but reacts legitimately against enemies to defend his subjects. Thus the image of power that is fashioned and put forward in these works on plots fully reflects, but at the same time contributes to shaping, a concrete idea of authority that finds an exact correspondence in political practices carried out in this specific historical period in most states. As these texts show, it is the literary vehicle (thanks also to the development of a political conception of historical literature) that becomes the means through which the most innovative and concrete political concepts are formalized and brought to the foreground. This ideal and, at the same time, historically based portrayal of power implicitly represents, but also designs, a model of state and statecraft that conforms to the actual political dynamics of this specific age and finds its most effective formulation mainly through literary channels.

5.4 Moving towards the sixteenth century Most of the characteristic elements and undertones that build the political perspective of fifteenth-century works on plots reveal the uneasy relationship between different components in a literature that becomes the expression of an epoch of transformation and renovation. This age is marked by its distinguishing traits, but is still linked, although the links are a gradually more stretched, with the Middle Ages and, at the same time, is already impalpably projected towards the modern conceptual horizon. Both the ideological and practical aspects that inform the all-embracing princely dimension depicted in these works reflect the evolution of an eclectic political ideology that incorporated different ingredients (the notion of body politics, an individualistic idea of power, an ethical horizon based on the concept of virtue, the crossovers between the moral and political spheres, etc.) and passed them on to the next century through a new synthesis. The development of this heterogenous, though consistent, political thought led to the emergence of an embryonic form of political realism, in a particular shape that adhered to the specific historical and cultural dynamics of the second half of the Quattrocento. Therefore this burgeoning concept was different and not assimilable to the traits that a newly fashioned notion of Realpolitik would assume in the scenario of the following centuries, when the actual new principle of ‘reason of state’ would be conceived.³⁰ Nevertheless, this revolutionary political conception and the gradual affirmation of the modern idea of the state, as an all-encompassing organism

³⁰ See in particular Viroli, Maurizio, Dalla politica alla ragion di Stato: la scienza del governo tra XIII e XVII secolo (Rome: Donzelli, 1994). For this perspective in the context of the Neapolitan kingdom in the fifteenth century, see also Storti, Francesco, El buen marinero: psicologia politica e ideologia monarchica al tempo di Ferdinando I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Rome: Viella, 2014).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

210

     

above everything, seem to have been nurtured by some of the ideological tenets already emerging in humanist culture: tenets that are visible especially in their historical and literary representations. The linkage between fifteenth-century literature on plots and the treatment of this political issue in the Cinquecento, denoted by both a form of continuity and, at the same time, a profound shift, is embodied in the political speculation of Machiavelli. His reflections on conspiracies encapsulate the transition to a new historical and cultural dimension, but, at the same time, are still rooted in their humanist foundations. In most of the works where Machiavelli deals with the analysis of the phenomenon of plots, indeed, he turns out to implicitly ground his investigation on some of the distinctive perspectives that underlie fifteenthcentury views on this practice of resistance to power, although through a personal and radical re-elaboration of these standpoints. Machiavelli was probably aware that his age, starting from the middle of the Quattrocento and coming down to his own days, was a period that could be regarded as an ‘age of conspiracies’ (a modern definition coined several centuries later by contemporary scholars).³¹ Hence, his deep interest in this subject, which resulted also in a pioneering effort at general categorization, was probably mainly fostered by the considerable diffusion of both plots and texts on plots in the previous century. In addition, already in these preceding works, historiography was the domain, the instrument, and the expression of political investigation. Nevertheless, the systematic analysis of conspiracies that Machiavelli carried out does not appear in Quattrocento texts. He studied for the first time these events in their typologies, manners of plotting and execution, and outcomes. However, all these elements are recognizable as implicitly present already in the literary narratives of these earlier works, where a complete, though not analytical, political reading of the various episodes emerges in the perspective informing these accounts. Machiavelli’s comprehensive exploration of the dynamics concerning the practice of plots, which stands out as the first systematic theorization of this subject, also influenced subsequent modern literature and in particular contributed towards defining this category of historical events as a specific and distinctive form of political strife.³² Consequently, through the mediation of Machiavelli, the ideological horizon that his analysis has in common with humanist works on plots, although profoundly re-conceptualized, is also transferred to the future ³¹ For this definition, see Introduction, section I.1. ³² On the treatment of this topic in other modern authors, see Borrelli, Gianfranco, ‘La necessità della congiura nelle scritture italiane della Ragion di Stato’, in Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe modern. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française de Rome, l’Institut de recherches sur les civilisations de l’occident moderne de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne et le Dipartimento di storia moderna e contemporanea dell’Università degli studi di Pisa: Rome, 30 septembre‒2 octobre 1993, edited by Yves-Marie Bercé and Elena Fasano Guarini (Rome: École française de Rome, 1996), pp. 81‒91; and La Penna, Antonio, ‘Brevi note sul tema della congiura nella storiografia moderna’, in La Penna, Antonio, Sallustio e la ‘rivoluzione’ romana (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1968), pp. 432‒52.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

    

211

speculation on this political phenomenon that would develop in various forms in the following centuries. This transition reveals how several elements of the growing modern political outlook were already generated in the humanist world. As we shall see in Chapter 6, Machiavelli’s analysis of conspiracies offers emblematic evidence of this broader process of incorporation, transposition, and transformation of political tenets and outlooks across different historical phases and from the early modern period to the modern age.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

6 ‘Congiure contro a uno principe’ Machiavelli and Humanist Literature

6.1 The ‘conspiracy’ in Machiavelli’s work The crucial implications that the issue of conspiracy had in the literary debate on princely power emerged clearly in the sixteenth century in Machiavelli’s political thought. He devoted considerable attention to this specific topic, which was examined from both a historical and political perspective and, in some cases, with a systematic approach, but, at the same time, with different nuances and attitudes depending on the different texts. Indeed, Machiavelli addresses the complex matter of conspiracies in several works, dealing with various historical episodes belonging to this specific kind of political strife. For this reason, his reflections on plots appear as multidimensional, encompassing both the ancient world and the contemporary age, and ranging from a more diagnostic method of analysis to a more complex and unresolved approach to investigation. This composite approach, in particular, does not show openly a univocal view on this means of political conflict, but rather discloses an intricate net of sharp considerations that, linked together, reveal Machiavelli’s uneasy standpoint. However, despite the wide-ranging character of his examination, and probably also in virtue of this multifaceted angle, what emerges from Machiavelli’s works is a complex but unprecedented in-depth exploration of the category of historical episodes identifiable as conspiracies: events that are perceived, acknowledged, and presented as a specific political phenomenon.¹ As is well known, Machiavelli carried out his most comprehensive and systematic analysis on this political subject in the lengthy chapter Delle congiure in the

¹ The most comprehensive and compelling study on Machiavelli’s reflections on the topic of conspiracy is Fasano Guarini, Elena, ‘Congiure “contro alla patria” e congiure “contro ad uno principe” nell’opera di Niccolò Machiavelli’, in Repubbliche e principi: istituzioni e pratiche di potere nella Toscana granducale del ‘500‒’600, edited by Elena Fasano Guarini (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010), pp. 155‒207. Other important contributions are Campi, Alessandro, ‘Congiure’, in Enciclopedia Machiavelliana, directed by Gennaro Sasso (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2014), vol. 1, pp. 337‒42; Campi, Alessandro, Machiavelli and Political Conspiracies: The Struggle for Power in the Italian Renaissance (New York/London: Routledge, 2018); Geuna, Marco, ‘Machiavelli e il problema delle congiure’, Rivista storica italiana 127, 2 (2015), pp. 355‒410; Benner, Erica, Machiavelli’s Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 373‒79.

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0007

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

213

Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio (III, 6).² This has been regarded as an actual treatise on plots, also in light of the considerable autonomous circulation that this chapter enjoyed in the sixteenth century in both manuscripts and printed editions, not only in Italy but also throughout Europe. For example, it was published in Paris in 1575 with the title Traité des conjurations, in an edition that included also a French version of Sallust’s work, the Histoire de la conjuration de Catiline.³ This was a publishing project that reveals the centrality and the specificity of this theme in early modern European culture. In Machiavelli’s work, the unparalleled combination of both theoretical and practical perspectives in examining the issue of conspiracies gives life to a discourse where the lucid definition of the general typology of this kind of political event is based on the recognition of crucial episodes drawn from both ancient and contemporary history.⁴ But although in the Discorsi he re-evaluates the concept of political discordia within societies, promoting the classical example of the Roman republic and, for the first time, considering some kinds of conflicts as positive for the equilibrium of the state, conspiracies are not regarded as part of these productive tensions, but as a specific category of political conflict that usually does not have a positive result.⁵ Moreover, besides the fundamental contribution in the Discorsi, Machiavelli paid particular attention to the topic of political plots also in his other major works. In particular, he places a specific focus on this burning subject in a key section of his Il principe (1513), chapter XIX. Significantly, this chapter (possibly also because of the delicate matter it dealt with) was probably extensively revised by Machiavelli before producing the final version, as claimed by some scholars with specific relation to the tripartite internal structure of the chapter.⁶ But,

² The most explicit chronological reference mentioned in this work and useful to date its composition is the conquest of the Duchy of Urbino by Lorenzo de’ Medici in September 1517 (Discorsi, II, 10), although the composition of this text, which is based on extensive preparatory materials, started certainly before this date: Inglese, Giorgio, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’, DBI 67 (2006), pp. 81‒97: 88. ³ Traité des conjurations extraict du troisième livre des Discours, in Histoire de la conjuration de Catiline. Ceux qui usurperont le glaive periront par le glaive, translated by J. Chomedey (Paris: pour Abel L’Angelier, 1575). The autonomous circulation of this chapter is also proved by the manuscript tradition: in particular a copy in Florence, Archivio di Stato, Dieci di Balia, Carteggio, Responsive 119, ff. 290r‒319v, and a codex in the Biblioteca Nazionale of Florence, Palatino 1104, ff. 45r‒56v. See Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 85‒6; Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 158. ⁴ On ancient history in the Discorsi, see in particular Martelli, Mario, Machiavelli e gli storici antichi. Osservazioni su alcuni luoghi dei ‘Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’ (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1998), in particular on the use of classical sources in chapter III, 6: pp. 123‒44. See also Ridley, Ronald T., ‘Machiavelli and the Roman History in the “Discourses” ’, Quaderni di Storia 18 (1983), pp. 197‒219. ⁵ On the topic of social conflict, but not on conspiracies, see now the extensive and thorough volume Pedullà, Gabriele, Machiavelli in tumulto: conquista, cittadinanza e conflitto nei ‘Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 2011). On Machiavelli’s analysis of conspiracies in particular in the Discorsi III, 6, see Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 161‒76; Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 59‒80; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 371‒97. ⁶ See in particular Mario Martelli, ‘Dai testimoni al Principe’, in Machiavelli, Il principe, pp. 339‒507: 462‒8. On Machiavelli’s discussion of the issue of conspiracies in this chapter: Geuna,‘Machiavelli’, pp. 359‒71.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

214

     

alongside these more theoretical texts (the Discorsi and Il principe), the work that addresses the analysis of plots most closely also from a narrative perspective is the Istorie fiorentine, where Machiavelli provides the accounts of many conspiracies that took place in Italy.⁷ Although this work deals with the history of Florence from its foundation to the death of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Machiavelli narrates not just the most important political plots and civic conflicts that tormented his own city but also those that happened in the whole Italian peninsula and had a deep influence on Florentine history too. As a consequence of the narrative angle adopted by Machiavelli, this text focuses on more recent conspiratorial episodes, drawn from the medieval period and, especially, from the fifteenth century. Thus, the approach to analysis of the phenomenon of plots become obviously oriented exclusively to the contemporary age. But this is not the only historical work by Machiavelli where this issue occupies a pivotal position, since two other minor texts, this time with a monographic outlook, narrate historical events that rotate around episodes of conspiracies. Il modo che tenne il Duca Valentino per ammazzar Vitellozzo, Oliverotto da Fermo, il signor Paolo e il duca di Gravina Orsini in Senigaglia, probably written in 1514, provides the account of the brutal and sly revenge carried out by Cesare Borgia against some allies and captains of his army who plotted against him in 1502 in Magione.⁸ Moreover, Machiavelli also wrote the Vita di Castruccio Castracani in 1520, a text that includes the narrative of three conspiracies (two organized against Castruccio by a noble family of Lucca, the Poggio, and the aristocrat Benedetto Lanfranchi respectively, and the third planned by Castruccio himself to seize power in Florence).⁹ The many-sided articulation of Machiavelli’s treatment of the problem of conspiracies reveals immediately the twofold nature of the central core of his analysis: historical and political. His investigation unfolds and develops throughout the years and in different kinds of literary texts, and therefore, in light of this heterogeneous character, it might be seen in its whole as lacking a centre. In fact, on the one hand, we have the more theoretical works, Il principe and the Discorsi (although with their specificities and different perspectives), where Machiavelli’s discussion is aimed at providing a general definition and systematization of this

⁷ The composition of the Istorie, commissioned by Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, the future Pope Clement VII, in November 1520, is dated to some time between this date and 1525, when, in June, Machiavelli presented the whole work to the pope, although the text was published only posthumously in 1532: Butters, Humfrey, ‘Machiavelli and the Medici’, in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, edited by John M. Najemy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2010), pp. 64‒79; Inglese, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’, p. 89. On Machiavelli’s representation of plots in the Istorie see Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 184‒203; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 397‒407; Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 10‒23. ⁸ On this work and Machiavelli’s views on plots in it: Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 25‒34; this volume also includes an edition of the text, quoted from Machiavelli, Niccolò, L’arte della guerra. Scritti politici minori, edited by Jean Jacques Marchand, Denis Fachard, and Giorgio Masi (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2001), pp. 597‒606. ⁹ On the plots narrated in this work: Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 398‒400.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

215

historical practice of political conflict (especially in the latter) and where, despite the presence of some inconsistencies, the theorizing intention is more apparent.¹⁰ On the other hand, we have the Istorie and the historical accounts of the actual events, where the narrative perspective prevails, at least in part, over the purpose of reaching a neat categorization. Moreover, in this work the literary dimension of the historical narration in a few sections ends up bordering on a dramatic depiction of some episodes. However, notwithstanding this dual nature, Machiavelli’s reflection on conspiracies should be seen in its overall formulation and significance, which result from the interplay of all the different tesserae that build his thought on this matter. In particular, as already in fifteenth-century literature, the theoretical and the historical components become two sides of the same conceptual operation and appear deeply intertwined. The categorizing aim is always rooted in the analysis of historical evidence, which provides the exempla necessary for the theorization. Vice versa, the historical narrative betrays the higher intention of producing a lucid political reading of history, becoming a sophisticated instrument of political analysis.¹¹ By recovering and developing the lesson of humanist historiography (in much more mature results), both the speculative and practical domains of the political examination of the contemporary world are entwined in the fruitful synergy between the theory of statecraft and historical writing.¹² And, as it was for humanists of the preceding century, the exemplary function of history always retains contemporary reality as its concrete sphere of action, or better, as the sphere of action for political speculation arising from the historical narrative. If humanist historiographical literature was marked, almost in all its different forms, by a decisive political and, often, openly propagandistic character (as we have ¹⁰ On this theorizing aim, oriented to providing a ‘general theory of conspiracies’: Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 3‒7: 4. ¹¹ On this aspect of Machiavelli’s Istorie, where single episodes are functional to the construction of the author’s overarching interpretation of the historical phenomena, see Anselmi, Gian Mario, Ricerche sul Machiavelli storico (Pisa: Pacini, 1979), p. 164. On historical analysis as a means of political speculation: Najemy, John M., ‘Machiavelli and the Medici: The Lessons of Florentine History’, Renaissance Quarterly 35, 4 (1982), pp. 551‒76, 558‒9, 565. More generally, on Machiavelli’s work as a historian, see also Sasso, Gennaro, Niccolò Machiavelli. II, La storiografia (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993); Dionisotti, Carlo, ‘Machiavelli storico’, in Dionisotti, Carlo, Machiavellerie: storia e fortuna di Machiavelli (Torino: Einaudi, 1980), pp. 365‒409. ¹² On Machiavelli’s relationship with humanist historiography, see in particular Black, Robert, ‘Machiavelli and Humanist Historiography’, in Reading and Writing History from Bruni to Windschuttle. Essays in Honour of Gary Ianziti, edited by Christian Thorsten Callisen (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), pp. 87‒103; Dionisotti, ‘Machiavelli storico’, pp. 365‒83. On his use of sources: Anselmi, Gian Mario, ‘Fonti e problemi degli ultimi due libri delle Istorie fiorentine’, Studi e problemi di critica testuale 17 (1978), pp. 63‒76; Anselmi, Ricerche; Pieraccioni, Gaia, ‘Note su Machiavelli storico. I. Machiavelli e Giovanni di Carlo’, Archivio Storico Italiano 146, 4 (1988), pp. 635‒54; Pieraccioni, Gaia, ‘Note su Machiavelli storico. II. Machiavelli lettore delle Storie fiorentine di Guicciardini’, Archivio Storico Italiano 147 (1989), pp. 63‒98; Martelli, Mario, ‘Machiavelli e la storiografia umanistica’, La storiografia umanistica. Convegno internazionale di studi (Messina 22‒25 ottobre 1987), vol. 1, edited by Anita Di Stefano (Messina: Sicania, 1992), pp. 113‒52; Sasso, Niccolò Machiavelli.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

216

     

seen), Machiavelli’s work cannot be seen as informed by the same perspective in support of established powers. Nevertheless, it recovers from fifteenth-century authors the productive interaction of history and politics; and the Istorie fiorentine, in particular, can be regarded as a historical vehicle of political evaluation. In light of the conflation of these complementary fields, the analysis in this chapter is not divided into different sections corresponding to Machiavelli’s different works. Conversely, it is aimed at examining his overall view on political plots, as it emerges from his most important considerations included in his various works, and is intended to provide a comprehensive interpretation of his thought.¹³ From these preliminary observations, it is already evident that Machiavelli’s attention to the topic of plots and some aspects of his approach in dealing with it can derive mainly from the extensive treatment that this theme enjoyed in the fifteenth century, when it was addressed in multiple literary forms but with a consistent outlook. It is likely that Machiavelli did not know directly some of the texts on conspiracies produced in this period, but the general diffusion of this topic in literature (and more specifically in a considerable number of monographic works characterized by analogous perspectives) may have had an influence on the careful attention he paid to this topic, as an acute political thinker and historian.¹⁴ Although in recent years, Machiavelli’s focus on conspiracies has attracted the interest of some scholars,¹⁵ there is still little or almost no research on the connections and discrepancies between his reflections on this theme and the extensive literary output on the same issue produced in the previous century. Thus, my analysis concentrates on pointing out how the linkage, though indirect, with the recent humanist literature on plots can be regarded in some respects as a founding element for Machiavelli’s observations on this matter. It is true that his multilayered exploration is nurtured by different political strands: the classical world, the medieval and communal tradition, and finally the more recent political and cultural reality of fifteenth-century Italian states.¹⁶ But it is this last

¹³ A similar methodology is adopted in Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi. This contribution is still the most important critical study on Machiavelli’s thought on plots and my analysis is indebted to it for many elements. ¹⁴ From the data we have on the limited circulation of some of these Quattrocento texts by minor authors, it is almost certain that Machiavelli did not have the chance to read some of them, in particular Orazio Romano’s Porcaria. However, he definitely used Poliziano’s Contiurationis commentarium as a source in his account of the Pazzi’s plot in the Istorie fiorentine, VIII (see the bibliography mentioned at n. 63). It is not certain if Machiavelli knew Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio and Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano, but both texts circulated in the first decades of the Cinquecento (the former only in manuscripts): see Chapters 2 and 3 on these works. Moreover, a further historical source for Porcari’s conspiracy that Machiavelli could have used for his account in the Istorie fiorentine (VI, 29) is now preserved in the Carte Machiavelliane, in the Biblioteca Nazionale of Florence (document 6. 6, manuscript copy of the sixteenth century): it is a letter dated 16 January 1453 by an anonymous author; see Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013), pp. 133–6. ¹⁵ See the works already mentioned at n. 1. ¹⁶ See Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 184–6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

217

component that eventually seems to have had the chief influence in structuring the conceptual and interpretive framework through which Machiavelli develops his outlook and judgement of this political phenomenon. As far as texts are concerned, in many cases what it is possible to point out is the affinity in some pivotal elements of the conceptual dimension subtending both Machiavelli’s and humanists’ works, rather than a direct relationship of dependence (which can be recognized more clearly, e.g. in the references to Poliziano’s Commentairum in chapter VIII of the Istorie fiorentine). But Machiavelli’s awareness of the centrality that the issue of plots had assumed in the preceding decades, an importance reflected also by literature, is undoubted. In addition, as is well known, Machiavelli himself had a direct and shocking experience of what this kind of political practices could represent. He was accused of being part of the conspiracy organized by Agostino Capponi and Pietro Paolo Boscoli against the Medici, and, although he always proclaimed himself innocent, on 12 February 1513 he was arrested and tortured, and one month later was released.¹⁷ Another similar event must have had an influence on him, although Machiavelli was not directly involved: this was the plot against Giulio de’ Medici that should have taken place in June 1522 and was organized by Zanobi Buondelmonti e Luigi Alamanni, with whom Machiavelli had a close relationship.¹⁸ Moreover, even in his more theoretical works, such as the Discorsi, where we do not find a chronological approach in examining the various conspiracies, the examples drawn from the more recent centuries prove to be more numerous, or at least more relevant in shaping Machiavelli’s overall opinion on this phenomenon. This perspective, obviously, prevails in the historical narrative of the Istorie fiorentine, where, this time, the chronological development of the account reveals the crucial influence that more recent events had on the evolution of Machiavelli’s political views, which prove to be profoundly shaped by the lessons learned from the Quattrocento. Consequently, it would not be possible to deeply understand Machiavelli’s thought on such a key issue if it is not analysed considering possible similarities and divergences with the conceptual horizon characterizing humanist literature on plots. In this strand of works, Machiavelli, although he did not know directly all of them, could find the nucleus on which his political interpretation of the phenomenon of conspiracies would be based, and it is no accident that he considered the main recent plots as exempla and case studies in his chief works: ¹⁷ On this conspiracy Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 39‒47; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 356; Viroli, Maurizio, Il sorriso di Niccolò. Storia di Machiavelli (Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1998), pp. 135‒9. ¹⁸ As is well known, the Discorsi are dedicated to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai. On this plot (which, however, did not have any influence on Machiavelli’s analysis of conspiracies in the Discorsi and Il principe, since they were written before this event): Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 47‒58; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 356; Osmond, Patricia J., ‘The Conspiracy of 1522 against Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici: Machiavelli and “gli esempli delli antiqui” ’, in The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture, edited by Kenneth Gouwens and Sheryl E. Reiss (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 55‒72.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

218

     

the Discorsi, Il principe, and the Istorie fiorentine (on which the following sections of this chapter focus).

6.2 The phenomenon of plots, between political theorization and historical narrative Machiavelli in his main works provides an analysis of conspiracies inspired by both a historicist method and a categorizing intention, with these two components prevailing depending on the nature of each literary text. In particular, in the chapter Delle congiure in the Discorsi (III, 6) he offers for the first time an illustration of all actual dynamics involved in the different phases of a conspiracy (the risks, possibilities, and general recurring aspects). He covers the processes of organizing a plot, putting it into action, and dealing with its outcomes, from the point of view of both the plotters and the ruler who is the target of the attack.¹⁹ This all-encompassing perspective is groundbreaking, although it has also been recognized as contradictory because of its twofold attention to the risks and ‘remedies’ for both plotters and rulers.²⁰ A theorizing approach also emerges in Machiavelli’s other major discussion on plots in chapter XIX of Il principe. Nevertheless, here the angle of interpretation, predictably, mostly coincides with the ruler’s standpoint and therefore the author’s reflection displays a less comprehensive character (instead in the Discorsi the plotters’ positions are also extensively considered, although this more exhaustive viewpoint is also due to the different length of the texts’ sections). But it is significant that this allembracing attitude also comes to light in the historical narrative in the Istorie fiorentine. Here, through the full descriptions of the different episodes, both the conspirators’ and rulers’ sides are usually considered, although sometimes just with quick and meaningful remarks and with a less evident categorizing aim. An emblematic example is provided by the narrative of the Pazzi conspiracy (chapter VIII), where the subtlest political significance of the events is often conveyed through essential, but pregnant, statements,²¹ or, more indirectly, by casting unexpected shadows on some characters and their political actions, and insinuating slight political overtones through sophisticated rhetorical techniques. This is

¹⁹ On this aspect see in particular Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 3‒5, 62. ²⁰ On the originality of Machiavelli’s approach see Campi, Machiavelli, p. 5; Mansfield, Harvey C., Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders. A Study of the ‘Discourses on Livy’ (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 317‒18. On the contradictory aspect of some of Machiavelli’s reflections on this issue and the impossibility to tracing a ‘linear development’ of his thought, see Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 160 (on the approach inclined to provide ‘rimedi’, p. 169). ²¹ An example is the comment on the political situation in Florence included in the description of Iacopo Pazzi’s abortive attempt at urging the Florentines to rise up: Machiavelli, Istorie, VIII, 8. See Chapter 5, section 5.3 in the present volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

219

the case of the figure of Lorenzo de’ Medici, whose intricate profile eludes univocal reading and emerges in its complexity through the full-ranging and nuanced portrayal depicted by Machiavelli in chapter VIII.²² In general, the analytical presentation of all the recurrent elements typical of the conspiratorial phenomena cannot be found in the previous output devoted to this issue. Nonetheless, the political perspective of fifteenth-century works (which was built through their narrative and rhetorical strategies) already portrays conspiracies as having a fundamental impact on the political destiny of states and, especially, on that of princes. Moreover, these texts already reveal the foremost ideological implications of these episodes and all the chief factors and protagonists that played a key role in these crucial historical phases: not only the plotters, but also the figure of the prince and the common people. An implicit focus is also placed on the relationships between all these components of the state: relations that are disclosed, in particular, by the dynamics of the revenge carried out after the plot. All these points are recovered and reworked in Machiavelli’s more mature analysis, which, in light of these unspoken connections, turns out to be influenced by the political dimensions emerging in the humanists’ accounts. If in many cases it is not a direct correlation that links Machiavelli’s reflections on conspiracies with previous works, it is possible to describe his relationship with the fifteenth-century conceptual horizon borrowing the words that Carlo Dionisotti used to define Machiavelli’s debt towards the humanist legacy, but also his radical reworking of it: the scholar described Machiavelli as proceeding ‘in the footsteps of fifteenth-century humanist tradition and beyond that, always moving forward and never backwards’ (‘nel solco delle tradizione umanistica quattrocentesca e al di là: procedendo innanzi e non a ritroso’).²³ The next sections in this chapter examine the main conceptual nucleuses and aspects of Machiavelli’s thoughts on plots, which are linked by significant correlations with the humanist tradition of texts on conspiracies; moreover, the analysis will also show how all these key ideological keystones are the results of Machiavelli’s re-elaboration of the previous perspective in a new personal reconsideration of the political phenomena.

²² On Machiavelli’s representation of Lorenzo de’ Medici, see Larivaille, Paul, ‘Sul ritratto machiavelliano di Lorenzo il Magnifico nel capitolo finale delle Istorie fiorentine’, in Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli, edited by Francesco Bausi and Vincenzo Fera (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 11‒37; Celati, Marta, ‘Imitation and Allusion in Machiavelli’s Istorie fiorentine between Contemporary Sources and Classical Models’, in Imitative Series and Clusters from Classical to Early Modern Literature, edited by Colin Burrow, Stephen J. Harrison, Martin McLaughlin, and Elisabetta Tarantino (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2020), pp. 205–22: 215–22. On Machiavelli and the Medici, see Marietti, Marina, ‘Machiavel historiographe des Médicis’, in, Les Écrivains et le pouvoir en Italie à l’époque de la Renaissance, edited by André Rochon (Paris: Universite de la Sorbonne nouvelle, 1974), pp. 81‒148; Najemy, ‘Machiavelli and the Medici’, pp. 551‒76; Butters, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 64‒79. ²³ Dionisotti, ‘Machiavelli storico’, pp. 368‒9.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

220

     

6.3 Conspiracy, tyrannicide, and crimen laesae maiestatis One of the main traits that Machiavelli’s reflections on conspiracies, especially in the Discorsi, share with the corpus of fifteenth-century works on plots is the considerable distance from the issue of tyrannicide. This matter is totally overlooked and, consequently, is considered as something remote from the political horizon of conspiratorial actions.²⁴ In all the sections of the texts where Machiavelli deals with the topic of conspiracies he does not address the problem of tyrannicide, which is not included in this specific discussion, not even in the more theoretical texts where he aims to provide a comprehensive categorization. Only in the chapter Delle congiure in the Discorsi does he mention a connection with tyrannicide when he refers to the murder of Caesar (Discorsi, III, 6, 21‒2), but the reference to this episode proves to be distant from the core of the analysis on plots, which is based on a completely different perspective. More generally, also in the rest of the Discorsi, although the issue of tyranny is obviously present (despite being often addressed not with straightforward definitions), the traditional discussion on tyrannicide does not seem to be of interest for Machiavelli, especially the debate, crucial in the early Quattrocento, on Dante’s decision to place Caesar’s assassins, Brutus and Cassius, in the lowest region of his hell alongside Judas in Inferno 34.²⁵

²⁴ This distance between the practice of conspiracies and tyrannicide in Machiavelli’s analysis is acknowledged also by Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 164‒5; Campi, Machiavelli, p. 6; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 366‒7; but it deserves further analysis. On Machiavelli’s complex idea of tyranny as it emerges in his works: Sasso, Gennaro, ‘Principato civile e tirannide’, in Machiavelli e gli antichi e altri saggi, vol. 2, edited by Gennaro Sasso (Milan-Naples: Ricciardi, 1987), pp. 351‒483; Najemy, John M., ‘ “Occupare la tirannide”: Machiavelli, the militia and Guicciardini’s accusation of tyranny’, in Della tirannia: Machiavelli con Bartolo. Atti della giornata di studi (Firenze, 19 ottobre 2002), edited by Jérémie Barthas (Florence: Olschki, 2007), pp. 75‒108: 96‒108; Fournel, Jean-Louis and Zancarini, Jean-Claude, ‘Tirannide’, in Enciclopedia, vol. 2, pp. 612‒17; Giorgini, Giovanni, ‘The Place of the Tyrant in Machiavelli’s Political Thought and the Literary Genre of The Prince’, History of Political Thought 29, 2 (2008), pp. 230‒56; Pedullà, Gabriele, ‘Machiavelli’s Prince and the Concept of Tyranny’, in Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance, edited by Nikos Panou and Hester Schadee (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 192–210. ²⁵ On the other hand, Machiavelli focuses more on the political action of Brutus, the opponent to the last Roman king, Tarquinius Superbus, in particular in Discorsi, III, 3 (chapter: ‘Come egli è necessario, a volere mantenere una libertà acquistata di nuovo, ammazzare i figliuoli di Bruto’) and I, 16, 3 and I, 16, 11. On the important debate on tyrannicide in the early fifteenth century and in particular on Coluccio Salutati’s De tyranno see Baron, Hans, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), pp. 79‒96, 121‒39; Witt, Ronald G., ‘The De tyranno and Coluccio Salutati’s View of Politics and Roman History’, Nuova rivista storica 53 (1969), pp. 434‒74; and the Introduction to the edition of the text by Stefano Baldassarri in Salutati, Coluccio, Political Writings, edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri, translated by Rolf Bagemihl (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2014), pp. XIII‒XXIV. On one of the most important medieval sources in this debate on tyrannycide, Bartolo da Sassoferrato’s De tyranno, see Quaglioni, Diego, Politica e diritto nel Trecento italiano. Il ‘De tyranno’ di Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1314‒1357) (Florence: Olschki, 1983).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

221

As for the analysis of conspiracies, this specific approach is probably due to the fact that the complex practice of political plots is perceived as not relevant to the sphere of tyrannicide and not assimilable with it. The traditional contraposition between a tyrannical government and the legitimate aspiration to liberate the state from a despotic ruler is not adequate anymore to provide the categories suitable to explain most of the conflicts within the states of the second half of the fifteenth century and the early sixteenth century. Thus, Machiavelli cannot place his reflection in the framework of a political dimension that is now perceived as inappropriate, and therefore he goes beyond it. Although this was a theme debated by his friends in the Orti Oricellari, when he addresses the issue of plots he never poses the traditional question whether killing a despot could be legitimate and in what conditions. Conversely, he assumes a totally political outlook in considering the causes, concrete aspects, and consequences of what must have appeared as a widespread political practice, and, in general, he turns to a different conceptualization of the events he examines.²⁶ This is a new perspective that Machiavelli could already have found, although with different specificities, in the humanist literary output on plots. These works had already overcome and left behind the angle of analysis concerning tyrannicide, and most significantly, had contributed to eliminating it and its relevance through their overall narrative standpoint. Because of their literary and historical character (and not theoretical), in humanist works this new outlook that dismisses the liberation from the tyrant as an interpretative category is implied in the whole narration, although it is never explicitly declared. This is also due to the political reading of the historical episodes that most of these texts put forward and that is oriented towards condemn any form of insubordination and discord within the state and to support the figure of the ruler, in all his different variations, as the new fundamental linchpin of the political systems. This stance, and its political implications, also emerges in the interpretation of those conspiracies that were more directly connected with the aim of putting an end to an authoritarian rule, at least in the intentions of the plotters. In fact, these intentions ended up being totally overlooked and overturned in the narratives of the events that prevailed in the aftermath of the plots. For example, this is the case of the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza in Milan and of Stefano Porcari’s conspiracy against Nicholas V in Rome. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Machiavelli in his account of these episodes in the Istorie fiorentine recognizes some of the authentic motives that drove the plotters. In particular, for the Milanese attack, he underscores the relationship between the classical republican tradition and the antidespotic ideals that animated the instigator of the assault, Cola Montano, by providing a telling depiction of him (VII, 33):

²⁶ On this approach, see Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 164.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

222

     

Insegnava a Milano la latina lingua a’ primi giovani di quella città Cola Montano, uomo litterato e ambizioso. Questo, o che gli avesse in odio la vita e i costumi del Duca, o che pure altra cagione lo movesse, in tutti i suoi ragionamenti il vivere sotto un principe non buono detestava, gloriosi e felici chiamando quegli a’ quali nascere e vivere in una republica aveva la natura e la fortuna conceduto. [In Milan, Cola Montano, a lettered and ambitious man, taught the Latin language to the leading youths of the city. This man, whether because he loathed the life and customs of the duke or because some other cause moved him, in all his reasonings execrated life under a prince who was not good, calling those glorious and happy whom nature and fortune had allowed to be born and live in a republic.]²⁷

However, despite acknowledging these apparently noble aims, Machiavelli’s political judgement of this plot is totally negative, and equally negative is his evaluation of the parallel abortive attempt at overturning the papal government in Rome by Porcari (Istorie, VI, 29). His criticism is due to the consideration of the entirely unproductive results of these political actions, which end up in a complete failure from the perspective of the liberation from despotic authorities. The focus on the negative outcomes of these practices is a key innovative element in Machiavelli’s speculation on this issue, as we shall see. But what is most significant is that the attention paid to the fruitless consequences contributes towards overshadowing the relevance of the inspirational motives linked to tyrannicide, motives that had been totally and deliberately neglected by fifteenth-century authors. The ideological and political context in which Machiavelli found himself when he was attracted by the complex issues of political plots had almost entirely changed from the scenario of the early fifteenth century that saw the diffusion of the lively debate on the traditional idea of tyrannicide. Moreover, the practice of conspiracies in the second half of the Quattrocento in many cases had proved to be completely different from the category of anti-tyrannical actions, and the numerous humanistic works on these events made a considerable contribution towards revealing this new scenario, although with their limits and propagandistic stance. Even when these actions were still somehow connected with anti-despotic views, such as the Milanese conspiracy or the Porcari plot, the viewpoint that generally prevailed overlapped with a pro-government perspective. This outlook was nurtured by the principle of political unity and suppressed the plotters’ disapproval of autocratic regimes as driving force of their uprising. In addition,

²⁷ Machiavelli recalls Sallust to describe the republican ideas of the conspirators, who are not represented as similar to Catiline, but are put in a negative light because of the outcome of the plot. On Cola Montano, see Orvieto, Paolo, ‘Nicola Capponi detto Cola Montano’, DBI 19 (1976), pp. 83‒6. All passages of the Istorie fiorentine are quoted from Machiavelli, Istorie; all translations are from Machiavelli, Florentine histories (with some changes).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

223

in fifteenth-century texts, in general, the conspirators themselves were depicted as criminal and tyrants, because of their illegitimate attempt at seizing power. In this changed ideological background, Machiavelli scrutinizes the crucial phenomenon of plots from a more complex perspective, that of the crimen laesae maiestatis: a concept through which these actions are seen as crimes against the highest authority, in most cases a prince. This interpretative category for rebellions, plots, and in general internal attacks against established powers obviously is not new and was extensively discussed already in the previous centuries.²⁸ But it is striking that it is in the Quattrocento that this ideological and semantic area is applied, directly or more indirectly, to contemporary conspiracies in humanist narratives. This element stands out clearly in Pontano’s works, not just in the De bello Neapolitano, but also in his politico-theoretical treatises interconnected with his historical text, the De principe and De obedientia;²⁹ and it also appears, with different purposes, in Poliziano’s work on the Pazzi conspiracy.³⁰ Pontano affirms the king’s undisputed power over the illegitimate betrayals of the barons who must obey him, claiming the supreme authority of the monarch. On the other hand, Poliziano had to convey a similar standpoint for a ruler like Lorenzo who was not an actual prince, but, in the circumstances of the plot, had to legitimize and defend his authority not just over the internal enemies, the Pazzi, but also over the pope, Sixtus IV. The pope after the failure of the attack tried to defeat Lorenzo by condemning him as a tyrant and unlawful ruler in his Bulls: accusations that Lorenzo rejected through his articulated system of literary propaganda.³¹ Moreover, even the plot against pope Nicholas V in 1453 was narrated and interpreted by most authors through a secular angle that looked at Porcari’s plan as a threat to political power.³² So papal rule, as we have seen, was considered as the highest expression of an authority endowed with majestic attributes, and with religious implications relegated to the background. Consequently, the perspective of the crimen laesae maiestatis ends up coinciding with the all-embracing princely dimension that now permeates the political and ideological background between the middle of the Quattrocento and the sixteenth century. In this period majesty becomes one of the key notions in the theorization of princely statecraft and it occupies a pivotal position also in Machiavelli’s thought, as we shall see. Now any attempt at insubordination is seen as a violation of the highest ²⁸ On the concept of crimen laesae maiestatis: Sbriccoli, Mario, Crimen laesae maiestatis. Il problema del reato politico alle soglie della scienza moderna (Milan: Giuffre, 1974). ²⁹ See Chapter 3 in this volume (in particular sections 3.4‒3.6). On the notion of maiestas and its relationship with the ideas of obedience and, as its opposite and negative pole, disobedience in Pontano’s treatises: Cappelli, Guido, Maiestas: politica e pensiero politico nella Napoli aragonese (1443‒1503) (Rome: Carocci Editore, 2016), pp. 101‒14, 140‒61. ³⁰ The relevance of the issue of laesae maiestatis in the context of the Pazzi conspiracy is illustrated by De Benedictis, Angela, ‘Abbattere i tiranni, punire i ribelli. Diritto e violenza negli interdetti del Rinascimento’, Rechtsgeschichte 11 (2007), pp. 76‒93. ³¹ See Chapter 4, sections 4.3, 4.4, and on this specific issue De Benedictis, ‘Abbattere i tiranni’. ³² See Chapters 1 and 2.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

224

     

sovereignty of the ruler, who is encapsulated in (and overlaps with) the superior idea of majesty, as Machiavelli’s standpoint on conspiracies also reveals.

6.4 The princely dimension of Machiavelli’s thought on plots The implicit centrality of the notion of the crimen laesae maiestatis in the interpretations of plots in both the humanists’ and Machiavelli’s works comes to light more openly in the lucid classification of the historical episodes drawn up by the latter. At the beginning of his chapter in the Discorsi (III, 6, 8) Machiavelli sets out a clear distinction between two main categories of plots: the conspiracies can be either ‘contro alla patria’ or ‘contro a uno principe’.³³ However, he focuses almost exclusively on the latter category, the conspiracies against princes, and devotes to the former only a few considerations at the end of his lengthy chapter. The core of Machiavelli’s reflection, therefore, proves to be the princely dimension that now dominated the political scene, where most political plots were to be regarded as attacks against the ruler’s authority and maiestas. Significantly, already in fifteenthcentury works the issue of conspiracies is considered through the same political lens. The multifaceted figure of the princeps (which now can be identified in the pope, in the profile of a pater patriae, or in the first citizen in a republic, like Lorenzo de’ Medici in Florence) becomes the core of the state, but also of the political tensions in it: he stands out as the protagonist of the political scene and the target of conflicts. He is the subject and the object of all political phenomena.³⁴ The centrality that this princely horizon has in Machiavelli’s work, where the conspiracies ‘contro alla patria’ are overlooked in comparison with the other category, is mirrored in humanist works, where contemporary plots always appear as attacks against princes. Nevertheless, in these texts, mainly because of the political and propagandistic reading that informs their narrative, the ‘conspiracies against princes’ turn out to be implicitly presented also as ‘conspiracies against the fatherland’. As we have seen, this is due to the fact that the figure of the princeps ends up embodying and coinciding with the idea of state and civic community, so that any menace to him is regarded as a danger for the whole political body. As a consequence, the princely dimension encapsulates the whole discourse on political power and also on any possible resistance to it. Machiavelli proves to be aware of the predominance of this ruler-centred perspective in the contemporary milieu also in his theorization of one of the main distinctive characteristics of conspiracies in his Discorsi (III, 6, 36): he states that this kind of political insubordination is always rooted in the circles of men

³³ On this distinction see also Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 165‒6; Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 386. ³⁴ For these considerations see also Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 166.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

225

closer to power and surrounding the political leader. In this light, it is in what can be defined as the princely environment that conspiracies take place. This is the ‘territory’ of power that the plotters share with the ruler, besides having in common also the same values and aspirations that are idiosyncratic to this context.³⁵ Machiavelli explicitly affirms that the plotters are to be found among the ‘grandi’, who are men of high status, also from a moral perspective, and not among the common people, who are weak (Discorsi, III, 6, 36): a consideration that could be found in similar terms already in Aristotle’s Politics (1312a) and in Polybius’s Histories (IV, 7).³⁶ But in the same passage he goes even further in depicting this identikit of the conspirators and he claims that they are usually ‘familiarissimi’ with the prince, so very close to him and to his environment. Consequently, as already in fifteenth-century literature on plots, the most dangerous enemies for the ruler have to be recognized in the internal enemies, the opponents within the state. They, in Machiavelli’s work, are pinpointed even more specifically and are identified as men inside to the domain of political power, where contrasting interests are often the main causes of conspiracies. This standpoint, which totally focuses on the political relationships within the state, rather than on foreign politics, already surfaces in the humanist output on plots. Here the historical reconstruction of the events is oriented towards domestic issues concerning current governments (in this case with a moral stand often prevailing over a deeper political outlook). This focus anticipates and adheres to the approach that Machiavelli explicitly claims to adopt, with a more acute and critical insightfulness, in his proemio to the Istorie fiorentine, where he stresses a distinction between his work and Florentine historiography of the early Quattrocento: Ma avendo io di poi diligentemente letto gli scritti loro [sc. Leonardo Bruni and Poggio Bracciolini] . . . ho trovato come . . . delle civili discordie e delle intrinseche inimicizie, e degli effetti che da quelle sono nati, averne una parte al tutto taciuta e quell’altra in modo brevemente descritta, che ai leggenti non puote arrecare utile o piacere alcuno. . . . se niuna lezione è utile a cittadini che governono le repubbliche, è quella che dimostra le cagioni degli odi e delle divisioni delle città, acciò che possino con il pericolo d’altri diventati savi mantenersi uniti. [But when I had read their writing diligently . . . I found that . . . as regards civil discords and internal enmities, and the effects arising from them, they were ³⁵ On this point see Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 61‒2. ³⁶ Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 173‒4. A similar reference to the ‘grandezza d’animo’ of men who decide to overthrow a ruler is in Discorsi, I, 2, 18. On Machiavelli’s concept of ‘grandi’, their relationship with princely power, and their role in the state: Sasso ‘Principato’, and Bonadeo, Alfredo, ‘The Role of the “Grandi” in the Political World of Machiavelli’, Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969), pp. 9‒30. On Machiavelli’s relationship with classical philosophy and in particular with Aristotle and Polybius see also Vasoli, Cesare, ‘Machiavelli e la filosofia degli antichi’, in Cultura e scrittura di Machiavelli. Atti del Convegno di Firenze-Pisa, 27‒30 ottobre 1997 (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1998), pp. 37‒62.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

226

     

altogether silent about the one and so brief about the other as to be of no use to readers or pleasure to anyone. . . . if no other lesson is useful to the citizens who govern republics, it is that which shows the causes of the hatred and divisions in the city, so that when they have become wise through the danger of others, they may be able to maintain themselves united.]

The Istorie, from this point of view, seem to be in more direct continuity with the approach adopted in monographic works on plots in the second half of the fifteenth century, and therefore mark the predominance of this tendency to concentrate on internal matters in looking at the political context, paying attention especially to conflicts within the political systems and to internal dynamics of power. The pivotal position of the figure of the prince in Machiavelli’s reflections on plots also emerges in the advisory approach that the author adopts in some sections of his texts, where he explains how a ruler could prevent internecine attacks. He displays a similar prescriptive attitude also in the passages where he suggests how plotters should act not to have their plans thwarted. Even in these complementary discussions, he always looks at plots against princes, so this ideological princely horizon turns out to be pervasive and all-absorbing. In particular Machiavelli in both the Discorsi, III, 6 and Il principe, XIX, considers what is the political conduct that can help a ruler to avoid conspiracies. Significantly, in both texts the notion of majesty is employed in the sections specifically devoted to this theorization. Majesty is seen as a fundamental attribute of princely power, essential to gain consensus, and therefore to maintain the state safe and protected from internal menaces: E per ridurre la cosa in brevi termini, dico che da la parte del coniurante non è se non paura, gelosia, sospetto di pena che lo sbigottisce, ma da la parte del principe è la maestà del principato, le leggi, le difese delli amici e dello stato, che lo difendano: talmente che, aggiunto a tutte queste cose la benivolenzia populare, è impossibile che alcuno sia sì temerario che congiuri . . . (Il principe, XIX, 13‒14)³⁷ [Reducing the matter to a few brief words, let me say that on the part of the conspirator there is nothing but fear, apprehension, and the terrifying thought of punishment. But on the part of the prince there is the majesty of the principality, the laws, and the defences of friends and the state to protect him. And so, with the good will of the people added to all these things, it is impossible for anyone to be so rash as to plan a conspiracy . . . ]

³⁷ All passages of Il principe are quoted from Machiavelli, Il principe; all translations are from Machiavelli, The Prince.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

227

Manca l’animo a chi esequisce, o per riverenza, o per propria viltà dello esecutore. È tanta la maestà e la riverenza che si tira dietro la presenza d’uno principe, ch’egli è facil cosa o che mitighi o che gli sbigottisca uno esecutore. (Discorsi, III, 6, 109‒10)³⁸ [The courage of anyone who executes the plan fails either out of respect for the victim or out of his own cowardice. The majesty and reverence inspired by the presence of a prince is so great that it is a simple matter for this either to weaken or frighten a conspirator.]

It is mainly the maestà of the prince that can dissuade his opponents to plot against him: the attribute that already in the late Quattrocento had become the main virtue capable of building the consensus around the ruler, in the theories by Pontano in his De principe, and after him, by Giuniano Maio in his De maiestate (1492).³⁹ They both clearly understand the importance of the ceremonial and exhibition of a new symbolism of power: ‘la maestà degli ornamenti, della pompa e della comitiva’, as Machiavelli would illustrate in the continuation of the passage, just quoted, in the Discorsi (III, 6, 112). Thus, majesty is the virtue that, already for these intellectuals before Machiavelli, displays a prominent ‘external’ character, coinciding with the external image, gestures, behaviour, and pomp of the king. It is no coincidence, that already in the fifteenth century, this attribute is presented as the distinctive essence of princely authority by the authors who are more deeply interested in the issue of conspiracies and, in general, of rebellions against rulers (as already illustrated, the topic of sedition played a considerable part in Maio’s mirror for princes and is even more extensively treated by Pontano in his historiographical work, De bello Neapolitano). Hence majesty, the only trait which is particular to the heart of princely power but also, and mainly, to the exhibition of it, is the chief element that allows the ruler to attract the people’s favour and, according to Machiavelli (who develops the humanist standpoint), that is able to defend the prince from possible internal threats. The reference to the public and visible figure of the prince, already fundamental in late fifteenthcentury literature, is recalled and enhanced by Machiavelli in the passage in the Discorsi, also revealing a significant continuity between the different phases of Il principe and the treatise on Livy. Moreover, the centrality of this notion in the specific discussion on plots proves that Machiavelli, even in the work that is regarded as more extensively inspired by a republican ideology, always looks carefully at the actual political processes that, starting from the middle of the

³⁸ All passages of the Discorsi are quoted from Machiavelli, Discorsi; all translations from Machiavelli, Discourses. ³⁹ See Chapter 3, section 3.6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

228

     

Quattrocento, were introducing a more pronounced princely character in the political systems in the Italian states.⁴⁰ This connection between Il principe and the Discorsi in relation to the issues of conspiracies is openly underlined by Machiavelli in a specific passage at the beginning of the chapter Delle congiure (Discorsi, III, 6, 8‒13). Here he explains that one of the most important causes of political plots is the hatred and resentment of the common people for the ruler, the ‘mala disposizione universale’ (Discorsi, III, 6, 11),⁴¹ and he specifies that he had already dealt with this issue in the work where he illustrated how a prince can prevent being hated. This is a clear reference to chapter XIX, ‘De contemptu et odio fugiendo’, in Il principe, where the discussion on conspiracies resonates with that in the Discorsi. The identification of the people’s rancour as one of the main motives of plots against rulers opens up another perspective that turns out to be crucial in Machiavelli’s analysis, as we shall see: the acknowledgement of the role of the common people in these historical phenomena.⁴² However, Machiavelli’s attention to all dynamics concerning the exercise of the prince’s authority is not limited to the analysis of the causes of the threats to it but also includes some significant considerations on the issue of reprisal: a matter that will be addressed also in the historical narratives of contemporary conspiracies in the Istorie fiorentine. From a more theoretical point of view, Machiavelli deals with the problem of thwarting and defeating a sedition, in particular a plot, in the Discorsi (III, 6, 187‒8): Non voglio però mancare di avvertire quel principe o quella republica contro a chi fosse congiurato, che abbino avvertenza, quando una congiura si manifesta loro, innanzi che facciano impresa di vendicarla, cercare e intendere molto bene la qualità di essa; e misurino bene le condizioni de’ congiurati e le loro, e quando la truovino grossa e potente, non la scuoprino mai infino a tanto che si siano preparati con forze sufficienti ad opprimerla, altrimenti facendo, scoprirebbono la loro rovina. Però, debbono con ogni industria dissimularla, perché i congiurati, veggendosi scoperti, cacciati da necessità, operano sanza rispetto. [I do not wish to fail to warn that prince or republic against whom a conspiracy has been planes to be cautious, so that when a conspiracy is revealed to them, before they make an effort to avenge themselves, they will seek to understand very well its characteristic, and they will take careful measures of the conditions

⁴⁰ On the continuity between the Discorsi and Il principe, seen from this point of view, and the focus on the public figure of the prince, see Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 176. ⁴¹ The reference to the people’s hatred as a cause of conspiracies has its origin in Aristotle, Politics, 1311a8‒1312b21; see also Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 361. ⁴² Another passage where conspiracies are explicitly traced back to the civic community’s odium for the prince is in Discorsi, I, 2, 17‒18, a pivotal section of the treatise, where Machiavelli describes the circular transition of the different forms of government, mentioning also tyranny.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

229

of the conspirators as well as their own, and when they find that the conspiracy is widespread and powerful, they will never reveal it until they have prepared themselves with forces sufficient to suppress it; acting otherwise, they would discover only their own ruin. For this reason, they must make every effort to pretend to dissimulate, since once the conspirators find themselves exposed, driven by necessity they will act without scruples.]

In this passage Machiavelli considers how a prince should react to a conspiracy ‘grossa e potente’, demonstrating that he has to be cautious and to conceal his discovery of the plot until he is strong enough to defeat his opponents’ forces. After this observation, he focuses on the opposite category of plots, saying that where conspiracies are weak one can, and must, suppress them with no respect (Discorsi, III, 6, 196: ‘Ma quando le congiure sono deboli, si possono e debbono sanza rispetto opprimerle’). Machiavelli, once again, could find this very same political viewpoint concerning the reprisal in humanist literature on plots, where the reference to the revenge against the culprits occupies a prominent part. This is the case, for example, in Poliziano’s Coniurationis commentarium and also in Orazio Romano’s Porcaria, although in the latter work through a more indirect literary transfiguration.⁴³ Besides, the strategies adopted by the ruler in revealing his discovery of the plan and in punishing the offenders are carefully considered, such as in Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano. In this work, as we have seen, the author depicts the king’s ability to simulate in these delicate and dangerous circumstances,⁴⁴ as Machiavelli would do in the Discorsi, framing his description in theoretical terms. Likewise, also in Leon Battista Alberti’s Porcaria coniuratio, the humanist specifies that the pope did not make public his discovery of Porcari’s plan until he could act to arrest him.⁴⁵ Nonetheless, from this point of view, the closest link connects Machiavelli’s passage in the Discorsi with another text by Pontano, his treatise De prudentia (1498). Indeed Machiavelli, after claiming that the prince on some occasions needs to dissimulate his detection of the plotters’ plans, in order to defeat them more effectively, he provides a specific example drawn from Livy’s work (7, 38). It is the episode of the conspiracy organized by the legions left in Capua by the Romans: according to Livy this plot was thwarted thanks to the ability of Caio Marcio Rutulo (the consul who was informed of the plan) to hide his knowledge of the seditious scheme (Discorsi, III, 6, 189‒91; the episode is also recalled in II, 19,

⁴³ On the representation of revenge, see Chapter 5, section 5.3. ⁴⁴ See Chapter 3, section 3.6. The passages are in Monti Sabia, Liliana, Pontano e la storia. Dal ‘De bello Neapolitano’ all’‘Actius’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 1995): I, V, 4; V, VII, 2 (references are to the section and paragraph numbers in this edition). ⁴⁵ On this work see Chapter 2. The passage is in Alberti, Porcaria coniuratio, p. 1267.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

230

     

25‒7; II, 20, 4‒6; II, 26, 8). This is the very same exemplum that had been already employed by Pontano in his De prudentia (book V), again with reference to Livy’s account, to prove the same point put forward by Machiavelli: the effectiveness of simulating behaviours in specific political circumstances, in particular conspiracies.⁴⁶ Thus, the focus on the princely dimension also results in the attention to more practical aspects concerning plots, which reveal a more realistic approach to the political analysis.

6.5 The common people as decisive protagonist Machiavelli’s concentration on the princely dimension of power and more specifically on the prince’s conduct is closely intertwined with the careful consideration of another key element that plays a major role in the intricate situation of a conspiracy: the role of the common people. This factor, once more, was already perceived as decisive in all fifteenth-century accounts of plots, where, in the development of the narratives, considerable attention was paid to the attitude and reactions of the people. The centrality of the contribution made by the community of citizens to the outcome of any conspiracy is recognized in the majority of Quattrocento works, especially in relation to the people’s supportive closeness to the leader of the state and to the revenge carried out against the culprits. Although in these texts this active role is not always made clear through explicit statements, as Machiavelli did with his considerations, it emerges in the literary descriptions of the historical events, such as in Poliziano’s Commentarium and in Pontano’s De bello Neapolitano (and also in the latter’s treatises), to the extent that the common people often appear as a collective character in the texts. However, a twofold and more complex standpoint is put forward by Pontano and Alberti in their works on plots, where we can find also references to the fickle nature of the vulgus: it is depicted as easily manipulable and therefore as liable to be quickly turned against the ruler.⁴⁷ Machiavelli’s ideas seem to reflect this double representation of the people, who are regarded as holding either a positive or negative attitude towards princes, and become a dangerous factor when divorced from the leader of the state.⁴⁸ Accordingly, from this perspective, Machiavelli’s ⁴⁶ Pontanus, Ioannes, De prudentia (Florentiae: Opera et impensa Philippi Giuntae, 1508), pp. XIXv‒XXr. On this connection between Pontano’s work and Machiavelli’s Discorsi see in particular Richardson, Brian, ‘Pontano’s De prudentia and Machiavelli’s Discorsi’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 33, 2 (1971), pp. 353‒7, and on other possible links between the two authors see Chapter 3, section 3.6 n. 79. Moreover, Machiavelli discussed some ideas that Pontano presented in the De fortuna in his correspondence with Francesco Vettori (letters, 15 and 20 December 1514): Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, edited by Sergio Bertelli, vol. 5 (Milan: Salerno, 1968‒82), pp. 359‒60. ⁴⁷ For the general characterization of the common people in fifteenth-century literature on plots, see Chapter 5, section 5.3. ⁴⁸ In particular this viewpoint is also illustrated in Discorsi, I, 57, in the chapter entitled ‘La plebe insieme è gagliarda, di per sè è debole’. On the common people in Machiavelli’s political thought:

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

231

numerous and insightful observations on the role of the common people in plots can be placed in the humanist trajectory of thought on this matter. Nevertheless, he takes this view to its most mature outcome, without showing the moral overtones still present in the writers of the previous century and expanding the analysis to the general position of people in the political system (such as in Il principe, IX, where he examines closely the principalities ‘ottimatizzi’ and ‘popolari’, showing his favour for the latter category).⁴⁹ With specific regard to conspiratorial phenomena, although Machiavelli claimed immediately at the beginning of his analysis in the Discorsi that the most dangerous condition for a prince is to be largely hated by all common people (‘essere odiato dall’universale’, Discorsi, III, 6, 10), he considers this issue also from the opposite and complementary perspective, that of the ruler’s enemies. Almost at the end of this chapter, in the investigation of the possible outcomes of a plot (Discorsi, III, 6, 160‒1), he states that what conspirators have to fear more is the situation in which a prince is loved by his subjects, because even if the attackers succeed in murdering him, the people would always revenge him: Ma di tutti i pericoli che possono dopo la esecuzione avvenire, non ci è il più certo né quello che sia più da temere, che quando il popolo è amico del principe che tu hai morto; perché a questo i congiurati non hanno rimedio alcuno, perché e’ non se ne possono mai assicurare. In esemplo ci è Cesare, il quale, per avere il popolo di Roma amico, fu vendicato da lui; perché, avendo cacciati i congiurati, di Roma, fu cagione che furono tutti in varii tempi e in varii luoghi ammazzati. [But of all dangers that can be incurred after the execution of such plan, there is none more certain or more to be feared then when the people are the friend of the prince that you have murdered, because conspirators have no remedy against this danger and can never secure themselves against it. As an example, there is Caesar, who had the people on his side and was avenged by them, and for this reason, after the conspirators were chased out of Rome they were all killed at various times and places.]

Here he explicitly mentions the exemplum of Caesar’s assassins, which is not seen in relation to the legitimacy of tyrannicide, but through a concrete and modern political analysis that pays attention to the actual results, implications, and consequences of historical events. As humanist works have shown, though in a totally pro-ruler standpoint, the notion of consensus turns out to be crucial. The strategies for building and Bonadeo, Alfredo, ‘The Role of the People in the Works and Times of Machiavelli’, Bibliothéque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 32, 2 (1970), pp. 351‒77. ⁴⁹ On this issue see in particular Sasso, ‘Principato’; and Bonadeo, ‘The Role of the People’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

232

     

managing people’s consent, which are closely intertwined with the exhibition of the ruler’s princely image as rooted in majesty, becomes fundamental, especially with reference to the question of plots. Following and enhancing these acknowledgements, Machiavelli points out that the masses become the final arbiter of conspiracies. Indeed, a prince who is detested by the majority of citizens will always be the target of internal threats and the plotters may succeed in carrying the crowd with them. But the conspirators who attack a ruler who is able to gain ‘reverence’ and favour, in particular thanks to his majesty, are destined to be isolated and to fail. This aspect, the people’s full potential in influencing the development of internal political conflicts, was already shown by fifteenth-century works through their narratives. However, there it was represented only from the ruler’s standpoint, since the masses’ contribution to the conspiracies’ outcome was described only when they were in favour of the victim of the attack, otherwise they were condemned or presented as manipulated by wicked men. Conversely, in Machiavelli’s work the political power of the common citizens is now openly pointed out and theorized, and not just in his more theoretical texts, such as the Discorsi, but also in the Istorie fiorentine. Here this pivotal factor is underlined by the subtle and vivid historical narration and by some essential and lucid remarks. One of the most emblematic examples is the description of the failure of Iacopo Pazzi’s attempt to rouse the Florentines against the Medici (Istorie, VIII, 8). This episode gives the author the chance to adds his sharp comment on the political situation of Florence, saying that Iacopo Pazzi’s isolation was due to the fact that the people had been made deaf to any call to insurrection by the Medici’s fortune and liberality, and, on the other hand, liberty itself was not even known in Florence. Another telling example appears at the end of the account of the conspiracy against the Sforza Duke in Milan, where Machiavelli explains that the conspirators’ abortive plan was to bring over the people to their side after the attack (Istorie, VII, 34): E lo animo loro era, morto il Principe, ridursi insieme con quegli armati, e gire in quella parte della terra dove credessero più facilmente sollevare la plebe, e quella contro alla Duchessa e a’ principi dello stato fare armare. E stimavano che il popolo, per la fame dalla quale era aggravato, dovesse facilmente seguirgli. . . . Fu questa impresa di questi infelici giovani secretamente trattata e animosamente esequita; e allora rovinorono quando quelli ch’eglino speravano gli avessero a seguire e defendere non gli defesono né seguirono. Imparino per tanto i principi a vivere in maniera, e farsi in modo reverire e amare, che niuno speri potere, ammazzandogli, salvarsi; e gli altri cognoschino quanto quel pensiero sia vano che ci faccia confidare troppo che una moltitudine, ancora che mal contenta, ne’ pericoli tuoi ti seguiti o ti accompagni. [It was their intent, when the prince was dead, to join together with the armed men and go around that part of the town where they believed they could more

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

233

easily rouse the plebs, and to have it arm against the duchess and the princes of the state. . . . The undertaking of these unhappy youths was planned secretly and executed spiritedly; and then they were ruined when those they had hoped would have to follow and defend them neither defended not followed them. Therefore, may princes learn to lie in a manner and act in a mode that will make them revered and loved, so that no one can hope, by killing him, to save himself; and may others know how vain is the thought that makes one trust too much that a multitude, even though malcontent, will either follow you or accompany you in dangers.]

Machiavelli here also introduces a double prescriptive admonishment. On the one hand, focusing on rulers, he states that they have to learn how to gain reverence and consent in order to dissuade any potential subversive action; on the other, looking at the plotters, he underlines that they should not trust in the ‘moltitudine’ and, therefore, implicitly conveys a negative image of the masses as voluble and cowardly. This statement can be also connected with the identification of the plotters as the ‘grandi’ in the Discorsi (III, 6, 36): here the greater men singled out as those who usually connive may also be seen in contraposition to the opposite category of the weak and timorous men, recognizable in the common people, who can only follow the leaders. The examination of the role and characteristics of the people is a cornerstone in Machiavelli’s political speculation in all his works and it is also carried out through the reference to classical historical exempla. In particular one of the most provocative and sharp standpoints emerges in the description of the controversial political conduct of Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse, in Il principe (VIII, 22).⁵⁰ Although in Machiavelli’s thought the prince has to avoid the people’s contempt to prevent conspiracies, in one of the most famous passages where he focuses on the figure of Agathocles, he pushes the limits of his argument saying that actually even violent and nefarious actions by the ruler can achieve the same effect, provided that they can keep the people on the prince’s side (Il principe, VIII, 22‒5): Potrebbe alcuno dubitare donde nascessi che Agatocle et alcuno simile dopo infiniti tradimenti e crudeltà possé vivere lungamente sicuro nella sua patria e defendersi dalli inimici esterni, e da’ sua cittadini non li fu mai cospirato contro, con ciò sia cosa che molti altri mediante la crudeltà non abbino etiam ne’ tempi

⁵⁰ On this famous passage see Sasso, ‘Principato’, pp. 362‒3; more generally on Agathocles in Machiavelli’s work, see Kahn, Victoria, ‘Virtù and the Example of Agathocles in Machiavelli’s Prince’, Representations 13 (Winter 1986), pp. 63‒83; Kahn, Victoria, ‘Revisiting Agathocles’, The Review of Politics 75, 4 (2013) Special issue: Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’, pp. 557‒72; McCormick, John P., ‘Subdue the Senate: Machiavelli “Way of Freedom” or Path to Tyranny?’, Political Theory 40, 6 (2012), pp. 714‒35; McCormick, John P., ‘The Enduring Ambiguity of Machiavellian Virtue: Cruelty, Crime and Christianity in The Prince’, Social Research 81, 1, (2014), pp. 133‒64.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

234

     

pacifici possuto mantenere lo stato, non che ne’ tempi dubbiosi di guerra. Credo che questo avvenga dalle crudeltà bene usate o male usate. Bene usate si possono chiamare quelle (se del male è licito dire bene) che si fanno a un tratto per necessità dello assicurarsi, e di poi non vi si insiste drento, ma si convertiscono in più utilità de’ sudditi che si può. Male usate sono quelle le quali, ancora che nel principio sieno poche, piuttosto col tempo crescono che le si spenghino. [One may well wonder how, after so many betrayals and cruelties, Agathocles and others like him could live for such a long time secure in their native cities and defend themselves from foreign enemies without being plotted against by their own citizens. Many others, employing cruel means, were unable to hold on to their state even in peaceful times, not to speak of the uncertain times of war. I believe that this depends on whether cruelty be badly or well used. Those cruelties are well used (if it is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and the are not continued, but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for subjects. Those cruelties are badly used that, although few at the outset, increase with the passing of time instead of disappearing.]

Here the explicit reference to conspiracies and to the means to avert them reveals how crucial this problem is for the management of the state in Machiavelli’s view and, most importantly, how decisive ultimately the function played by the common people is. In this passage, the people become the only factor that can determine the ruler’s safety, despite his negative conduct. Even though the prince is cruel and hideous, some ‘crudeltà ben usate’ can help him in maintaining the consensus, which eventually becomes the most essential condition for preserving power. This perspective also comes to light in the humanists’ approach to the narration of plots—for example, in the descriptions of the brutal reprisal often carried out against the rebels. It is true that the conspirators are portrayed as deserving the harsh punishment inflicted on them and that, at the same time, the notion of clemency is still a linchpin in the depiction of many rulers: nevertheless, the culprits become the target of a series ‘crudeltà’ that are supported, and sometimes even carried out, by the people themselves (as in Poliziano’s Commentarium). This representation of violent revenge therefore conveys, and simultaneously contributes to building, the idea of consensus surrounding the prince’s government and presents it as the keystone for the state’s safety and strengthening. The indissoluble link between the ruler and the common people that fifteenth-century texts evoked also helped to shape the political message put forward in this output, revealing not just the centrality of the role of consent but also, implicitly, the means through which a ruler can construct it. So in this portrayal, the historical narrative also provides the projection of a model of statecraft. Machiavelli, aware of the slightest dynamics of power, was almost certainly able to recognize the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

235

implicit depiction of these dynamics in fifteenth-century works. This is proved by the use he made of Poliziano’s Commentarium in his account of the Pazzi conspiracy in the Istorie fiorentine (VIII). Here, for example, the complex figure of Lorenzo de’ Medici and his political success after the failure of the plot are effectively sketched also through the oblique representation of the political strategies he deployed to keep the Florentine community always close to him and dependent on him, consolidating the people’s favour in that difficult situation: a perspective that imbued Poliziano’s whole work. This political aspect emerges in the Istorie mainly through the studied portrayals of events and characters and, in the case of Lorenzo, especially in the reworking of the speech he delivered to the most important citizens after the conspiracy (VIII, 10).⁵¹ Nevertheless, Machiavelli had already elevated this standpoint to a theoretical reasoning in the last sentence in chapter IX of Il principe, where he openly declared the importance of the tactics carried out by the prince to keep his subjects always in need of him: E però uno principe savio debba pensare uno modo per il quale li sua cittadini sempre e in ogni qualità di tempo abbino bisogno dello stato e di lui, e sempre poi li saranno fedeli.⁵² [Therefore, a wise prince must think of a method by which citizens will need the state and himself at all times and in every circumstance. Then they will always loyal to him.]

In Machiavelli’s statement, the unbreakable relationship between the prince and his people is seen as being based on the idea of loyalty, a concept that, as previously illustrated, appeared as pivotal already in Pontano’s political theory. In the humanist’s work, the concept of ‘political faith’ was conceived as the devotion that the ruler can get from the citizens in virtue of their dependence on him, in what turns out to be a highly hierarchical and organicist political system.⁵³ In addition, even when Machiavelli evokes the concept of tyranny, in the Discorsi (I, 40, 37) he underlines that it is the link with the masses, and not that with the ‘grandi’ (the very same words he employs to define the category of the plotters) that keeps the ruler safe: . . . quegli tiranni che hanno amico l’universale e inimici i grandi, sono più sicuri, per essere la loro violenza sostenuta da maggiori forze che quella di coloro che hanno per inimico il popolo e amica la nobilità. ⁵¹ On this speech and its original version, see Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘Il discorso di Lorenzo de’ Medici dopo la congiura dei Pazzi: versioni fittizie e il verbale della Cancelleria fiorentina’, in Laurentia Laurus, pp. 3‒10; for the political perspective of the speech in Machiavelli’s work see also Sasso, Niccolò Machiavelli, pp. 447‒85; Celati, ‘Imitation and Allusion’, pp. 215–22. ⁵² On the interpretation of this sentence and more generally of the whole crucial passage that ends with this statement see Sasso, ‘Principato’, pp. 371‒80 (and the studies mentioned by Sasso). ⁵³ See Chapter 3, section 3.4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

236

     

[ . . . those tyrants who have the masses as their friends and the nobles as their enemies are more secure, since their power is upheld by greater forces than the power of those who have the people as their enemy and nobility as their friend.]

Machiavelli was following the same thread when in another passage of the Discorsi (III, 26, 10), directly linked to the chapter Delle congiure (in particular, III, 6, 17–18), he considers this issue from a complementary perspective and he claims that the ingiurie against people are the main cause of conspiracies, openly recalling Aristotle (Politics 1311a‒1312b). It is significant that here he deliberately places this declaration in the tradition of classical political thought, underlining in particular the source of Aristotle, which is openly mentioned only in this specific passage in the whole treatise. Nevertheless, although this is the only explicit reference to this source, the influence of this model, along with Cicero’s De officiis, also transpires in other sections of the text, especially those devoted to the forms of power.⁵⁴ If Machiavelli’s perspective in his speculation on plots seems to be mainly influenced by the political and cultural background of the previous century, the attention to the classical legacy is always present and the reliance on it, in this case explicit, contributes to bestowing an abiding character on his theoretical and practical discourse. Another classical source that, predictably, is in some way influential in Machiavelli’s multiple reflections on conspiracies is Sallust’s work, which had already been the chief model for humanists. Probably the bearing that this auctoritas still partially has on Machiavelli’s treatment of this political topic can also, in part, be traced back to the mediation of fifteenth-century authors. If Machiavelli of course knew Sallust directly, the new and extensive employment of this source as a prominent model in humanist literature on plots possibly had an influence on him, both in what he retained and what he rejected of this prototype. Moreover, the possible contribution of humanist authors to Machiavelli’s use of classical sources appears also in other cases, even more relevantly. In particular, Aristotle’s Politics might have been known by Machiavelli through Leonardo Bruni’s Latin translation.⁵⁵ It is also likely that Herodian’s historical work was read by him in Poliziano’s Latin version published in 1493.⁵⁶ Livy’s work itself, in some cases, had been already used by humanists (such as in the emblematic example of a passage in Pontano’s De prudentia) in a ⁵⁴ See Sasso, ‘Principato’, pp. 445‒7: Aristotle’s Politics (1279a16‒1279b4) can be seen as a model for Machiavelli’s considerations on ‘potestà assoluta’, which is associated with tyranny in Discorsi, I, 9; I, 25 (p. 446); however, in Sasso’s whole contribution, the scholar illustrates that this correspondence between tyranny and absolute power is not always put forward by Machiavelli and his thought appears more complex. ⁵⁵ On Machiavelli’s knowledge of Aristotle’s Politics: Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 376; and in particular Ginzburg, Carlo, ‘Machiavelli, l’eccezione e la regola. Linee di una ricerca in corso’, Quaderni storici 38 (2003), pp. 195‒213: 205‒6. ⁵⁶ On Herodian, see n. 61.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

237

perspective very similar to that which would inform Machiavelli’s work.⁵⁷ Yet, his use of sources in relation to the specific issue of conspiracies turns out to be also different and therefore independent, from many perspectives, from the recovery of the classical legacy that nurtures the humanist narratives. In particular, the much more moderate presence of Sallust in Machiavelli’s treatment of this topic is the main evidence of this autonomous and new practice in enlisting classical models. As already illustrated, the canon created by humanist literature on plots was profoundly informed by Sallust’s work from many angles, some of which flowed into Machiavelli’s many-sided discourse on conspiracies and emerged in particular in the dramatic narrative approach assumed in the reconstruction of some historical events. This taste, for example, comes to light in a few sections in the Istorie fiorentine, but, in general, does not characterize the discussion of this topic in Machiavelli’s more theoretical works.⁵⁸ Besides the almost theatrical narration of some episodes (e.g. in the description of the assault against the Medici in the church, Istorie, VIII, 6, where this trait seems to be drawn directly from Poliziano),⁵⁹ another Sallustian pattern that Machiavelli could find in fifteenthcentury works is the moral stance of the historical analysis. This viewpoint in the humanist texts projects a significant ascendency on the political reading of the facts. However, this moral framework does not play a structuration structural function and is not very influential in Machiavelli’s narratives, where it appears only in a few descriptions of the conspirators (again especially in the account of the Pazzi’s plot in the Istorie). These more traditional portrayals seem to reflect in some nuances the conventional negative stigmatization of the figure of the plotter, depicted as driven by ambition, yearning for res novae and power, envy and hatred of the rulers.⁶⁰ Nevertheless, Machiavelli’s method of analysis, also in his most ⁵⁷ On Pontano’s De prudentia, see n. 46. More generally on Machiavelli’s use of classical sources in the Discorsi see Martelli, Machiavelli e gli storici antichi; and specifically on Aristotle, see Guillemain, Bernard, ‘Machiavelli lecteur d’Aristote’, in Platon et Aristote à la Reanissance. XVIe Colloque international de Tours(Paris: J. Vrin, 1976), pp. 163‒73. ⁵⁸ For this Sallustian dramatizing tendency, see Campi, Machiavelli, p. 5, where, however, this element is considered as lacking in all Machiavelli’s works on plots. ⁵⁹ On these and other connections with Poliziano’s work see also Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, pp. 33‒6; Celati, ‘Imitation and Allusion’. For an analogy between Machiavelli’s historical account and a theatrical representation, see Dionisotti, ‘Machiavelli storico’, p. 368. ⁶⁰ The expression ‘res novae’ is literally transposed into the vernacular in Machiavelli’s description of Iacopo di Poggio Bracciolini (Istorie, VIII, 4: ‘ambizioso e di cose nuove desiderosissimo’, ‘ambitious and very much eager for new things’), which is directly quoted from Poliziano’s work (‘rerum novarum cupidus’, § 17); the reference is always to the paragraph numbers in Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium. The plotters’ ambition, envy, and hatred are mentioned in a key passage in Lorenzo’s speech addressed to the most illustrious Florentine citizens (Istorie, VIII, 10). For the yearning for power see also Discorsi, III, 6, 47: ‘Debbe adunque uno principe che si vuole guardare dalle congiure, temere più coloro a chi elli ha fatto troppi piaceri, che quegli a chi egli avesse fatte troppe ingiurie, . . . perché gli è così grande o maggiore il desiderio del dominare che non è quello della vendetta’ (‘A prince who wishes to protect himself from conspiracies should, therefore, fear those for whom he has done too many favours more than those upon whom he has inflicted too many injuries, . . . since the desire for power is just greater that the desire for revenge’).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

238

     

narrative work, goes far beyond this outlook that had become canonical in the previous century and looks at conspiracies from a much broader and more thorough perspective, leaving aside any moral undercurrent. If Machiavelli’s concentration on plots may have been generated in some key aspects from the humanist literary reading of contemporary events, which in turn display solid Sallustian roots, it nonetheless develops in an insightful interpretation of the more general political significance of these crucial events. This interpretation mainly focuses on the actual relationships among the forces on the political scene, in particular the prince and the people. Hence, the perspective subtending humanist texts, where the moral angle was functional to the creation of the political message, is only a starting point, although an essential one, for Machiavelli, who eventually totally overcomes it in his works by looking at history through a less partial and more independent lens.

6.6 Motives and outcomes of plots: the bitter acknowledgement of the ‘certissimo danno’ Machiavelli’s investigation into conspiracies is more in-depth and comprehensive in comparison with previous century works. This comes to light not only in his wider vision of the political phenomenon of plots but also in his more detailed categorization of the different typologies of these attacks on power, and, even more significantly, in his inspection of both their motives and outcomes. Some relevant classifications proposed by Machiavelli have already been mentioned, such as the foundational difference between the conspiracies against the prince and those against the fatherland (Discorsi, III, 6, 8), or that between a ‘congiura . . . grossa e potente’ and a weaker plot (Discorsi, III, 6, 187; 196). Another substantial distinction may apply to ancient and contemporary plots. In particular, in the former type, besides the key role played by the common people, there is another distinctive social protagonist that is regarded as crucial: the soldiers, who prove to be a decisive factor in internal political conflicts in the Roman age, as illustrated in particular in Il principe XIX and in the numerous historical examples mentioned therein. Machiavelli, with a groundbreaking comparative method, underlines that the main difference between conspiracies in the ancient world and in the contemporary age resides in the presence of this further component, the army, which can be also associated with the more successful rate of plots in the imperial period (Il principe, XIX, 26‒33).⁶¹ Conversely, in Renaissance society this factor does not ⁶¹ On the role of soldiers see Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, 368‒9: Machiavelli could find a reference to the efficacy of conspiracies in the imperial age in Herodian’s historical work, which had been translated by Poliziano in 1487 and this Latin version was published in 1493; Herodianus, Historiae de imperio post Marcum vel de suis temporibus, e Graeco translatus Angelo Politiano (Bononiae, 1493). See also Gionta, Daniela, ‘Pomponio Leto e l’Erodiano del Poliziano’, in Agnolo Poliziano poeta, scrittore, filologo. Atti

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

239

have a significant impact anymore in attacks against rulers and therefore the main forces involved are only the prince, the members of the upper classes—the ‘grandi’—, and the masses. Another categorization emerges, this time implicitly, in the narratives of the Istorie fiorentine. On the one hand, we have the attacks on power typical of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which are the expression of the fight between different factions in the cities and where the common people still played a prominent part already in the initial phases of the insubordination. On the other hand, fifteenth-century plots have a more ‘restricted’ character and are the results of the actions of individuals closer to power, while the common people are not involved in the first stages of plotting but they become decisive only at a following point, after the actual attack.⁶² As already mentioned, in one of the chief definitions of plots provided by Machiavelli in the first part of his speculation in the Discorsi (III, 6, 36) he states that ‘tutte le congiure’ are carried out by ‘uomini grandi o familiarissimi del principe’. This overall description, also in light of the use of the adjective tutte, displays an all-embracing character and reveals, once more, that Machiavelli’s main horizon in his analysis is that of the fifteenth century and his own years. Indeed, it is in the more recent historical facts and in the sources that reconstruct them that he could recognize that the ‘grandi’ are now the main organizers of seditions, so this element typical of Renaissance plots becomes a characteristic of all conspiracies. However, it is Machiavelli’s examination of both causes and outcomes of plots, if considered in conjunction, that uncovers the most innovative results of his reflections on this matter, which turn out to be unparalleled for their sharp lucidity and insightfulness. The motives of conspiracies identified by Machiavelli are multiple. The foremost causes are: hatred against the prince, due to his incapacity of gaining and maintaining consensus; the ambition of the ‘grandi’ and their thirst for power; the desire to free the fatherland from a despotic ruler. It is noteworthy that Machiavelli, despite not regarding conspiracies from the perspective of tyrannicide, also mentions this anti-despotic aim (Discorsi, III, 6, 21‒2). Nonetheless, this does not find a coherent and substantial development in the subsequent analysis of plots in the Discorsi and, more generally, in other works by Machiavelli, where, instead, he concentrates more on different dynamics of power in the contemporary society. He also adds as a motive for conspiracies the

del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Montepulciano, 3‒6 November 1994, edited by Vincenzo Fera and Mario Martelli (Florence: Le Lettere, 1998), pp. 425‒58; Martelli, ‘Dai testimoni al Principe’, pp. 465‒8; Ruggiero, Raffaele, ‘Machiavelli lettore di Erodiano’, Cahiers de Recherches Médiévales et Humanistes 25 (2013), pp. 357‒63; Marchand, Jean-Jacques, ‘La riscrittura dei classici: Erodiano nel cap. XIX del Principe’, in Machiavelli Cinquecento. Mezzo millennio del Principe, edited by Gian Mario Anselmi, Riccardo Caporali, and Carlo Galli (Milan; Udine: Mimesis, 2015), pp. 43‒55. ⁶² See the analysis in Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, pp. 400‒3.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

240

     

‘troppi benefici’ given by the prince to the ‘uomini grandi’ (Discorsi, III, 6, 41), a cause that is opposite but symmetrical to the ‘troppe ingiurie’ perpetrated against the people by the ruler (Discorsi, III, 6, 47). This element reveals a deep connection with another factor recalled by Machiavelli and constantly emphasized also by previous humanists: the ambition of men and their eagerness for domination. The contemporary episode that Machiavelli mentions to exemplify the category of plots triggered by too many favours received by nobles (or in general by men close to the ruler) is the ‘conspiracy of the barons’ against Ferdinando of Aragon, another context that is represented in literary works of the previous century. In particular, in Machiavelli’s brief reference in the Discorsi (III, 6, 44), the insubordination against the king of Naples is described as caused by the yearning for power of Antonio Corella, a nobleman who had already achieved ‘tanta grandezza’, but it was not enough for his ambition. Machiavelli in his works, especially in the chapter in the Discorsi, also focuses on the main recurring phases when plots are carried out, which are considered this time mainly from the conspirators’ points of view. He lists possible risks, problems, and needs, such as the necessity to keep the plan secret and to set the proper timing (III, 6, 55‒65; 70‒8; 83‒91), the danger of changing plans without carefully thinking of alternative solutions (III, 6, 100), and more generally other mistakes into which the plotters may fall (III, 6, 128‒30). For example, one of these mistakes is the overtly ambitious project of murdering not just one target, but more than one: a scheme that, as the history of the Pazzi conspiracy teaches us, usually leads to the failure of the whole enterprise. Most of these aspects were already evoked, although as purely descriptive or narrative elements, in fifteenthcentury narratives of contemporary plots. However, in Machiavelli’s work they are elevated to the higher level of theoretical systematization, and it is no coincidence that the Pazzi conspiracy is the event that can most effectively encapsulate the majority of the characteristics identified as peculiar to conspiracies. The Pazzi plot was one of the most famous events of fifteenth-century Italian history and, also because of its Florentine context, it was very well known to Machiavelli and remarkably relevant for his political speculation, which was always very attentive to the situation in Florence.⁶³ In general, this is the episode most frequently evoked as a historical example in the works where Machiavelli deals with the topic of conspiracy and, of course, it has a pivotal position in the Istorie fiorentine. Here the final chapter is almost totally devoted to this event, which immediately follows the narrative of another very important plot placed at the end of chapter VII: the attack against Galeazzo Maria Sforza in Milan in 1476. ⁶³ On Machiavelli’s account of the Pazzi conspiracy, see Matucci, Andrea, ‘Narrare o interpretare: Machiavelli e la congiura dei Pazzi’, in Niccolò Machiavelli. Politico, storico, letterato, Atti del Convegno di Losanna, 27‒30 settembre 1995, edited by Jean-Jacques Marchand (Rome: Salerno, 1996), pp. 315‒ 35; Pieraccioni, ‘Note su Machiavelli storico. II’; Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, pp. 33‒6; Campi, Machiavelli, pp. 10‒24; Celati, ‘Imitation and Allusion’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

241

This close narrative correspondence between these two plots, also underlined by the author himself, proves the relevance of this issue in Machiavelli’s overall historical work and, in general, in his political thought. Nonetheless, it is the Pazzi conspiracy in particular that seems to epitomize some of the most fundamental factors pointed out by Machiavelli as typical of the political phenomenon of plots, and therefore this is the episode that probably conveys most effectively the lucid results of Machiavelli’s overall analysis on this matter. Moreover, it is certain that he extensively resorted to Poliziano’s text as a source for his narrative of the attack against the Medici, as evidenced by several references and allusions that, directly or more indirectly, recall the Coniurationis commentarium.⁶⁴ This work, as already mentioned, was generally regarded as the most authoritative source of the Pazzi conspiracy in that period, since it was the earliest account produced after the assault and was written by one of the most illustrious Florentine intellectuals of the Laurentian age. So the Pazzi plot can be seen as a paradigmatic case in point in Machiavelli’s theorization. For example, he claims that a sudden change of plans is one of the main causes of the plotters’ failure (Discorsi, III, 6, 100‒9), and this happened more than once before the execution of the Pazzi conspiracy, in particular when the first designated killer of Lorenzo, Giovan Battista Montesecco, gave up his role, as Machiavelli also describes in the Istorie (VIII, 5). But, in general, there are other more important points to Machiavelli’s analysis that this event encapsulates. First, it represents the pivotal role played by the common people and the centrality of the political figure of the ruler, who is pictured in his deployment of the finest strategies essential to maintain his close link with the civic community.⁶⁵ Second, this event is also an emblematic example of the negative outcome of the plot when the conspirators aim too ambitiously to attack two targets, in the case of the Pazzi conspiracy Lorenzo and Giuliano. According to Machiavelli, when the goal is a multiple murder, the plot is destined to fail and he adds, even more perspicaciously, that this kind of plan usually results in the reinforcement of the government that the plotters want to overthrow (Discorsi, III, 6, 128‒30, 134–5). This was a significant lesson that could be learned with particular clarity from the attack against the Medici and that brings to the fore another fundamental aspect typical of plots, directly associated with this: in Machiavelli’s view, when the target of the plot is murdered but someone close to him remains alive, the plotters have no chance to escape from the harsh revenge inflicted on them by the survivor (Discorsi, III, 6, 153‒9).⁶⁶ The inexorableness of the reprisal and its key political function for maintaining (and in some cases strengthening) the ruler’s authority ⁶⁴ For these specific references: Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, pp. 33‒6; Celati, ‘Imitation and Allusion’. ⁶⁵ See also Chapter 4, section 4.4. ⁶⁶ In this passage the author mentions as examples the conspiracies against Duke Sforza in 1476 and against Girolamo Riario, in 1488.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

242

     

after the failure of an internal conflict appear clearly in fifteenth-century works on plots.⁶⁷ It is no coincidence that Machiavelli not only focuses on this aspect in his theoretical analysis but also places specific emphasis on the anti-plotters revenge in his narratives of both the Milanese conspiracy and, even more notably, the Pazzi conspiracy in the Istorie fiorentine (VII, 34; VIII, 9). In particular he draws directly from Poliziano the description of the common people who, in order to show their closeness to the Medici and their condemnation of the plotters, carry spears around the city with pieces of dead bodies on top of them; and he narrates the episodes of the double disinterring of Iacopo Pazzi’s dead body, who is abused by a group of young men as an act of revenge and thrown into the river Arno (VIII, 9).⁶⁸ The Pazzi plot also functions as an emblematic paradigm of the processes involved in the practice of conspiring and of the outcomes that are usually brought about. Indeed, Machiavelli openly claims in the Discorsi (III, 6, 134‒5) that the failure of a plot aimed at two targets ends up consolidating the established government, to the extent that this regime becomes even more absolute and autocratic, and here he explicitly mentions the example of the conspiracy in Florence as illuminating: Ai Pazzi, più volte da noi allegati, non successe di ammazzare se non Giuliano. In modo che di simili congiure contro a più capi se ne debbe astenere ciascuno, perché non si fa bene né a sé, né alla patria, né ad alcuno; anzi quelli che rimangono, diventono più insopportabili e più acerbi; come sa Firenze, Atene ed Eraclea, state da me preallegate. [The Pazzi conspirators, cited by us numerous times, did not succeed in killing anyone but Giuliano. Hence, everyone should avoid conspiracies such as these aimed at more than one leader, because they do not benefit the conspirators, the city, or anyone else; on the contrary, survivors who remain become even more insufferable and harsher, as Florence, Athens, and Heraclea all know, which I mentioned earlier.]

More generally, Machiavelli is able to get a bitter but clear message from the case studies he considered, an understanding that he eventually seems to apply to the general practice of plots, and not just to the particular category of the attacks against more than one target. His deduction is that the most common outcome of conspiracies is the strengthening and concentration of power in the hands of the entities in charge of governing: these can be the ruler who survives the attack, or his family, which manages to keep control of the state if he is murdered. Hence, this power turns into an even harsher supremacy. Machiavelli is able to achieve this lucid insight especially in relation to his observation of the contemporary ⁶⁷ On this issue see Chapter 5, section 5.3. ⁶⁸ Poliziano, Coniurationis commentarium, §§ 54; 82‒5.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

243

social and political scenario and thanks to his focus on the historical events of the previous century. Indeed, it is through his unblinkered interpretation of the episodes that characterized the ‘age of conspiracies’, along with the various sources that narrates them, that he could gain his sharp view on this phenomenon. In fact, all conspiracies in the fifteenth century resulted in this political outcome and brought about a concentration of power, which become gradually more verticalized. A clear evidence of this process is provided by the humanist works, which offer a first-hand picture of these intricate political dynamics in their unfolding. But, equally importantly, they made a considerable contribution to the affirmation of this very same outcome with their ‘anti-plots’ reading of the episodes, anchored on the principle of political unity and condemnation of centrifugal forces in the state. Although fifteenth-century works support and celebrate the value of civic concordia, it would not be right to claim that they are aimed at suppressing the issue of internal political conflict, by sinking it into oblivion. Conversely they deal extensively with this matter and, through their historical-literary narrative, intend to condemn unequivocally any form of discord within the state, especially conspiracies, which are seen as the most common displays of political strife.⁶⁹ Although Machiavelli in the Discorsi re-evaluates the concept of political discordia within the state, promoting the model of the ancient Roman republic and, for the first time, considering some typologies of conflicts as positive for the equilibrium in the political system, conspiracies are never regarded as part of these productive tensions, but as a specific category of political struggle that usually does not bring a positive result. Thus, it is true that Machiavelli somehow overturns the humanist standpoint on civic discord, but this very same concept, the discordia, was already very much present in the literature of the previous century. He did not have to dig it up after a process of removal, but he recovered and reassessed it from a different point of view. Fifteenth-century works intended to exorcise and dispel the menace of civil conflict through the extensive and politically oriented narrative of it, and their substantial focus on conspiracies was due to the predominance of this kind of political action in the second half of the Quattrocento. So, Machiavelli’s specific attention to these events and his overall interpretation of them as a political phenomenon have their roots in this cultural and historical background, where conspiracies have already stood out as one of the most relevant and distinctive political occurrences of that age.

⁶⁹ On the concept of concordia civium in literature see the analysis included in the first chapter in Pedullà, Machiavelli in tumulto, pp. 11‒88. The scholar is right in claiming that the issue of discordia was mainly addressed in historical works rather than in theoretical texts in the fifteenth century (pp. 40‒3). Nevertheless, despite this different proportion, the idea did not undergo a ‘rimozione’ and had a considerable position also in some fundamental treatises, such as Pontano’s De obedientia and Giuniano Maio’s De maiestate.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

244

     

In particular Machiavelli’s overall assessment of these political practices proves to be the product of the careful consideration of a specific element: the clash between the motives that generally inspire plots and their actual outcomes, usually opposite to the organizers’ intentions. Thus, his judgement turns out to be totally negative, as his use of the lexis associated with the semantic area of ‘conspiracy’ would also prove, since negative nuances are often perceivable, directly or more indirectly, in the contexts where he employs words with (or connected with) this meaning.⁷⁰ More generally, his evaluation is never inspired by moral considerations, but is based on the practical examination of the actual historical reality in its manifold manifestations; and it was the most recent history of plots that allowed him to draw these pessimistic conclusions. Indeed he seems to reach this unspoken conclusion especially in the Istorie fiorentine, which contains his final thoughts on the issue of conspiracies. The assumption that Machiavelli seems to infer from his overall analysis is that the contrast between, on the one hand, the factors that drive men to conspire and, on the other, the lack of any political achievement from their attack is insoluble and, at the same time, unavoidable. Even though the motives that push the plotter to risk their life to overthrow a government might be acceptable, or maybe even commendable, the outcome is always the expression of a failure and may cause only detrimental political conditions.⁷¹ This radical and disillusioned reading was not present in the previous literature on this matter. In fact, humanist works, by condemning subversive practices, celebrated the defeat of the plotters and the consolidation of power that this downfall generated. Yet, it is through this humanist literature that this very same outcome emerges in all its subtler implications and the affirmation of a new kind of centralized authority appears in its clearest form, also revealing the key political role of this literary output. As already illustrated, fifteenth-century narratives of plots completely erased the anti-despotic goals claimed in some cases by the conspirators as the motives of their political actions. Consequently, the classical anti-tyrannical tradition in which the plotters hoped to found legitimacy for their attacks was eventually absorbed and transposed into a princely reading of the phenomenon of insubordination, framed into a centralized political ideology. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that Machiavelli in some of his accounts of recent conspiracies, especially ⁷⁰ Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 177‒84: here the meticulous examination of the terminology used by Machiavelli with the meaning of ‘conspiracy’ reveals the negative overtone surrounding this concept (p. 181). Geuna compellingly claims that Machiavelli’s judgement on plots is totally negative (pp. 390‒7), following in this opinion what has been already stated by Sasso, Niccolò Machiavelli, p. 467. Geuna, in particular, does not agree with Mansfield’s conclusions, which instead attributes to Machiavelli positive views on the political practice of conspiracies: Mansfield, Machiavelli’s New Modes, p. 319; on the same issue see also Mansfield, Harvey C., Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 295‒314. More balanced is Erica Benner’s opinion, which recognizes Machiavelli’s approach towards plots as marked by circumspection: Benner, Machiavelli’s Ethics, pp. 373‒9. ⁷¹ See Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 203‒4.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

245

those of Porcari’s plot and the conspiracy in Milan in the Istorie fiorentine (VI, 29; VII, 34), openly recovers this more respectable inspirational purpose and in particular links it with the plotters’ aspiration to achieve reputation and fame. Machiavelli does not only recall eagerness for glory as a driving force for conspirators but he also connects it directly with the literary tradition, openly evoking the literary background of this value.⁷² The role of this literary legacy comes to the fore in Machiavelli’s description of Cola Montano, the humanist and professor in Bologna who inspired the Milanese plotters with his teaching, which was totally based on the resurrection of classical anti-tirannical principles (Istorie, VII, 33). It also appears in the poignant poetic-sounding words that Machiavelli put in the mouth of Girolamo Olgiati, one of the anti-Sforza conspirators, before his execution (Istorie, VII, 34): ‘disse queste parole in lingua latina, perché litterato era:— Mors acerba, fama perpetua, stabit vetus memoria facti’ (‘he said these words in Latin, for he was lettered: “Death is bitter, fame perpetual; the memory of this deed will long endure” ’). In this passage the concept of glory is pivotal. Moreover, the same correlation between the most illustrious literary tradition and the plotters’ aims is emphasized in the narrative of Stefano Porcari’s plot (Istorie, VI, 29), through the direct quotation of three verses of Petrarch’s canzone ‘Spirto gentil che quelle membra reggi’ (‘Sopra il monte Tarpeio, canzon, vedrai/Un cavalier che Italia tutta onora,/Pensoso più d’altrui che di se stesso’; ‘Atop Mount Tarpeio, Oh! canzone, you will see/a knight whom all Italy honours/more thoughtful of others than of himself ’).⁷³ These verses, according to Machiavelli, could function as a prophecy for the Roman nobleman, who hoped to be able to fulfil his political goal through a glorious deed. Significantly, this open reference seems to be linked through an unspoken correspondence with the parallel final quotation from Petrarch’s canzone CXXVIII, 93‒6 in the last chapter of Il principe.⁷⁴ If the humanist tradition expunged any acceptable inspirational motive for plots after their failure, Machiavelli, although in some cases he evoked them, does not indulge in any positive commemoration of these aspects and he condemns these practices, as previous authors did. The difference is that this time his disapproval is not the product of a political ideology in support of established powers but of the acknowledgement of the failure of these enterprises. This abortive conclusion is the main aspect of these events that went down in history or, at least, is what Machiavelli could see thanks to his acute examination of events and historical sources. It is true that he recovers the search for glory as one of the

⁷² This literary aspect is mentioned also by Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 204; for the identification of the search for glory as a driving motive, which, however, still contrasts with the persistent negative outcomes of plots see also Geuna, ‘Machiavelli’, p. 404. ⁷³ Petrarch, Canzoniere, LIII, 99‒101. ⁷⁴ See Anna Modigliani, ‘Aporie e profezie petrarchesche tra Stefano Porcari e Niccolò Machiavelli’, Roma nel Rinsascimento (1995), pp. 53‒67; Sasso, Gennaro, ‘Sul ventiseiesimo del Principe. L’uso del Petrarca’, La cultura 33 (1995), pp. 183‒215.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

246

     

plotters’ leading principles, which was suppressed by previous sources, but the criticism of the attacks remains, despite being based on the recognition of the unfruitful results of these events and not on the drastic censure of internal political conflicts. In general, the focus on the actual historical situation produced by human actions is what builds Machiavelli’s analysis and judgement of the historical phenomena and is what legitimizes political enterprises in his view, without any moral consideration. In particular, no reference is made to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the various conspiracies as political actions.⁷⁵ From this perspective, also the hint at the incitement that some plotters could find in the literary tradition seems to cast an even more critical light on these episodes, showing the complete disconnection between noble but purely ideal intentions and the actual consequences of these actions, which are opposite to their purposes. It is in this antithesis between the causes and results of plots that Machiavell’s most definitive and all-embracing considerations lie, revealing a deeply disenchanted outlook. He openly declares at the end of the account of Porcari’s plot in the Istorie fiorentine (VI, 29) that the negative outcome of conspiracy is inevitable, a statement that clearly assumes a universal tone and is conceived as applicable to all similar events: E veramente puote essere da qualcuno la costui intenzione lodata, ma da ciascuno sarà sempre il giudicio biasimato; perché simili imprese, se le hanno in sé, nel pensarle, alcuna ombra di gloria, hanno, nello esequirle, quasi sempre certissimo danno. [And truly, the intention of this man could be praised by anyone, but his judgement will always be blamed by everyone because such undertakings, if there is some shadow of glory in thinking of them, have most always very certain loss in their execution.]

The reference to the purpose of attaining glory, recalled once again in this closing comment, does not overshadow the bitter and lucid observation on the unavoidable failure of these kinds of political actions. This statement is not limited to pointing out the plotter’s ruin, but, more generally, also the unescapable detriment that these events almost always produce, the ‘certissimo danno’. These negative consequences may be identified in the centralization of power that plots effect as a backlash of their defeat and in the more authoritative traits that this power acquires, as many historical episodes have taught Machiavelli. However, what is most significant is that he does not only recognize as unavoidable the negative outcomes of plots but, with a remarkably insightful ⁷⁵ On the lack of any judgement on the legitimacy of conspiracies, see De Mattei, Rodolfo, Dal premachiavellismo all’antimachiavellismo (Florence: Sansoni, 1969), pp. 63‒4; Mansfield, Machiavelli’s New Modes, p. 318.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

‘      ’

247

reflection, also considers inevitable plots themselves.⁷⁶ In his view, the inescapability of conspiracies is not due to the continuous tension between liberty and tyranny, as could be seen in the past, but to the affirmation of a new system of power on the contemporary political scene. Machiavelli was able to diagnose this process as already emerging in the previous century and as evolving in his own years. This new political system, based on the gradual affirmation of increasingly centralized authorities in Italian states, can also be recognized as the implicit protagonist in humanist works on conspiracies. This historical scenario led to the inevitable rise of internal political conflicts, which now, because of the substantial concentration of sovereignty in the hands of a single ruler, can be carried out only in the form of conspiracies. Thus, the diffusion of plots is the inevitable consequence of the consolidation of princely powers. But, as we have seen, according to Machiavelli, the very practice of plotting itself contributes decisively toward the centralization of a highly hierarchical authority in the states, due to the abortive nature of most of these actions: so this phenomenon is marked by a negative circularity of aims and outcomes. In Machiavelli’s representation Renaissance conspiracies are generally abortive also because they are distinguished by a restricted and isolated character. In light of this, the organizers are incapable of convincing the common people to rise up and therefore their plans are never successful. This element creates a further vicious cycle of insoluble tensions. On account of the affirmation of highly centralized powers in the states, the illusion of gaining the people’s support is recurrent and inexorably leads to plots; but, due to this very same consolidation of power, the actual impossibility of mobilizing masses becomes an equally inexorable outcome, with the further detrimental consequence of reinforcing this authoritative domination even more rigidly.⁷⁷ As humanist works on plots have shown, the princely dimension is now predominant and all-embracing; so Machiavelli, through the analysis of this complex political scenario, would draw the sharp conclusion that it is on the general strengthening of this new power that the inevitability of both plots and their unfruitful outcomes rest. This disenchanted and penetrative insight seems to emerge already at the beginning of Machiavelli’s discussion on plots in the Discorsi (III, 6, 5‒7). Here he claims that the aim of his analysis is to show people that they have to accept the government under which they live, and he also openly recalls Tacitus (Hist., 4, 8) to emphasize this concept:⁷⁸ Acciò che, adunque, i principi imparino ad guardarsi da questi pericoli, e che i privati più timidamente vi si mettino (anzi imparino ad essere contenti a vivere ⁷⁶ Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, p. 204. ⁷⁷ See again Fasano Guarini, Repubbliche e principi, pp. 203‒4. ⁷⁸ On Machiavelli’s use of the source of Tacitus see Martelli, Machiavelli e gli storici antichi, pp. 123‒ 5; on the specific reference in the Discorsi see Schellhase, Kenneth C., Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 72‒7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2020, SPi

248

     

sotto quello imperio che dalla sorte è stato loro proposto), io ne parlerò diffusamente . . . E veramente, quella sentenzia di Cornelio Tacito è aurea, che dice che gli uomini hanno ad onorare le cose passate e ad ubbidire alle presenti, e debbono desiderare i buoni principi, e, comunque ei si sieno fatti, tollerargli. E veramente, chi fa altrimenti il più delle volte rovina sé e la sua patria. [Thus, so that princes may learn to guard themselves from these dangers and private citizens may enter into them more cautiously (or rather, so that private citizens may learn to live content under whatever dominion has been imposed on them by fate), I shall speak of conspiracies in great detail . . . Truly golden is that maxim of Tacitus, which declares that men must honour past affairs and endure present ones, and that they would desire good princes, but regardless of what they are like, should tolerate them, And truly, anyone who does otherwise most often ruins himself and his native land.]

This pessimistic remark can be associated with a parallel reflection in Il principe (III, 1): . . . li uomini mutano volentieri signore, credendo migliorare, e questa credenza li fa pigliare l’arme contro a quello: di che e’ s’ingannano, perchè veggono poi per esperienza avere peggiorato. [ . . . men gladly change their ruler, thinking to better themselves. This belief causes them to take up arms against their ruler, but they fool themselves in this, since they then see through experience that matters have become worse.]

Machiavelli underscores again the illusory and unproductive nature of all attempts at overthrowing a ruler, attempts that, once more, are described as always bringing about worsening political conditions. To conclude, this exploration of Machiavelli’s ultimate and overall thoughts on conspiracies reveals the innovative character of his approach to this issue, but also the uneasy perspective that emerges in his thoughts. His considerations on this matter would remain as a reference point, both when later authors would share the same perspective with him and when they would take an opposite view. Through his various works that belong to different genres, Machiavelli illustrated this typology of conflict in all its dynamics, thanks to the in-depth study of classical antiquity, but mainly by adopting a lucid viewpoint based on the examination of the contemporary age in all its manifestations: historical, political, cultural, and literary. Thus, his disenchanted and fact-based interpretation of plots turns out to also be framed through the careful evaluation of the political outlook he could find in sources from the previous century and through its lucid re-elaboration. Thanks to this innovative approach, Machiavelli’s interpretation of the phenomenon of political plots remains as a landmark in the history of modern political thought: a history that therefore the fifteenth-century literature on conspiracy, and its reception throughout the years, also helped to build.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

Conclusions This volume has attempted to shed light on a complex subject, which is characterized by the connections between literary, political, and historical issues. It has emerged clearly that in the second half of the fifteenth century the development of a thematic genre of literature on conspiracies played a prominent part in the process of the literary fashioning of the figure of the ruler and in the creation of a new language and symbology of power through the multifunctional re-elaboration of certain aspects of the classical tradition. The theoretical tenets and concrete aspects of the art of governing appear as deeply intertwined in the literary speculation on political authority, both in its more prescriptive component and in its practical depiction. These two interconnected realms are represented in literature by the wider genre of political-theoretical treatises, in the former case, and by the specific category of literary-historical works on plots, in the latter (a particular output that obviously displays many elements in common with other literary works from the same period, devoted to different historical topics and marked by a similar political nature). Texts on conspiracies, in all their different facets, supply the tangible representation of the actual issues that rulers have to deal with and, implicitly, offer a political interpretation of them, along with a specific model of government. This new political model is that of a centralized and organic state, not only ruled by, but also embodied in, its princeps: a state that was oriented towards a specific form of political centralism, but was still characterized by centrifugal forces (which central powers aimed to defeat). So in the flourishing and, at the same time, precarious background of Italy in the Quattrocento, some of the seeds of the modern idea of the state seem to be sown: a concept that, developing in the following centuries through a long, complex, and nonlinear process, applies also to a more general abstract notion of power that is selfsufficient and finds its deepest legitimacy in itself. In this strand of literature on plots, a range of auctoritates from philosophy, historiography, rhetoric, and poetry, are combined and reworked to build a new complex ideology, which resists easy categorizations. What is most remarkable is that this many-sided recovery of the classical legacy, in which this corpus of works is deeply rooted, is developed in an original deconstruction and reconstruction of classical sources, which are reinterpreted and reframed in an innovative literary outcome. If the starting point is the reappropriation of classical models, symbols, topoi, and rhetorical structures and principles, all these elements are recast in the creation of a new literary and ideological language, functional to contemporary

Conspiracy Literature in Early Renaissance Italy: Historiography and Princely Ideology. Marta Celati, Oxford University Press (2021). © Marta Celati. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863625.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

250

     

political needs and aims. From this perspective, this specific thematic genre of literature on conspiracies turns out to behave like most humanist literature, and therefore to be a representative and noteworthy part of it. In its groundbreaking foundations, it originates from the new revival of the classical world, which, although in some significant components was already well known (such as Sallust or epic authors), is seen now through a new lens that allows its transformation into a unique product, distinctive of a new epoch. The roots of humanist culture are in the classical antiquity, but after the recovery and fertilisation of these essential seeds (adopted on a literary, conceptual, and cultural level), fifteenthcentury literature goes beyond them, producing a new system of values and an unexplored ideological dimension. Thus, if at an initial stage the imitation of classical sources in this corpus of works might have let us think at a predictable and impersonal practice of reproduction, the analysis of the texts in this volume has shown a creative and painstaking process, which has implications not just on literary grounds, but also on a conceptual and political level. This complex fashioning of a literary interpretation of conspiratorial events results in the eclectic, although sometimes contradictory, construction of a concrete political theory through these multifaceted works. These representations convey an unanticipated realistic idea of fifteenth-century politics and of its actual practices, reflecting the distinctive forms that it assumed in the specific historical and cultural scenario of this age. This political conception, in both its more practical and ideal aspects and expressions, overlaps with a more ethically based tradition, but, at the same time, also grows away from it, in a complex transition between the Middle Ages and the modern era that recovers as its foundations the classical world. Curiously, in the multifaceted representations of the political reality that we find in the literary realm, more than in philosophical and purely theoretical voices, this projection towards new ideological horizons comes to the surface more plainly. The contribution of fifteenth-century culture, and more specifically of its political thought, to the growth of modern political ideologies and theories still needs to be comprehensively explored in its multiple forms and implications, and from different perspectives. This study has tried to address this subject through a specific literary angle, showing the crucial role played by literature, in all its hybrid forms (poetry, epistolography, historical narrative, historical commentary) deeply interlaced with other spheres (such as political theory), in the development of a new coherent Renaissance political culture. The influence of humanist works, and in particular of this thematic literature on plots, on the conceptual horizon of the following century emerges especially in the centrality that the issue of conspiracy retains in Machiavelli’s thought. His deep interest in this subject appears to be inspired in some key perspectives of his investigation by the humanist approach, although he produces a sharp and wide-ranging theorization of the political phenomenon of plots that was never carried out, and probably was not even

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



251

conceivable, in the previous century. As in many aspects of his pioneering works, he completely overcame the earlier viewpoints that he could have found in the humanist tradition, probably implicitly adopting them as an influential starting point, but going far beyond them. Machiavelli turns out to be, once more, still partly belonging to the previous cultural horizon, but already prominently projected towards an utterly new conceptual world. This volume, by defining more precisely the complex facets of fifteenth-century political thought in this thematic literature and its relationship with the coeval cultural milieu, has tried to write a missing chapter on the background of Machiavelli’s work. But, most importantly, it also tried to show a significant part of the broader but still crucial contribution that was made by the humanist tradition, in particular through its various literary expressions, to the history of our culture.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

Index of Manuscripts and Archival Documents Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 3908, 30–1 Vat. Lat. 13679, 124–5, 163–4 Como, Biblioteca della Società Storica Comense Archivio Aliati 5, 165 Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Carte Machiavelliane 6. 6, 216–17n.14 Conventi Soppressi I 9 3, 88–9 Magliab. XXI 151, 164–5 Palat. 1104, 212–13n.3 Florence, Archivio di Stato Carte Strozziane, Appendice, Filza 3, 1, 165n.27 Dieci di Balia, Carteggio, Responsive 119, 212–13n.3 Provvisioni, Registri, 169, 185n.72 Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana Ms 914, 67–8n.86 Genoa, Biblioteca Universitaria Ms G. IV. 9, 76 Modena, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria Ms α.G.6.12, 24–5 Munich, Staatsbibliothek Ms Lat. 754, 168–9 Oxford, Bodleian Library Ms D’Orville 59, 163–4 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France Ms Italien 1711, 38–9, 149, 152 Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale Augusta Ms I 100, 163–4 Seville, University Library Ms 443, 20–1n.56 Utrecht, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit Ms 826 (5 M 22), 29, 32, 33, 36 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Cod. Lat. 3413, 114–15, 124–5n.39

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

Bibliography Texts and translations Alberti, Leon Battista, De re aedificatoria, edited by Giovanni Orlandi and Paolo Portoghesi (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1966). Alberti, Leon Battista, Momus, edited by Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight, English translation by Sarah Knight (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2003). Alberti, Leon Battista, On Painting and On Sculpture: The Latin texts of ‘De Pictura’ and ‘De Statua’, with translations, introduction and notes by Cecil Grayson (London: Phaidon, 1972). Alberti, Leon Battista, Opere latine, edited by Roberto Cardini (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2010). Alberti, Leon Battista, Opuscoli inediti di Leon Battista Alberti. ‘Musca’, ‘Vita S. Potiti’, edited by Cecil Grayson (Florence: Olschki, 1954). Alberti, Leon Battista, Opere volgari, edited by Cecil Grayson, vol. 1 (Bari: Laterza, 1960‒1973). Alberti, Leon Battista, Porcaria coniuratio, in Humanism and Liberty: Writing on Freedom from Fifteenth Century Florence, ed. and trans. by Renée Neu Watkins (Columbia: University of South Carolina press, 1978), pp. 107‒115. Alberti, Leon Battista, Pontifex, edited by Andrea Piccardi (Florence: Polistampa, 2007). Alberti, Leon Battista, Porcaria coniuratio, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi, in Leon Battista Alberti: Opere latine, edited by Roberto Cardini (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2010), pp. 1265–81. Albino, Giovanni, De gestis regum Neapolitanorum ab Aragonia qui extant libri quatuor (Naples: apud Iosephum Cacchium, 1589). Ariosto, Ludovico, Le opere minori, edited by Giuseppe Fatini (Florence: Sansoni, 1961). Brivio, Giuseppe, Conformatio Curie Romane, in Oreste Tommasini, ‘Documenti relativi a Stefano Porcari’, Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 3 (1880), pp. 111–23. Bruni, Leonardo, Opere letterarie e politiche, edited by Paolo Viti (Turin: UTET, 1996). Bruni, Leonardo, Laudatio florentine urbis, edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri (Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2000). Bruni, Leonardo, History of the Florentine People, ed. and trans. by James Hankins, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2001‒2007). Bruni, Leonardo, Bracciolini, Poggio, Storie Fiorentine, introduction by Eugenio Garin (Arezzo: Biblioteca della città, 1984). Carafa, Diomede, Memoriali, edited by Franca Petrucci Nardelli and Antonio Lupis; con un saggio introduttivo di Giuseppe Galasso (Rome: Bonacci editore, 1988). Cicero, De oratore, Books I–II, vol. I, with an English translation by Edward William Sutton, completed, with an introduction, by Harris Rackham [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1942). Claudian, translated by Maurice Platnauer [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

256



Colucci, Benedetto, De discordiis Florentinorum liber nunc primum ex ms. cod. in lucem erutus a Laurentio Mehus Etruscae academiae Cortonensis socio (Florentiae: apud Ioannem Paullum Giovannelli, 1747). Corio, Bernardio, Storia di Milano, edited by Anna Morisi Guerra (Turin: UTET, 1978). Cronache di Viterbo e di altre città, scritte da Niccola della Tuccia, in Cronache e statuti della città di Viterbo, edited by Ignazio Ciampi (Florence: con i tipi di M. Cellini, 1872). de Grassis, Angelus, Oratio panigerica dicta domino Alfonso, edited by Fulvio Delle Donne (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2006). De Keyser, Jeroen, Francesco Filelfo and Francesco Sforza. Critical Edition of Filelfo’s ‘Sphortias’, ‘De Genuensium deditione’, ‘Oratio parentalis’ and His Polemical Exchange with Galeotto Marzio (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015). de’ Medici, Lorenzo, Lettere, edited by Riccardo Fubini, vols. 1‒2; Nicolai Rubinstein, vols. 3‒4; Michael Mallet, vols. 5‒7 (Florence: Giunti-Barbera, 1977–). Facio, Bartolomeo, Invective in Laurentium Vallam, edited by Ennio I. Rao (Napoli: Società Editrice Napoletana, 1978). Facio, Bartolomeo, Rerum gestarum Alfonsi regis libri, edited by Daniela Pietragalla (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2004). Filelfo, Gian Mario, Consolatoria: dedicata alla duchessa di Milano Bona di Savoia, per la morte del duca Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1477), edited by Anne Schoysman Zambrini (Bologna: Commissione per i Testi di Lingua, 1991). Giovio, Paolo, Ritratti degli uomini illustri, edited by Carlo Caruso (Palermo: Sellerio, 1999). Herodianus, Historiae de imperio post Marcum vel de suis temporibus, e Graeco translatus Angelo Politiano (Bononiae, 1493). Horatii Romani Porcaria, seu De coniuratione Stephani Porcarii carmen cum aliis eiusdem quae inveniri potuerunt carminibus primum edidit ac praefatus est Maximilianus Lehnerdt; accedit Petri de Godis Vicentini De coniuratione Porcaria dialogus e codice vaticano erutus (Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1907). I Diari di Cicco Simonetta, edited by Alfio Rosario Natale (Milan: Giuffrè, 1961). Infessura, Stefano, Diario della città di Roma di Stefano Infessura scribasenato, edited by Oreste Tommasini (Rome: Forzani, 1890). Juvenal and Persius, edited and translated by Susanna Morton Braund [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004). Lamento in morte di Giuliano in Francesco Flamini, ‘Versi in morte di Giuliano de’ Medici’, Il Propugnatore 2 (1889), pp. 318‒30. Lucan, The Civil War (Pharsalia), translated by James D. Duff [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928). Luciani Opera, edited by Matthew Donald, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980). Machiavelli, Niccolò, Florentine histories, edited by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Machiavelli, Niccolò, Discourses on Livy, translated with an introduction and noted by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Machiavelli Niccolò, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, edited by Francesco Bausi, Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2001). Machiavelli, Niccolò, L’arte della guerra. Scritti politici minori, edited by Jean Jacques Marchand, Denis Fachard, and Giorgio Masi (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2001). Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Prince, translated and edited by Peter Bondanella, with an introduction by Maurizio Viroli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



257

Machiavelli, Niccolò, Il principe, edited by Mario Martelli, ‘Corredo filologico’ by Nicoletta Marcelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2006). Machiavelli, Niccolò, Istorie fiorentine, in Niccolò Machiavelli, Opere storiche, edited by Alessandro Montevecchi and Carlo Varotti, directed by Gian Mario Anselmi, Edizione Nazionale delle opere di Niccolò Machiavelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2010). Maio, Giuniano, De maiestate, edited by Franco Gaeta (Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1956). Manetti, Giannozzo, De vita ac gestis Nicolai quinti summi pontificis. Edizione critica e traduzione, edited by Anna Modigliani (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 2005). Philippe of Marnix of Sainte-Aldegonde, De Biënkorf der H. Roomsche Kercke (Emden, 1569). Mombrizio, Bonino, Threnodia, edited by Alessandro Minuziano (Milan, 1504). Martucci, Giovanni, Un poema latino inedito del sec. XV sulla tentata restaurazione angioina (Rome: Giovanni Balbi, 1899). Monti Sabia, Liliana, Pontano e la storia. Dal ‘De bello Neapolitano’ all’ ‘Actius’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 1995). Nuovi documenti per la storia del Rinascimento, edited by Tammaro De Marinis and Alessandro Perosa (Florence: Olschki, 1970). Opera nova de Miser Antonio Cornazano in terza rima (Venetia: Zorzi di Rusconi, ad instantia de Nicolo dicto Zopino et Vincentio compagni, 1517). Opera omnia Angeli Politiani et alia quaedam lectu digna quorum nomina in sequenti indice videre licet (Venezia: Aldo Manuzio, edited by Alessandro Sarti, 1498) [anastatic reproduction: Rome, Bibliopola, 1968]. Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, edited by Sergio Bertelli, 11 vols. (Milan: Salerno, 1968‒82). Palmerii, Matthei, De captivitate Pisarum liber, edited by Gino Scaramella, in Rerum Italicarum scriptores (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1904), vol. 19, part 2. Panhormitae, Antonii, Liber rerum gestarum Ferdinandi regis, edited by Gianvito Resta (Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1968). Patrizi, Francesco, De regno et regis institutione (Paris: Aegidius Gorbinus, 1567). Petrarca, Francesco, Lettera di Francesco Petrarca al magnifico Francesco da Carrara signore di Padova, delle Senili lib. 14 epist. 1., sui doveri del principe, edited by Maria Papafava Dei Carraresi, Giuseppe Fracassetti, and Carlo Landi (Padova: Società cooperativa tipografica, 1922). Petrarca, Francesco, Africa, edited by Nicola Festa, Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Francesco Petrarca, vol. 1 (Florence: Sansoni, 1926). Aeneae Sylvii Pii II Pontificis Maximi, In Europam sui temporis varias continentem historias, in Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis Opera Omnia (Basileae 1571). Enee Silvii Piccolominei postea Pii II De Europa edidit commentarioque instruxit Adrianus van Heck (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 2001). Pius II, Commentaries, edited by Margaret Meserve and Marcello Simonetta (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2003‒). Platinae Bartholomei, De principe, edited by Giacomo Ferraù (Messina: Il Vespro, 1979). Platina, Bartolomeo, Lives of the Popes, edited and translated by Anthony F. D’Elia (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2008–). Angeli Politiani Opera quae quidem extitere hactenus omnia . . . , Basileae, apud Nicolaum Episcopium Juniorem, 1553 [anastatic reproduction: Politianus, Angelus, Opera omnia (scripta in editione Basilensi anno MDLIII collecta), edited by Ida Maïer (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1971)].

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

258



Politianus, Angelus, Coniurationis commentarium [Rome: Johannes Bulle, 1480]. Politianus, Angelus, Pactianae coniurationis commentariolum [Florence: Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna], 1478. Poliziano, Angelo, Sylvam in Scabiem, edited by Alessandro Perosa (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1954). Poliziano, Angelo, Della congiura dei Pazzi (Coniurationis commentarium), edited by Alessandro Perosa (Padova: Antenore, 1958). Poliziano, Angelo, Commento inedito alle ‘Selve’ di Stazio, edited by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1978). Poliziano, Angelo, The Pazzi Conspiracy, translated by Renée Neu Watkins with David Marsh, in Humanism and Liberty: Writing on Freedom from Fifteenth Century Florence, edited and translated by Renée Neu Watkins (Columbia: University of South Carolina press, 1978), pp. 171‒83. Poliziano, Angelo, The Pazzi Conspiracy, translated by Elizabeth B. Welles, in The Earthly Republic: Italian Humanists on Government and Society, edited by Benjamin G. Kohl and Ronald G. Witt, with Elizabeth B. Welles (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978), pp. 305‒22. Poliziano, Angelo, Sylvam in Scabiem, edited by Paolo Orvieto (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1989). Poliziano, Angelo, Letters, books I‒IV, edited by Shane Butler, vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006). Poliziano, Angelo, Coniurationis commentarium, con introduzione, traduzione e commento, edited by Marta Celati (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2015). Poliziano, Angelo, Praelectiones, edited by Giorgia Zollino (Florence: Olschki, 2016). Poliziano, Angelo, Becchi, Gentile, La congiura della verità, edited by Marcello Simonetta, translated by Gerardo Fortunato (Naples: La scuola di Pitagora editrice, 2012). Ioannis Ioviani Pontani ad Robertum Sanseverinium principem salernitanum in libros obedientiae prohemium incipit feliciter (Neapoli: Per Mathiam Moravum, 1490 die 25 octobris). Ioannes Pontanus, De prudentia (Florentiae: Opera et impensa Philippi Giuntae, 1508). Ioviani Pontani De immanitate liber, Edidit, italice vertit, commentariolo instruxit Liliana Monti Sabia (Naples: Loffredo, 1970). Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano, De sermone et De bello Neapolitano (Neapoli: ex officina Sigismundi Mayr artificis diligentissimi, mense Maio, 1509). Pontano, Giovanni, I dialoghi, edited by Carmelo Previtera (Florence: Sansoni, 1943). Pontano, Giovanni, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003). Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano, De bello Neapolitano, edited by Giuseppe Germano, Antonietta Iacono, Francesco Senatore (Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2019). Prose del giovane Buonaccorso da Montemagno, inedite alcune, da due codici della Biblioteca Capitolare di Verona, edited by Giovanni Battista Carlo Giuliari, (Bologna: G.Romagnoli, 1874). Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, edited and translated by Donald A. Russell [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002). Rinuccini, Alamanno, Epistole e orazioni, edited by Vito R. Giustiniani (Florence: Olschki, 1953). Sallust, The War with Catiline. The War with Jugurtha, edited by John T. Ramsey, translated by by John Carew Rolfe [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



259

Salutati, Coluccio, Political Writings, edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri, translated by Rolf Bagemihl (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2014). Scala, Bartolomeo, Humanistic and Political Writings, edited by Alison Brown (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance texts and studies, 1997). Simonetta, Giovanni, Rerum gestarum Francisci Sfortiae Commentarii, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 21, t. 2, edited by Giovanni Soranzo (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1932‒59). Sixtus IV, Pope, Bulla ‘Ineffabilis et Summi Patris providentia’ de excommunicatione Laurentii de Medicis [Rome: Bulle, post 1 Jun. 1478]. Sixtus IV, Pope, Bullae ‘Ad apostolicae dignitatis auctoritatem’ et ‘Inter cetera quorum nos cura sollicitat’ contra Laurentium de Medicis [Rome: Bulle, post 22 Jun. 1478]. Statius, Thebaid, edited and translated by David Roy Shackleton Bailey [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004). Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, vol. 1, Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula, translated by John Carew Rolfe. Introduction by Keith R. Bradley [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914). Traité des conjurations extraict du troisième livre des Discours, in Histoire de la conjuration de Catiline. Ceux qui usurperont le glaive periront par le glaive, translated by J. Chomedey (Paris: pour Abel L’Angelier, 1575). Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, a new translation by Martin Hammond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Colucii Salutati De laboribus Herculis, edited by Berthold Louise Ullman(Turici: In aedibus Thesaurimundi, 1951). Valla, Lorenzo, Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum, edited by Ottavio Besomi (Padova: Antenore, 1973). Valla, Lorenzo, Antidotum in Facium, edited by Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1981). Prosatori volgari del Quattrocento, edited by Claudio Varese, (Milan: Ricciardi, 1955). The ‘De arte poetica’ of Marco Girolamo Vida, translated with commentary, and with the text of c. 1517, by Ralph G. Williams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976). Zancani, Diego, ‘Il De Herculei filii ortu et de urbis Ferrariae periculo ac liberatione di Antonio Cornazzano’, Bollettino storico piacentino 74 (1979), pp. 66‒76. Zuppardo, Matteo, Alfonseis, edited by Gabriella Albanese (Palermo: Centro di Studi filologici e umanistici siciliani, 1990).

Secondary literature Abbamonte, Giancarlo, ‘Discorsi alle truppe: documenti, origine e struttura retorica’, in Discorsi alla prova, Atti del Quinto Colloquio italofrancese, Discorsi pronunciati, discorsi ascoltati: contesti di eloquenza tra Grecia, Roma ed Europa (Napoli-S. Maria di Castellabate, 21‒23 settembre 2006), edited by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Lorenzo Miletti, and Luigi Spina (Napoli: Giannini, 2009), pp. 29‒46. Albanese, Gabriella, Studi su Bartolomeo Facio (Pisa: ETS, 2000). Albanese, Gabriella, ‘A redescoberta dos historiadores antigos no Humanismo e o nascimento da historiografia moderna: Valla, Facio e Pontano na corte napolitana dos reis de Aragao’, in Atti del Convegno Internazionale Antigos e Modernos: diálogos sobre a (escrita da) história (Universidade de Sao Paulo do Brazil, 2‒7 settembre 2007), edited by Francisco Murari Pires (São Paulo: Alameda Casa Editorial, 2009), pp. 277‒329.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

260



Albanese, Gabriella, ‘L’esordio della trattatistica “de principe” alla corte aragonese: l’inedito ‘Super Isocrate’ di Bartolomeo Facio’, in Lorenzo Geri, ed., Principi prima del Principe [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 59‒115. Alberti, Giovan Battista, ‘Tucidide nella traduzione latina di Lorenzo Valla’, Studi italiani di filologia classica 29 (1957), pp. 224‒49. Alessio, Gian Carlo, ‘Il De componendis epistolis di Niccolò Perotti e l’epistolografia umanistica’, Res Publica Literarum 11 (1988), pp. 9‒18. Andenna, Giancarlo, ‘ “L’opportunità persa” ovvero la residenza ducale di Galliate nel secondo Quattrocento”, in Vigevano e i territori circostanti alla fine del Medioevo, edited by Giorgio Chittolini (Milan: UNICOPLI, 1997), pp. 341–65. Anselmi, Gian Mario, ‘Fonti e problemi degli ultimi due libri delle Istorie fiorentine’, Studi e problemi di critica testuale 17 (1978), pp. 63‒76. Anselmi, Gian Mario, Ricerche sul Machiavelli storico (Pisa: Pacini, 1979). Arrighi, Vanna, ‘Lettere inedite di Lorenzo il Magnifico in un’Appendice delle carte Strozziane’, Archivio Storico Italiano 169 (2011), pp. 113‒33. Avesani, Rino, ‘Epaeneticorum ad Pium II, Pont. Max. Libri V’, in Enea Silvio Piccolomini. Papa Pio II. Atti del Convegno per il quinto centenario della morte e altri scritti, edited by Domenico Maffei (Siena: Accademia Senese degli Intronati, 1968), pp. 15‒97. Avesani, Rino, ‘Appunti per la storia dello Studium Urbis nel Quattrocento’, in Roma e lo Studium urbis: spazio urbano e cultura dal Quattro al Seicento, edited by Paolo Cherubini (Rome: Quasar, 1989), pp. 69‒87. Bacchelli, Riccardo, La congiura di Don Giulio d’Este, (Milan: Mondadori, 1983). Badian, Ernst, ‘Thucydides on Rendering Speeches’, Athenaeum 80 (1992), pp. 187‒90. Baker, Patrick, Kaiser, Ronny, Priesterjahn, Maike and Helmrath, Johannes, eds., Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016). Baron, Hans, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955). Baron, Hans, In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism: Essays on the Transition from Medieval to Modern Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Barreto, Joana, La majesté en images: portraits du pouvoir dans la Naples des Aragon (Rome: École française de Rome, 2013). Bausi, Francesco and Fera, Vincenzo, eds., Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004). Belloni, Antonio, Il poema epico e mitologico (Milan: Vallardi, 1912). Belotti, Bortolo, Storia di una congiura (Olgiati) (Milan: Dall’Oglio, 1965). Benner, Erica, Machiavelli’s Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 373‒9. Bentley, Jerry H., Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). Bercé, Yves Marie and Fasano Guarini, Elena, eds., Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe moderne. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’École française de Rome, l’Institut de recherches sur les civilisations de l’Occident de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne et le Dipartimento di storia moderna e contemporanea dell’Università degli studi di Pisa, Rome, 30 septembre‒2 octobre 1993 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1996). Berté, Monica, Petrarca lettore di Svetonio (Messina: Università degli Studi di Messina, Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2011). Berti, Ernesto, ‘Alla scuola di Manuele Crisolora. Lettura e commento di Luciano’, Rinascimento 27 (1987), pp. 3‒73.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



261

Bertolini, Lucia, Grecus sapor: tramiti di presenze greche in Leon Battista Alberti (Rome: Bulzoni, 1998). Bianca, Concetta, ‘Le dediche a Lorenzo de’ Medici nell’editoria fiorentina’, in Bausi and Fera, eds., Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 51‒89. Bigi, Emilio, ‘Poggio Bracciolini’, Dizionario biografico, vol. 13 (1971), pp. 640‒6. Billanovich, Giuseppe, Tradizione e fortuna di Livio tra Medioevo e Umanesimo (Padova: Antenore, 1981). Bizzocchi, Roberto, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1987). Black, Robert, ‘The New Laws of History’, Renaissance Studies 1, 1 (1987), pp. 126–56. Black, Robert, ‘Machiavelli and Humanist Historiography’, in Reading and Writing History from Bruni to Windschuttle. Essays in Honour of Gary Ianziti, edited by Christian Thorsten Callisen (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), pp. 87‒103. Black, Robert and Law, John Easton, eds., The Medici Citizens and Masters (Florence: Villa I Tatti, the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, 2015). Bonadeo, Alfredo, ‘The Role of the “Grandi” in the Political World of Machiavelli’, Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969), pp. 9‒30. Bonadeo, Alfredo, ‘The Role of the People in the Works and Times of Machiavelli’, Bibliothéque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 32, 2 (1970), pp. 351‒77. Bonatti, Franco and Manfredi, Antonio, eds., Niccolò V nel sesto centenario della nascita. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Sarzana, 8‒10 ottobre 1998 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2000). Borrelli, Gianfranco, ‘La necessità della congiura nelle scritture italiane della Ragion di Stato’, in Bercé, Fasano Guarini, ed., pp. 81‒91. Borsi, Stefano, ‘Momenti di tangenza tra Momus e Porcaria coniuratio’, Albertiana 9 (2006), pp. 68‒98. Borsi, Stefano, Nicolò V e Roma. Alberti, Angelico, Manetti e un grande piano urbano (Florence: Polistampa, 2009). Borsi, Stefano, Leon Battista Alberti e Roma (Florence: Polistampa, 2013). Borsi, Stefano, Introduzione alla ‘Porcaria coniuratio’ di Leon Battista Alberti (Melfi: Libria, 2015). Boschetto, Luca, ‘Note sul De iciarchia di Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 163‒217. Boschetto, Luca, ‘Ricerche sul Theogenius e sul Momus di Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 33 (1993), pp. 3‒52. Boschetto, Luca, Leon Battista Alberti e Firenze: biografia, storia, letteratura (Florence: Olschki, 2000). Briguglia, Gianluca, Il corpo vivente dello Stato. Una metafora politica (Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2006). Bullard, Melissa Miriam, Lorenzo il Magnifico. Image and Anxiety, Politics and Finance (Florence: Olschki, 1994). Burckhardt, Jacob, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. Samuel George Chetwynd Middlemore (Kitchener: Batoche, 2001). Burrough, Charles, From Signs to Design: Environmental Process and Reform in Early Renaissance Rome (Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press, 1990). Burrough, Charles, ‘Alberti e Roma’, in Leon Battista Alberti, edited by Anne Engel and Joseph Rykwert (Milan: Electa, 1994), pp. 134‒57.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

262



Butters, Humfrey, ‘Machiavelli and the Medici’, in The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, edited by John M. Najemy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2010), pp. 64‒79. Campi, Alessandro, ‘Congiure’, in Enciclopedia Machiavelliana, directed by Gennaro Sasso (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2014), vol. 1, pp. 337‒42. Campi, Alessandro, Machiavelli and Political Conspiracies: The Struggle for Power in the Italian Renaissance (New York/London: Routledge, 2018). Canfora, Davide, La controversia di Poggio Bracciolini e Guarino Veronese (Florence: Olschki, 2001). Canfora, Davide, ‘Riflessioni di Giovanni Pontano su Cesare e Scipione’, in Confini dell’Umanesimo letterario. Studi in onore di Francesco Tateo, edited by Mauro De Nichilo, Grazia Distaso, and Antonio Iurilli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2003), pp. 187‒99. Canfora, Davide, Prima di Machiavelli: Politica e cultura in età umanistica (Milan: Laterza, 2005). Canfora, Davide, ‘Leon Battista Alberti: Modello di letteratura politica in età umanistica’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, ed., Alberti e la cultura del Quattrocento. Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti. Florence, 16–17–18 dicembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 699‒717. Cappelli, Antonio, ‘La congiura dei Pio signori di Carpi contro Borso d’Este signore di Ferrara duca di Modena e Reggio’, Atti e Memorie delle Reali Deputazioni di Storia patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi 2 (1864), pp. 3‒52. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Giovanni Brancato e una sua inedita orazione politica’, Filologia&Critica 27 (2002), pp. 64‒101. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Introduzione’, in Giovanni Pontano, De principe, edited by Guido Cappelli (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003), pp. XI‒CXXI. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Conceptos transversales: República y monarquía en el Humanismo político’, Res publica 21 (2009), pp. 51‒69. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Prolegomeni al De obedientia di Pontano. Saggio interpretativo’, Rinascimento meridionale 1 (2010), pp. 47‒70. Cappelli, Guido, ‘La sconfitta di Sarno nel pensiero politico aragonese’, in La battaglia nel Rinascimento meridionale. Moduli narrativi tra parole e immagini, edited by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Joana Barreto, Teresa D’Urso, Alessandra Perriccioli Saggese, and Francesco Senatore (Rome: Viella, 2011), pp. 189‒201. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Corpus est res publica. La struttura della comunità secondo l’umanesimo politico’, in Lorenzo Geri, ed., Principi prima del Principe [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 117‒31. Cappelli, Guido, Review Pedullà, Gabriele, ‘Machiavelli in tumulto: conquista, cittadinanza e conflitto nei Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’, Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 20 (2013), pp. 354‒61. Cappelli, Guido, ‘La realtà fatta dottrina. Sarno e dintorni nel pensiero politico aragonese’, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 116 (2014), pp. 193‒216. Cappelli, Guido, ‘Il castigo del Re. Bartolo, Pontano e il problema della disubbidienza’, Studi Umanistici Piceni 34 (2014), pp. 91‒104. Cappelli, Guido, Maiestas: politica e pensiero politico nella Napoli aragonese (1443–1503) (Rome: Carocci Editore, 2016). Cappelli, Guido, ‘Machiavelli e l’umanesimo politico del Quattrocento’, Res publica 20, 1 (2017), pp. 81‒92.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



263

Cappelli, Guido, ‘Lo stato umanistico. Genesi dello stato moderno nella cultura italiana del XV secolo’, in La determinación de la humanitas del hombre en la Crítica del Juicio y en el humanismo clásico, edited by Guillermo Villaverde López and Sara Barquinero del Toro (Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores S. L., 2018), pp. 35‒70. Caracciolo Aricò, Angela Maria, ‘Giuniano Maio’, Dizionario biografico, 67 (2006), pp. 618‒21. Cardini, Roberto, ‘Biografia, leggi e astrologia in un nuovo reperto albertiano’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore: filologia, esegesi, tradizione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI Centenario della Nascita di Leon Battista Alberti, Arezzo, 24- 26 giugno 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 21‒189. Cardini, Roberto and Regoliosi, Mariangela, eds., Alberti e la cultura del Quattrocento. Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti. Firenze, 16–17–18 dicembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007). Cardini, Roberto and Regoliosi, Mariangela, eds., Alberti e la tradizione: per lo ’smontaggio’ dei ‘mosaici’ albertiani: Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Arezzo, 23‒24‒25 settembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007). Cardini, Roberto and Regoliosi, Mariangela, eds., Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore: filologia, esegesi, tradizione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI Centenario della Nascita di Leon Battista Alberti, Arezzo, 24-26 giugno 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007). Cardini, Roberto, Bertolini, Lucia, and Regoliosi, Mariangela eds., Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca di un umanista (Florence: Mandragora, 2005). Carini, Isidoro, La difesa di Pomponio Leto (Bergamo: Istituto italiano d’arti grafiche, 1894). Cassani, Alberto Giorgio, ‘Libertas, frugalitas, aedificandi libido. Paradigmi indiziari per Leon Battista Alberti a Roma’, in Le due Rome del Quattrocento: Melozzo, Antoniazzo e la cultura artistica del ‘400 romano: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Università di Roma La Sapienza, Facoltà di lettere e filosofia, Istituto di storia dell’arte, Roma 21‒24 febbraio 1996, edited by Sergio Rossi and Stefano Valeri (Rome: Lithos, 1997), pp. 296‒321. Cassani, Alberto Giorgio, ‘Le carceri di Ravenna’, in Dalla Romagna alle Romagne, 1815‒1860. Le quattro Legazioni di Romagna e i loro archivi fra Restaurazione e Risorgimento. Atti del convegno internazionale Ravenna 2011 per il 150 dell’unità d’Italia, edited by Angelo Turchini (Cesena: Società editrice il Ponte Vecchio, 2015), pp. 245‒61. Catalogue of the Library of Philips Van Marnix Van Sint-Aldegonde, sold by auction (July 6th), Introduction by G. J. Brouwer, Librarian of Netherlands Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Association (Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf, 1964). Catanorchi, Olivia, ‘Tra politica e passione. Simulazione e dissimulazione in Leon Battista Alberti’, Rinascimento 45 (2005), pp. 137‒77. Cavarzere, Alberto, ‘Caro amico ti scrivo. “Privato” e “Pubblico” nella letteratura epistolare di Roma’, in Alla lettera. Teorie e pratiche epistolari dai Greci al Novecento, edited by Adriana Chemello (Milan: Guerini, 1998), pp. 11‒31. Celati, Marta, ‘L’editio princeps fiorentina del Coniurationis commentarium di Angelo Poliziano e il tipografo Niccolò Tedesco: nuove acquisizioni’, Archivum Mentis 2 (2013), pp. 161‒80. Celati, Marta, ‘La seconda redazione del Coniurationis commentarium di Angelo Poliziano e l’edizione romana di Johannes Bulle’, Humanistica 11, 1‒2 (2016), pp. 283‒92.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

264



Celati, Marta, ‘Renaissance Conspiracies in Nineteenth-century Italian Art: The Rediscovery of History between Literature and Visual Culture’, Comitatus. A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 48 (2017), pp. 161‒84. Celati, Marta, ‘Humanist Epic between Classical Legacy and Contemporary History: Orazio Romano’s Porcaria (1453)’, in Making and Rethinking Renaissance between Greek and Latin in 15‒16th century Europe, edited by Stephen Harrison and Giancarlo Abbamonte (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, Series Trend in Classics, 2019), pp. 231‒49. Celati, Marta, ‘Teoria politica e realtà storica nel De maiestate di Giuniano Maio: tra letteratura e arte figurativa’, Medioevo e Rinascimento 29 (2018), pp. 203‒35. Celati, Marta, ‘La virtù e la storia: il principe nel De Maiestate di Giuniano Maio’, Archivum Mentis 8 (2019), pp. 71‒102. Celati, Marta, ‘Imitation and Allusion in Machiavelli’s Istorie fiorentine between Contemporary Sources and Classical Models’, in Imitative Series and Clusters from Classical to Early Modern Literature, edited by Colin Burrow, Stephen J. Harrison, Martin McLaughlin, and Elisabetta Tarantino (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2020), pp. 205–22. Cesarini Martinelli, Lucia, ‘Il Poliziano e Svetonio. Osservazioni su un recente contributo alla storia della filologia umanistica’, Rinascimento 16 (1976), pp. 111‒31. Cessi, Roberto, Saggi romani (Rome: Edizioni di Storia eLetteratura, 1956). Chiabò, Miriam, Gargano, Maurizio, Modigliani, Anna, and Osmond, Patricia J., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014). Chiappelli, Alberto, ‘Sopra due avvenimenti notevoli nella vita pistoiese dell’anno 1478’, Bullettino Storico Pistoiese 31 (1929), pp. 94–111. Chiappini, Luciano, ‘Borso d’Este’, Dizionario biografico, 13 (1971), pp. 134‒43. Chines, Loredana, ‘Per Petrarca e Claudiano’, Quaderni petrarcheschi 11 (2001), pp. 43‒73. Chittolini, Giorgio, Molho, Anthony, and Schiera, Pierangelo, eds., Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale in Italia fra medioevo ed età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994). Cochrane, Eric, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Cole, Thomas, The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). Coleman, Janet, Against the State. Studies in Sedition and Rebellion, introduced by Brian Redhead (London: Penguin, 1995). Coluccia, Giuseppe L., Niccolò V umanista: papa e riformatore. Renovatio politica e morale (Venice: Marsilio, 1998). Conte, Gian Biagio and Barchiesi, Alessandro, ‘Imitazione e arte allusiva. Modi e funzioni dell’intertestualità’, in Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 1, La produzione del testo (Rome: Salerno, 1989), pp. 81‒114. Conway, Melissa, The Diario of the Printing Press of San Jacopo di Ripoli, 1476‒1484. Commentary and Transcription (Florence: Olschki, 1999). Corfiati, Claudia and Sciancalepore, Margherita, ‘Per un ritratto del congiurato nella Napoli Aragonese: scritture di parte’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 255–74. Cotroneo, Girolamo, I trattatisti dell’ars historica (Naples: Giannini, 1971).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



265

Crevatin, Giuliana, ‘Prime osservazioni sul testo del De Porcaria coniuratione’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore: filologia, esegesi, tradizione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI Centenario della Nascita di Leon Battista Alberti, Arezzo, 24- 26 giugno 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 327‒36. D’Elia, Anthony F., ‘Stefano Porcari’s Conspiracy against Pope Nicholas V in 1453 and Republican Culture in Papal Rome’, Journal of the History of Ideas 68, 2 (2007), pp. 207‒31. D’Elia, Anthony F., A Sudden Terror: The Plot to Murder the Pope in Renaissance Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009). Daniels, Tobias, La congiura dei Pazzi: i documenti del conflitto fra Lorenzo de’ Medici e Sisto IV. Le bolle di scomunica, la Florentina Synodus, e la Dissentio insorta tra la Santità del Papa e i Fiorentini. Edizione critica e commento (Florence: Edifir, 2013). De Angelis, Laura, ‘Lorenzo a Napoli, progetti di pace e conflitti politici dopo la congiura dei Pazzi’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150 (1992), pp. 385‒421. De Benedictis, Anna, ‘Abbattere i tiranni, punire i ribelli. Diritto e violenza negli interdetti del Rinascimento’, Rechtsgeschichte 11 (2007), pp. 76‒93. De Benedictis, Anna, ‘Il principe prima e dopo Machiavelli’, in Lorenzo Geri, ed., Principi prima del Principe [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)], pp. 9‒24. De Frede, Carlo, ‘La venuta di Lorenzo de’ Medici a Napoli nel 1479’, in De Frede, Carlo, La crisi del Regno di Napoli nella riflessione politica di Machiavelli e Guicciardini (Naples: Liguori, 2006), pp. 167‒87. De Keyser, Jeroen, ‘Picturing the Perfect Patron? Francesco Filelfo’s Image of Francesco Sforza’, in Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts, edited by Baker et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), pp. 391‒414. De Marinis, Tammaro, La Biblioteca napoletana dei re d’Aragona (Milan: Hoepli, 1947‒52). De Mattei, Rodolfo, Dal premachiavellismo all’antimachiavellismo (Florence: Sansoni, 1969). De Robertis, Domenico, ‘Lorenzo Aragonese’, Rinascimento 34 (1994), pp. 3‒14. Delle Donne, Fulvio, Alfonso il Magnanimo e l’invenzione dell’Umanesimo monarchico. Ideologia e strategie di legittimazione alla corte aragonese di Napoli (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2015). Delle Donne, Fulvio and Iacono, Antonietta, eds., Linguaggi e ideologie del Rinascimento monarchico aragonese (1442‒1503). Forme della legittimazione e sistemi di governo (Naples: Federico II University Press, 2018). Dionisotti, Carlo, ‘Documenti letterari d’una congiura estense’, Civiltà moderna 9 (1937), pp. 327‒40. Dionisotti, Carlo, Machiavellerie: storia e fortuna di Machiavelli (Turin: Einaudi, 1980). Di Stefano, Anita, ed., La storiografia umanistica. Convegno internazionale di studi (Messina 22‒25 ottobre 1987) (Messina: Sicania, 1992). Donati, Gemma, Pietro Odo da Montopoli e la Biblioteca di Niccolò V. Con osservazioni sul De orthographia di Tortelli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2000). Everson, Jane E., The Italian Romance Epic in the Age of Humanism: The Matter of Italy and the World of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Fabbri, Renata, Nuova traduzione metrica di Iliade, XIV da una miscellanea umanistica di Agnolo Manetti (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981). Fahy, Conor, Le edizioni veneziane dei Paradossi di Ortensio Lando, in Conor Fahy, Saggi di bibliografia testuale (Padova: Editrice Antenore, 1988), pp. 169‒211.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

266



Farenga, Paola, ‘La rivolta di Triburzio nel 1460’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 167‒86. Fasano Guarini, Elena, Repubbliche e principi. Istituzioni e pratiche di potere nella Toscana granducale del ‘500-’600 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010). Fedeli, Paolo, ‘Le intersezioni dei generi e dei modelli’, in Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 1 La produzione del testo (Rome: Salerno, 1989), pp. 375–97. Fera, Vincenzo, Un’ignota Expositio Suetoni del Poliziano (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di Studi Umanistici, 1983). Fera, Vincenzo, ‘La Praefatio in Suetoni expositionem del Poliziano’, in Bausi and Fera, eds., Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 139‒59. Fera, Vincenzo and Martelli, Mario, eds., Agnolo Poliziano poeta, scrittore, filologo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Montepulciano, 3‒6 novembre 1994 (Florence: Le Lettere, 1998). Fera, Vincenzo and Ferraù, Giacomo, eds., Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta (Padova: Antenore, 1997). Ferraù, Giacomo, ‘La concezione storiografica del Valla: i Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum’, in Lorenzo Valla e l’Umanesimo italiano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi umanistici (Parma, 18‒19 ottobre 1984), edited by Ottavio Besomi and Mariangela Regoliosi (Padova: Antenore, 1986), pp. 265‒310. Ferraù, Giacomo, ‘La storiografia come ufficialità’, in Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, 1. Il Medioevo latino, edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, Claudio Leonardi, and Enrico Menestò, vol. 3, La ricezione del testo (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1995), pp. 661‒93. Ferraù, Giacomo, Il tessitore di Antequera. Storiografia umanistica meridionale (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2001). Figliuolo, Bruno, ed., Corrispondenza di Giovanni Pontano segretario dei dinasti di aragonesi di Napoli (2 novembre 1474‒20 gennaio 1495) (Battipaglia: Laveglia e Carlone, 2012). Figliuolo, Bruno, ‘Giovanni Pontano’, Dizionario biografico, vol. 84 (2015), pp. 729‒40. Finzi, Claudio, Re, baroni, popolo: La politica di Giovanni Pontano (Rimini: Il Cerchio Iniziative Editoriali, 2004). Fo, Alessandro, Studi sulla tecnica poetica di Claudiano, con una prefazione di Bruno Luiselli (Catania: Carmelo Tringale Editore, 1982). Ford, Franklin Lewis, Political Murder. From Tyrannicide to Terrorism (Cambridge, Mass./ London: Harvard University Press, 1985). Fournel, Jean-Louis and Zancarini, Jean-Claude, ‘Tirannide’, in Enciclopedia Machiavelliana, vol. 2, directed by Gennaro Sasso (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2014), pp. 612–7. Fubini, Riccardo and Menci Gallorini, Anna, ‘L’autobiografia di Leon Battista Alberti. Studio e edizione’, Rinascimento 12 (1972), pp. 21‒78. Fubini, Riccardo, ‘All’uscita dalla Scolastica medievale: Salutati, Bruni, e i Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150, 2 (1992), pp. 1065‒103. Fubini, Riccardo, Italia quattrocentesca: politica e diplomazia nell’età di Lorenzo de’ Medici (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1994). Fubini, Riccardo, ‘Congiure e stato nel secolo XV’, in I re nudi: congiure, assassini, tracolli ed altri imprevisti nella storia del potere. Atti del convegno di studio della Fondazione Ezio Franceschini (Certosa del Galluzzo, 19 novembre 1994), edited by Glauco Maria

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



267

Cantarella and Francesco Santi (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo: 1996), pp. 143‒61. Fubini, Riccardo, L’Umanesimo italiano e i suoi storici. Origini rinascimentali-critica moderna (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2001). Fubini, Riccardo, Storiografia dell’Umanesimo in Italia da Leonardo Bruni ad Annio da Viterbo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003). Fubini, Riccardo, ‘Leon Battista Alberti, Niccolò V e il tema della “infelicità del principe” ’, in Fubini, Riccardo, La vita e il mondo di Leon Battista Alberti. Atti dei convegni internazionali del Comitato nazionale per il VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Genova, 19‒21 febbraio 2004, vol. 2 (Florence: Olschki, 2008), pp. 441‒69. Fumaroli, Marc, ‘Genèse de l’épistolographie classique: rhétorique humaniste de la lettre, de Pétrarque à Juste Lipse’, Revue d’Histoire Littéraire de la France 78 (1978), pp. 866‒905. Furlan, Francesco, ed., Leon Battista Alberti: Actes du Congrès international de Paris (Sorbonne, Institut de France, Institut culturel italien, Collège de France, 10‒15 avril 1995), organisé sous la direction de Francesco Furlan, Pierre Laurens, Sylvain Matton (Turin: Aragno; Paris: Vrin, 2000). Furlan, Francesco, ‘Remarques sur la conception, la genèse et la construction dialogique des livres De familia’, in Francesco Furlan, ed., Leon Battista Alberti: Actes du Congrès international de Paris (Sorbonne, Institut de France, Institut culturel italien, Collège de France, 10‒15 avril 1995), organisé sous la direction de Francesco Furlan, Pierre Laurens, Sylvain Matton (Turin: Aragno; Paris: Vrin, 2000), pp. 427‒41. Furlan, Francesco, ‘Leonis Baptistae Alberti Porcaria coniuratio: Scheda critica e filologica’, Albertiana 5 (2002), pp. 261‒7. Galasso, Giuseppe, ‘Il Regno di Napoli. Il Mezzogiorno angioino e aragonese (1266‒1494)’, in Storia d’Italia directed by Giuseppe Galasso (Turin: UTET, 1992), vol. 15, t. 1. Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Giovanni Maria Visconti’, Dizionario biografico, vol. 56 (2001), pp. 352‒7. Gamberini, Andrea and Lazzarini, Isabella, The Italian Renaissance State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Gardenal, Gianna, Il Poliziano e Svetonio. Contributo alla storia della filologia umanistica (Florence: Olschki, 1975). Gardiner Janik, Linda, ‘Lorenzo Valla. The Primacy of Rhetoric and the De-moralization of History’, History and Theory 12 (1973), pp. 389‒404. Gardini, Nicola, Rinascimento (Turin: Einaudi, 2010). Geri, Lorenzo, ed., Principi prima del Principe [Studi (e Testi) Italiani 29 (2012)]. Geuna, Marco, ‘Machiavelli e il problema delle congiure’, Rivista storica italiana 127, 2 (2015), pp. 355‒410. Ghisalberti, Alberto M., Pavan, Massimiliano, Bartoccini, Fiorella, and Caravale, Mario, eds., Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960–). Giannarelli, Elena, ‘Alberti, i padri della chiesa e la letteratura cristiana antica: linee di un problema’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Alberti e la tradizione: per lo ’smontaggio’ dei ‘mosaici’ albertiani: Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Arezzo, 23‒24‒25 settembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 425‒47. Gilbert, Felix, Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

268



Gilbert, Felix, ‘The Humanist Concept of the Prince and the Prince of Machiavelli’, in Felix Gilbert, History: Choice and Commitment (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 91‒114. Gill, Joseph, Eugenius IV, Pope of Christian Union (London: Burns & Oates, 1961). Ginzburg, Carlo, ‘Machiavelli, l’eccezione e la regola. Linee di una ricerca in corso’, Quaderni storici 38 (2003), pp. 195‒213. Ginzburg, Carlo, ‘Pontano, Machiavelli and Prudence: Some Further Reflections’, in From Florence to the Mediterranean and Beyond. Essays in Honour of Anthony Molho, edited by Diogo Ramada Curto, Eric R. Dursteler, Julius Kirshner, and Francesca Trivellato (Florence: Olschki, 2009), pp. 117‒25. Gionta, Daniela, ‘Il Claudiano di Pomponio Leto’, in Fera and Ferraù, eds., Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta, vol. 2, (Padova: Antenore, 1997), pp. 987‒1032. Gionta, Daniela, ‘Pomponio Leto e l’Erodiano del Poliziano’, in Fera and Martelli, eds., Agnolo Poliziano poeta, scrittore, filologo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Montepulciano, 3‒6 novembre 1994 (Florence: Le Lettere, 1998), pp. 425‒58. Giorgini, Giovanni, ‘The Place of the Tyrant in Machiavelli’s Political Thought and the Literary Genre of The Prince’, History of Political Thought 29, 2 (2008), pp. 230‒56. Grafton, Anthony, ‘Humanism and Political Theory’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450‒1700, edited by James Henderson Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 7‒29. Grafton, Anthony, ‘Historia and Istoria: Alberti’s Terminology in Context’, I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 8 (1999), pp. 37‒68. Grafton, Anthony, Leon Battista Alberti. Master Builder of the Italian Renaissance (London: Allen Lane, 2001). Grafton, Anthony, What Was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Grayson, Cecil, ‘Leon Battista Alberti’, Dizionario biografico 1 (1960), pp. 702‒13. Griggio, Claudio, ‘Dalla lettera all’epistolario: aspetti retorico-formali dell’epistolografia umanistica’, in Alla lettera. Teorie e pratiche epistolari dai Greci al Novecento, edited by Adriana Chemello (Milan: Guerini, 1998), pp. 83–141. Gualdo, Germano, ‘Pietro da Noceto, segretario particolare di Niccolò V (1447‒1455)’, in Vecchi, ed., Papato, Stati regionali e Lunigiana nell’età di Niccolò V (Atti delle giornate di studio, La Spezia-Sarzana-Pontremoli-Bagnone, 25‒28 maggio 2000) (La Spezia: Accademia lunigianese di scienze, 2004), pp. 73–83. Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, La fede nella ‘Paideia’: aspetti della fortuna europea di Isocrate nei secoli XV e XVI (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, 1984). Gualdo Rosa, Lucia, ‘Pietro Putomorsi da Fivizzano, detto Pietro Lunense: un corrispondente di Leonardo Bruni a Viterbo’, in Fera and Ferraù, eds., Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta, vol. 2, (Padova: Antenore, 1997), pp. 1057‒82. Guerin, Philippe, ‘Préméditation et improvisation: Un modèle anomique de la disputatio’, in Furlan, ed., Leon Battista Alberti: Actes du Congrès international de Paris (Sorbonne, Institut de France, Institut culturel italien, Collège de France, 10‒15 avril 1995), vol. 1, organisé sous la direction de Francesco Furlan, Pierre Laurens, Sylvain Matton (Turin: Aragno; Paris: Vrin, 2000), pp. 493‒510. Guillemain, Bernard, ‘Machiavelli lecteur d’Aristote’, in Platon et Aristote à la Reanissance. XVIe Colloque international de Tours (Paris: J. Vrin, 1976), pp. 163‒73. Hampton, Timothy, Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



269

Hankins, James, ‘Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), pp. 111‒46. Hankins, James, ‘The “Baron Thesis” after Forty Years and Some Recent Studies of Leonardo Bruni’, Journal of the History of Ideas 56, 2 (1995), pp. 309‒38. Hankins, James, ‘Humanism and the Origins of Modern Political Thought’, in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, edited by Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 118‒41. Hankins, James, ‘Rhetoric, History and Ideology: The Civic Panegyrics of Leonardo Bruni’, in Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections, edited by James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 143‒78. Hankins, James, ‘Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic’, Political Theory 38, 4 (2010), pp. 452‒82. Hankins, James, ‘Machiavelli, Civic Humanism and the Humanist Politics of Virtue’, Italian Culture 32, 2 (2014), pp. 98‒109. Hankins, James, Virtue Politics. Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, Mass./London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019). Hankins, James and Palmer, Ada, The Recovery of Ancient Philosophy in the Renaissance: A Brief Guide (Florence: Olschki, 2008). Hay, Denys, ‘Eugenio IV’, Dizionario biografico 43 (1993), pp. 496‒502. Henderson, Judith Rice, ‘Humanist Letter Writing: Private Conversation or Public Forum?’, in Self-presentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, edited by Toon Van Houdt, Jan Papy, Gilbert Tournoy, and Constant Matheeussen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), pp. 17‒38. Hope, Charles and McGrath, Elizabeth, ‘Artists and Humanists’, in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, edited by Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 161‒88. Jones, Philip J., ‘Communes and Despots: The City-State in Late Medieval Italy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 15 (1965), pp. 71‒96. Kaeppelli, Thomas, ‘Antiche biblioteche domenicane in Italia’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 36 (1966), pp. 5‒80. Kahn, Victoria, Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). Kahn, Victoria, ‘Virtù and the Example of Agathocles in Machiavelli’s Prince’, Representations 13 (Winter 1986), pp. 63‒83. Kahn, Victoria, ‘Revisiting Agathocles’, The Review of Politics 75, 4 (2013) [Special issue: Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’], pp. 557‒72. Kallendorf, Craig, In Praise of Aeneas: Virgil and Epideictic Rhetoric in the Early Italian Renaissance (Hanover/London: University Press of New England, 1989). Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). Kiesewetter, Andreas, ‘Giovanni Antonio Orsini del Balzo’, Dizionario biografico 79 (2013), pp. 729‒32. Kircher, Timothy, Living Well in Renaissance Italy. The Virtues of Humanism and the Irony of Leon Battista Alberti (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2012). Kraye, Jill, ‘Renaissance Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics’, in The Vocabulary of Teaching and Research between Middle Ages and Renaissance, Proceedings of the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

270



Colloquium: London, Warburg Institute, 11–12 March 1994, edited by Olga Weijers (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), pp. 96–117. Kraye, Jill, ‘The Printing History of Aristotle in the Fifteenth Century: A Bibliographical Approach to Renaissance Philosophy’, Renaissance Studies 9 (1995), pp. 189–211. Kristeller, Paul Oscar, Cranz, Ferdinand Edward, and Brown, Virginia, eds., Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translation and Commentaries. Annotated Lists and Giudes, vol. 7 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1960‒). Iacono, Antonietta, La guerra d’Ischia nel ‘De bello Neapolitano’ di G. Pontano (Napoli: Accademia Pontaniana, 1996). Iacono, Antonietta, Porcelio de’ Pandoni: l’umanista e i suoi mecenati: momenti di storia e di poesia: con un’appendice di testi (Napoli: Paolo Loffredo, 2017). Iacono, Antonietta, ‘Ritratto ed encomio nella produzione letteraria per Ferrante d’Aragona’, in Delle Donne and Iacono, eds., Linguaggi e ideologie del Rinascimento monarchico aragonese (1442‒1503). Forme della legittimazione e sistemi di governo (Naples: Federico II University Press, 2018), pp. 25‒52. Ianziti, Gary, ‘Storiografia come propaganda: il caso dei Commentarii rinascimentali’, Società e storia 22 (1983), pp. 909‒18. Ianziti, Gary, Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas. Politics and Propaganda in 15th Century Milan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Ianziti, Gary, ‘I Commentarii: appunti per la storia di un genere storiografico quattrocentesco’, Archivio Storico Italiano 150 (1992), pp. 1029‒63. Ianziti, Gary, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 2012). Ianziti, Gary, ‘Pier Candido Decembrio and the Suetonian Path to Princely Biography’, in Portraying the Prince in the Renaissance: The Humanist Depiction of Rulers in Historiographical and Biographical Texts, edited by Baker et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), pp. 237‒70. Indeborg, Walter, ‘Maso Barrese’, Dizionario biografico, vol. 6 (1964), pp. 521‒2. Inglese, Giorgio, ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’, Dizionario biografico, vol. 67 (2006), pp. 81‒97. La Penna, Antonio, Sallustio e la ‘rivoluzione’ romana (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1968). Landobre, Horacio Silvestre, ‘Horatius Romanus. Un poeta en la corte papal renacentista’, Helmantica 40 (1989), pp. 445‒51. Langedijk, Karla, The Portraits of the Medici, 15th‒18th Centuries, vol. 1 (Florence: S.P.E.S., 1981‒7). Larivaille, Paul, ‘Sul ritratto machiavelliano di Lorenzo il Magnifico nel capitolo finale delle Istorie fiorentine’, in Bausi and Fera, eds., Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 11‒37. Lines, David, Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’ in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650): The Universities and the Problem of Moral Education (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Lines, David, ‘Aristotle’s Ethics in the Renaissance’, in The Reception of Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’, edited by Jon Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 171–93. Lines, David and Refini, Eugenio, eds., ‘Aristotele fatto volgare’. Tradizione aristotelica e cultura volgare nel Rinascimento (Pisa: ETS, 2014 [but 2015]). Maïer, Ida, Les Manuscrits d’Ange Politien. Catalogue descriptif. Avec dix-neuf documents inédits en appendice (Genève: Libraire Droz, 1965). Mancini, Girolamo, Vita di Leon Battista Alberti (Florence: Sansoni, 1882). Manfredi, Antonio, Marsico, Clementina, and Regoliosi, Mariangela, eds., Giovanni Tortelli primo bibliotecario della Vaticana (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



271

Mansfield, Harvey C., Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Mansfield, Harvey C., Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders. A Study of the ‘Discourses on Livy’ (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2001). Marchand, Jean-Jacques, ‘La riscrittura dei classici: Erodiano nel cap. XIX del Principe’, in Machiavelli Cinquecento. Mezzo millennio del Principe, edited by Gian Mario Anselmi, Riccardo Caporali, and Carlo Galli (Milan; Udine: Mimesis, 2015), pp. 43‒55. Marietti, Marina, ‘Machiavel historiographe des Médicis’, in Les Écrivains et le pouvoir en Italie à l’époque de la Renaissance, edited by André Rochon (Paris: Universite de la Sorbonne nouvelle, 1974), pp. 81‒148. Marincola, John, Greek Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Mariotti, Scevola, ‘Note su alcuni epigrammi di Orazio Romano’, in Mariotti, Scevola, Scritti medievali umanistici, edited by Silvia Rizzo (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2010), pp. 153‒6. Marsh, David, The Quattrocento Dialogue: Classical Tradition and Humanist Innovation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 78‒99. Marsh, David, ‘Lorenzo Valla in Naples: The Translation from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 46, 2 (1984), pp. 407‒20. Martelli, Mario, ‘Machiavelli e la storiografia umanistica’, Di Stefano, ed., La storiografia umanistica. Convegno internazionale di studi (Messina 22‒25 ottobre 1987), vol. 1 (Messina: Sicania, 1992), pp. 113‒52. Martelli, Mario, Angelo Poliziano, storia e metastoria (Lecce: Conte Editore, 1995). Martelli, Mario, Machiavelli e gli storici antichi. Osservazioni su alcuni luoghi dei ‘Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’ (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1998). Martines, Lauro, ‘Political Conflict in the Italian City States’, Government and Opposition 3, 1 (1968), pp. 69‒91. Martines, Lauro, La congiura dei Pazzi: intrighi politici, sangue e vendetta nella Firenze dei Medici, translated by Nadia Cannata (Milan, Mondadori: 2005). Marzi, Demetrio, ‘I tipografi tedeschi in Italia durante il sec. XV’, in Festschrift zum fünfhundertjährigen Geburtstage von Johann Gutenberg, edited by Otto Hartwing (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1900), pp. 568‒9. Mastronardi, Maria Aurelia, ‘Una congiura alla corte di Borso d’Este’, in Confini dell’Umanesimo letterario. Studi in onore di Francesco Tateo, vol. 2, edited by Mauro De Nichilo, Grazia Distaso, and Antonio Iurilli (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2003), pp. 921‒35. Mastrorosa, Ida, ‘Rusticitas e urbanitas in Leon Battista Alberti: la tradizione classica’, Albertiana 8 (2005), pp. 85‒117. Mattioli, Emilio, Luciano e l’Umanesimo italiano (Naples: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici, 1980). Matucci, Andrea, ‘Narrare o interpretare: Machiavelli e la congiura dei Pazzi’, in Niccolò Machiavelli. Politico, storico, letterato, Atti del Convegno di Losanna, 27‒30 settembre 1995, edited by Jean-Jacques Marchand (Rome: Salerno, 1996), pp. 315‒35. McCormick, John P., ‘Subdue the Senate: Machiavelli “Way of Freedom” or Path to Tyranny?’, Political Theory 40, 6 (2012), pp. 714‒35. McCormick, John P., ‘The Enduring Ambiguity of Machiavellian Virtue: Cruelty, Crime and Christianity in The Prince’, Social Research 81, 1 (2014), pp. 133‒64. McLaughlin, Martin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

272



McLaughlin, Martin, ‘Alberti e le opere retoriche di Cicerone’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Alberti e la tradizione: per lo ’smontaggio’ dei ‘mosaici’ albertiani: Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Arezzo, 23‒24‒25 settembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 177‒206 McLaughlin, Martin, Leon Battista Alberti. La vita, l’umanesimo, le opere (Florence: Olschki, 2016). Medioli Masotti, Paola, ’L’Accademia romana e la congiura del 1468’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 25 (1982), pp. 189‒204. Meschini, Stefano, Uno storico umanista alla corte sforzesca: biografia di Bernardino Corio (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1995). Miglio, Massimo, ‘Biografie e raccolte biografiche nel Quattrocento italiano’, Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna. Classe di scienze morali 63 (1974‒5), pp. 166‒99. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Giuseppe Brivio’, Dizionario biografico 14 (1972), pp. 355‒8. Miglio, Massimo, Storiografia pontificia del Quattrocento (Bologna: Patron, 1975). Miglio, Massimo, ‘ “Viva la libertà et populo de Roma”. Oratoria e politica: Stefano Porcari’, in Palaeographica diplomatica et archivistica. Studi in onore di Giulio Bertelli, edited by the Scuola Speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma, vol. 1 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1979), pp. 381‒428. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Cultura umanistica a Viterbo nella seconda metà del Quattrocento’, in Cultura umanistica a Viterbo, Atti della giornata di studio per il V Centenario della stampa a Viterbo (Viterbo 12 novembre 1988), edited by Teresa Sampieri and Giuseppe Lombardi (Viterbo: Associazione Roma nel Rinascimento, 1991), pp. 11‒46. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Niccolò V umanista di Cristo’, in Umanesimo e Padri della Chiesa. Manoscritti e incunaboli di testi patristici da Francesco Petrarca al primo Cinquecento (Catalogo della mostra, Firenze, febbraio‒agosto 1997), edited by Sebastiano Gentile (Rome: Rose, 1997), pp. 77–84. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Niccolò V’, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, vol. 2 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2000), pp. 644–58. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Nicolò V, Leon Battista Alberti, Roma’, in Leon Battista Alberti e il Quattrocento: studi in onore di Cecil Grayson e Ernst Gombrich. Atti del convegno internazionale, Mantova, 29‒31 ottobre 1998, edited by Luca Chiavoni, Gianfranco Ferlisi, and Maria Vittoria Grassi (Florence: Olschki, 2001), pp. 47‒64. Miglio, Massimo, ‘Storiografia su Niccolò V’, in Vecchi, ed., Papato, Stati regionali e Lunigiana nell’età di Niccolò V (Atti delle giornate di studio, La Spezia-Sarzana-Pontremoli-Bagnone, 25‒28 maggio 2000) (La Spezia: Accademia lunigianese di scienze, 2004), pp. 21–32. Modigliani, Anna, I Porcari: storie di una famiglia romana tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 1994). Modigliani, Anna, ‘Aporie e profezie petrarchesche tra Stefano Porcari e Niccolò Machiavelli’, Roma nel Rinascimento (1995), pp. 53‒67. Modigliani, Anna, ‘Il testamento di Niccolò V: la rielaborazione di Manetti nella biografia del papa’, in Dignitas et excellentia hominis. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi su Giannozzo Manetti (Georgetown University, Kent State University: Fiesole-Firenze, 18‒20 giugno 2007), edited by Stefano U. Baldassarri (Florence: Le lettere, 2008), pp. 231‒59. Modigliani, Anna, ‘Il testamento di Niccolò V e la gestazione della biografia manettiana’, Roma nel Rinascimento (2009), pp. 17‒22. Modigliani, Anna, Congiurare all’antica. Stefano Porcari, Niccolò V, Roma 1453 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2013).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



273

Modigliani, Anna, ‘Per la datazione del De re aedificatoria: il codice e gli archetipi dell’Alberti’, Albertiana 16 (2013), pp. 91‒110. Monfasani, John, George of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: Brill, 1976). Monfasani, John, Collectanea trapezuntiana. Texts, Documents and Bibliographies of George of Trebizond (Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies in conjunction with the Renaissance Society of America, 1984). Monti Sabia, Liliana, Pontano e la storia. Dal ‘De bello Neapolitano’ all’‘Actius’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 1995). Monti Sabia, Liliana and Monti, Salvatore, Studi su Giovanni Pontano, 2 vols., edited by Giuseppe Germano (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2010). Najemy, John M., ‘Machiavelli and the Medici: The Lessons of Florentine History’, Renaissance Quarterly 35, 4 (1982), pp. 551‒76. Najemy, John M., ‘The Republic’s Two Bodies: Body Metaphors in Italian Renaissance Political Thought’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, edited by Alison Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 237‒62. Najemy, John M., ‘ “Civic Humanism” and Florentine politics’, in Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections, edited by James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 75‒104. Najemy, John M., ‘ “Occupare la tirannide”: Machiavelli, the militia and Guicciardini’s accusation of tyranny’, in Della tirannia: Machiavelli con Bartolo. Atti della giornata di studi (Firenze, 19 ottobre 2002), edited by Jérémie Barthas (Florence: Olschki, 2007), pp. 75‒108. Nesi, Emilia, Il Diario della Stamperia di Ripoli (Florence: B. Seeber, 1903). Nunziante, Emilio, ‘I primi anni di Ferdinando d’Aragona e l’invasione di Giovanni d’Angiò’, Archivio storico per le province napoletane 17 (1892)—23 (1898). Oliva, Anna Maria, ‘Orazio Romano’, Roma nel Rinascimento (1994), pp. 23‒9. Orvieto, Paolo, ‘Nicola Capponi detto Cola Montano’, Dizionario biografico 19 (1976), pp. 83‒6. Osmond, Patricia J., ‘ “Princeps Historiae Romanae”: Sallust in Renaissance Political Thought’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 40 (1995), pp. 101‒43. Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Fiesole and Florence: The After-Life of a Roman Conspirator’, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 7, 1 (2000), pp. 3‒38. Osmond, Patricia J., ‘The Conspiracy of 1522 against Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici: Machiavelli and “gli esempli delli antiqui” ’, in The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture, edited by Kenneth Gouwens and Sheryl E. Reiss (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 55‒72. Osmond, Patricia J., ‘Catiline in Renaissance Conspiracy Histories: Hero or Villain? The case of Stefano Porcari’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 203‒16. Pade, Marianne, The Reception of Plutarch’s ‘Lives’ in Fifteenth-century Italy, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007). Pade, Marianne, ‘Il Tucidide romano del Valla: la traduzione valliana nel quadro della traduzione umanistica del Quattrocento’, in Le radici umanistiche dell’Europa. Lorenzo Valla. La riforma della lingua e della logica. Atti del convegno del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Lorenzo Valla (Prato, 4‒7 giugno 2008), edited by Mariangela Regoliosi (Florence: Polistampa 2010), pp. 279‒98.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

274



Pagan, Victoria Emma, Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004). Pagan, Victoria Emma, Conspiracy Theory in Latin Literature (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004). Panou, Nikos and Schadee, Hester, eds., Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Paoli, Michel, ‘Battista e i suoi nipoti: il “conservatorismo” albertiano nel De iciarchia e le ultime opere’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore: filologia, esegesi, tradizione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI Centenario della Nascita di Leon Battista Alberti, Arezzo, 24–26 giugno 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 523‒40. Parroni, Piergiorgio, ‘Il codice Oliveriano 23 di Marziale e il suo copista Battista Lunense’, Studia Oliveriana 11 (1963), pp. 15‒22. Parroni, Piergiorgio, ‘Altri contributi alla conoscenza di Battista Lunense’, Studia Oliveriana, 13‒14 (1965‒1966), pp. 151‒70. Pastore Stocchi, Manlio, Pagine di storia dell’Umanesimo italiano (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2014). Pedullà, Gabriele, Machiavelli in tumulto: conquista, cittadinanza e conflitto nei ‘Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio’ (Rome: Bulzoni, 2011). Pedullà, Gabriele, ‘Machiavelli’s Prince and the Concept of Tyranny’, in Panou and Schadee, eds., Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 192–210. Pennington, Kenneth, The Prince and the Law, 1200‒1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 1993). Percopo, Erasmo, Vita di Giovanni Pontano, edited by Michele Manfredi (Naples: ITEA, 1938). Perosa, Alessandro, ed., Mostra del Poliziano nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana: manoscritti, libri rari, autografi e documenti, Florence, 23 September‒30 November 1954, Biblioteca medicea laurenziana, Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento (Florence: Sansoni, 1955). Pertusi, Agostino, La caduta di Costantinopoli, vol. 1, Le testimonianze dei contemporanei, vol. 2, L’eco del mondo (Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1976). Petti Balbi, Giovanna, ‘L’ambiente culturale a Sarzana’, in Bonatti and Manfredi, eds., Niccolò V nel sesto centenario della nascita. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Sarzana, 8‒10 ottobre 1998 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2000), pp. 473‒92. Plebani, Eleonora, ‘Una fuga programmata. Eugenio IV e Firenze (1433‒1434)’, Archivio storico italiano 170 (2012), pp. 285‒310. Plebani, Eleonora, ‘La “fuga” da Roma di Eugenio IV e la Repubblica Romana del 1434: questioni economiche, conflitti politici e crisi conciliare’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 89‒108. Piccolomini, Manfredi, The Brutus Revival: Parricide and Tyrannicide During the Renaissance (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991). Picotti, Giovanni Battista, Tra il poeta e il lauro. Pagina della vita di Agnolo Poliziano, in Picotti, Giovanni Battista, Ricerche umanistiche (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1955), pp. 73‒82.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



275

Pieraccioni, Gaia, ‘Note su Machiavelli storico. I. Machiavelli e Giovanni di Carlo’, Archivio Storico Italiano 146, 4 (1988), pp. 635‒64. Pieraccioni, Gaia, ‘Note su Machiavelli storico. II. Machiavelli lettore delle Storie fiorentine di Guicciardini’, Archivio Storico Italiano 147 (1989), pp. 63‒98. Ponte, Giovanni, Leon Battista Alberti umanista e scrittore (Genova: Tilgher, 1981). Pontieri, Ernesto, Per la storia del regno di Ferrante I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1968). Prodi, Paolo, Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1982). Quaglioni, Diego, Politica e diritto nel Trecento italiano. Il ‘De tyranno’ di Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1314–1357) (Florence: Olschki, 1983). Quaglioni, Diego, ‘I limiti del principe legibus solutus nel pensiero giuridico-politico della prima Età moderna’, in Giustizia, potere e corpo sociale nella prima età moderna: argomenti nella letteratura giuridico-politica, edited by Angela De Benedictis and Ivo Mattozzi (Bologna: CLUEB, 1994), pp. 55‒71. Quaglioni, Diego, ‘La congiura dei canonisti. Coniuratio e conspiratio nel commento al Decretum di Juan de Torquemada (1457)’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 21‒38. Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli. I. Il Vaticano latino 3908’, Italia Medievale e umanistica 9 (1966), pp. 123‒89. Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli. II. La vita di Giovanni Tortelli’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 12 (1969), pp. 129‒96. Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Riflessioni umanistiche sullo “scrivere storia” ’, Rinascimento 31 (1991), pp. 3‒37. Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Lorenzo Valla e la concezione della storia’, in Di Stefano, ed., La storiografia umanistica. Convegno internazionale di studi (Messina 22‒25 ottobre 1987), vol. 1 (Messina: Sicania, 1992), pp. 549‒71. Regoliosi, Mariangela, ‘Per un catalogo degli auctores latini dell’Alberti’, in Cardini, Bertolini, and Regoliosi, eds., Leon Battista Alberti: La biblioteca di un umanista (Florence: Mandragora, 2005), pp. 105‒13. Resta, Gianvito, Le epitomi di Plutarco nel Quattrocento (Padova: Antenore, 1962). Resta, Gianvito, ‘Francesco Filelfo tra Bisanzio e Roma’, in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte. Atti del XVII Convegno di studi maceratesi (Tolentino, 27‒30 settembre 1981) (Padova: Antenore, 1986), pp. 1‒60. Reynolds, Leighton Durham and Wilson, Nigel Guy, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Reynolds, Leighton Durham, Marshall, Peter K., and Mynors, Roger Aubrey Baskerville, Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). Rhodes, Dennis E., Gli annali tipografici fiorentini del XV secolo (Florence: Olschki, 1988). Richardson, Brian, ‘Pontano’s De prudentia and Machiavelli’s Discorsi’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 33, 2 (1971), pp. 353‒7. Richardson, Brian, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Richardson, Brian, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

276



Ridley, Ronald T., ‘Machiavelli and the Roman History in the “Discourses” ’, Quaderni di Storia 18 (1983), pp. 197‒219. Ridolfi, Roberto, La stampa in Firenze nel secolo XV (Florence: Olschki, 1958). Rinaldi, Michele, ‘Per un nuovo inventario della biblioteca di Giovanni Pontano’, Studi medievali e umanistici 5‒6 (2007‒2008), pp. 163‒97. Rinaldi, Rinaldo, ‘ “Larvatus prodeo”: vecchie e nuove ipotesi su Alberti e Valla’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds., Alberti e la cultura del Quattrocento. Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti. Florence, 16–17–18 dicembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 541‒602. Ristori, Renzo, ‘Benedetto Colucci da Pistoia’, Dizionario biografico 27 (1982), pp. 494‒8. Roick, Matthias, Pontano’s Virtues. Aristotelian Moral and Political Thought in the Renaissance (London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017). Roisman, Joseph, The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens (Berkeley/London: University of California Press, 2006). Rossi, Giovanni, ‘Alberti e la scienza giuridica quattrocentesca: il ripudio di un paradigma culturale’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds. Alberti e la cultura del Quattrocento. Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato Nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti. Florence, 16–17–18 dicembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 59‒121. Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘Poliziano e la questione delle origini di Firenze’, in Il Poliziano e il suo tempo. Atti del IV Convegno internazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, Firenze, Palazzo Strozzi, 23‒26 settembre 1954 (Florence: Sansoni, 1957), pp. 101‒10. Rubinstein, Nicolai, The Government of Florence under the Medici (1434 to1494) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966; second ed. 1997). Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘Italian Political Thought, 1450–1539’, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, edited by James Henderson Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 30–65. Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘Il discorso di Lorenzo de’ Medici dopo la congiura dei Pazzi: versioni fittizie e il verbale della Cancelleria fiorentina’, in Bausi and Fera, eds., Laurentia laurus. Per Mario Martelli (Messina: Centro interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 2004), pp. 3‒10. Rubinstein, Nicolai, ‘The De optimo cive and the De principe by Bartolomeo Platina’, in Rubinstein, Nicolai, Studies in Italian History in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, vol. 1, edited by Giovanni Ciappelli (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2004), pp. 259‒72. Ruggiero, Raffaele, ‘Machiavelli lettore di Erodiano’, Cahiers de Recherches Médiévales et Humanistes 25 (2013), pp. 357‒63. Ryder, Alan, ‘Antonio Beccadelli: A Humanist in Government’, in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller, edited by Cecil H. Clough (Manchester: Manchester University Press; New York: A.F. Zambelli, 1976), pp. 123‒40. Ryder, Alan, ‘Ferdinando I d’Aragona’, Dizionario biografico 46 (1996), pp. 174‒89. Santoro, Mario, ‘La cultura umanistica’, in Storia di Napoli, vol. 4, t. 2, directed by Ernesto Pontieri (Naples: Società Editrice Storia di Napoli, 1974), pp. 317‒446. Sapegno, Maria Serena, ‘Il trattato politico e utopico’, in Letteratura Italiana, directed by Asor Rosa, vol. 3, t. 2 (Turin: Einaudi, 1984), pp. 949‒1010. Sardina, Patrizia, ‘Marino Marzano’, Dizionario biografico 71 (2008), pp. 446‒50. Sasso, Gennaro, ‘Principato civile e tirannide’, in Sasso, Gennaro, Machiavelli e gli antichi e altri saggi, vol. 2 (Milan-Napoli: Ricciardi, 1987), pp. 351‒483. Sasso, Gennaro, Niccolò Machiavelli. II, La storiografia (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



277

Sasso, Gennaro, ‘Sul ventiseiesimo del Principe. L’uso del Petrarca’, La cultura 33 (1995), pp. 183‒215. Sberlati, Francesco, ‘Rerum rusticarum scriptores in Alberti’, in Cardini and Regoliosi, eds. Alberti e la tradizione: per lo ’smontaggio’ dei ‘mosaici’ albertiani: Atti del Convegno internazionale del Comitato nazionale VI centenario della nascita di Leon Battista Alberti: Arezzo, 23‒24‒25 settembre 2004 (Florence: Polistampa, 2007), pp. 153‒75. Sbriccoli, Mario, Crimen laesae maiestatis. Il problema del reato politico alle soglie della scienza moderna (Milan: Giuffre, 1974). Scarton, Elisabetta, ‘La congiura dei baroni del 1485‒87 e la sorte dei ribelli’, in Poteri, relazioni, guerra nel Regno di Ferrante d’Aragona, edited by Francesco Senatore and Francesco Storti (Naples: ClioPress, 2011), pp. 213‒90. Schadee, Hester, ‘ “I Don’t Know Who You Call Tyrants”. Debating Evil Lords in Quattrocento Humanism’, in Panou and Schadee, eds., Evil Lords: Theories and Representations of Tyranny from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 172‒90. Schellhase, Kenneth C., Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1976). Senatore, Francesco, ‘Il principato di Salerno durante la Guerra dei baroni (1460‒1463). Dai carteggi diplomatici al De bello Neapolitano’, Rassegna storica salernitana 11, 2 (1994), pp. 29‒114. Senatore, Francesco, ‘Pontano storico’, Studi storici 39, 1 (1998), pp. 291‒6. Senatore, Francesco, ‘Pontano e la guerra di Napoli’, in Condottieri e uomini d’arme nell’Italia del Rinascimento, edited by Mario Del Treppo (Naples: GISEM-Liguori, 2001), pp. 279‒309. Senatore, Francesco, ‘Nella corte e nella vita di Orso Orsini conte di Nola e duca d’Ascoli’, in Ingenita curiositas: Studi sull’Italia medievale per Giovanni Vitolo, vol. 3, edited by Bruno Figliuolo, Rosalba Di Meglio, and Antonella Ambrosio (Battipaglia: Laveglia e Carlone, 2018), pp. 1459‒84. Senatore, Francesco and Storti, Francesco, Spazi e tempi della guerra nel Mezzogiorno aragonese. L’itinerario militare di re Ferrante, 1458‒1465 (Salerno: CAR, 2002). Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Skinner, Quentin, ‘The Vocabulary of Renaissance Republicanism: A Cultural longue durée?’, in Language and Images of Renaissance Italy, edited by Alison Brown (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 87‒110. Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 2, Renaissance Virtues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Simonetta, Marcello, L’enigma Montefeltro (Milan: BUR, 2008). Spagnesi, Enrico, ‘In difesa del Magnifico. A proposito di alcuni Consilia legali al tempo della Congiura dei Pazzi’, in La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: politica, economia, cultura, arte. Convegno di studi promosso dalle Università di Firenze, Pisa e Siena (5‒8 novembre 1992), vol. 3 (Pisa: Pacini, 1996), pp. 1235‒53. Squitieri, Marialuisa, ‘La battaglia di Sarno. 7 luglio 1460’, in Poteri, relazioni, guerra nel Regno di Ferrante d’Aragona, edited by Francesco Senatore and Francesco Storti (Naples: ClioPress, 2011), pp. 15‒40. Stacey, Peter, ‘Senecan Political Thought from the Middle Ages to Early Modernity’, in The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, edited by Shadi Bartsch and Alessandro Schiesaro (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 289‒302.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

278



Stacey, Peter, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Storti, Francesco, El buen marinero: psicologia politica e ideologia monarchica al tempo di Ferdinando I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Rome: Viella, 2014). Tafuri, Manfredo, ‘ “Cives non esse licere”: Niccolò V e Leon Battista Alberti’, in Tafuri, Manfredo, Ricerca del Rinascimento. Principi, città, architetti (Turin: Einaudi, 1992), pp. 33‒88. Tateo, Francesco, Umanesimo etico di Giovanni Pontano (Lecce: Milella, 1972). Tateo, Francesco, I miti della storiografia umanistica (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990). Tateo, Francesco, ‘Poliziano e la storiografia umanistica’, in Fera and Martelli, eds., Agnolo Poliziano poeta, scrittore, filologo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi. Montepulciano, 3‒6 novembre 1994 (Florence: Le Lettere, 1998), pp. 195‒205. Tateo, Francesco, ‘Le forme dell’argomentazione nella tarda trattatistica albertiana’, in Furlan, ed., vol. 1, Leon Battista Alberti: Actes du Congrès international de Paris (Sorbonne, Institut de France, Institut culturel italien, Collège de France, 10‒15 avril 1995), organisé sous la direction de Francesco Furlan, Pierre Laurens, Sylvain Matton (Turin: Aragno; Paris: Vrin, 2000), pp. 391‒403. Toscano, Gennaro, ‘La bottega di Cola e Nardo Rapicano’, in La biblioteca reale di Napoli al tempo della dinastia aragonese, edited by Gennaro Toscano (Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana, 1998), pp. 393‒415. Toscano, Gennaro, ‘A la gloire de Ferdinand d’Aragon, roi de Naples, le De majestate de Iuniano Maio enluminé par Nardo Rapicano’, in L’illustration. Essais d’iconographie, Études réunies par Maria Teresa Caracciolo et Ségolène Le Men. Actes du Séminaire CNRS, Parigi, 1993‒1994 (Parigi: Klincksieck, 1999), pp. 125‒39. Trevor, Dean, ‘Ercole d’Este’, Dizionario biografico 43 (1993), pp. 97‒107. Turchetti, Mario, Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2006). Vaglienti, Francesca M., ‘Anatomia di una congiura. Sulle tracce dell’assassinio del duca Galeazzo Maria Sforza tra scienza e storia’, Atti dell’Istituto lombardo. Accademia di scienze e lettere di Milano 136, 2 (2002), pp. 237‒73. Vaglienti, Francesca M., ‘Giovanni Andrea Lampugnani’, Dizionario biografico 63 (2004), pp. 272‒5. Vasoli, Cesare, ‘Machiavelli e la filosofia degli antichi’, in Cultura e scrittura di Machiavelli. Atti del Convegno di Firenze-Pisa, 27‒30 ottobre 1997 (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1998), pp. 37‒62. Vecchia, Damiana and Bianca, Concetta, ‘Riflessioni sulla “congiura” degli Accademici’, in Chiabò et al., eds., Congiure e conflitti. L’affermazione della signoria pontificia su Roma nel Rinascimento: politica, economia e cultura. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 3‒5 dicembre 2013 (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 2014), pp. 187‒202. Vecchi, Eliana M., ed., Papato, Stati regionali e Lunigiana nell’età di Niccolò V (Atti delle giornate di studio, La Spezia-Sarzana-Pontremoli-Bagnone, 25‒28 maggio 2000) (La Spezia: Accademia lunigianese di scienze, 2004). Verde, Armando, Lo Studio fiorentino, 1473‒1503: ricerche e documenti, 4 vols. (Florence: Olschki, 1973‒2010). Villard, Renaud, Du bien commun au mal nécessaire: tyrannies, assassinats politiques et souveraineté en Italie, vers 1470-vers 1600 (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2008). Viroli, Maurizio, Dalla politica alla ragion di Stato: la scienza del governo tra XIII e XVII secolo (Rome: Donzelli, 1994). Viroli, Maurizio, Il sorriso di Niccolò. Storia di Machiavelli (Rome/Bari: Laterza, 1998).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi



279

Vitale, Giuliana, ‘Sul segretario regio al servizio degli Aragonesi di Napoli’, Studi storici 49, 2 (2008), pp. 293‒321. Vitale, Giuliana, ‘Rituali di sottomissione nel Mezzogiorno aragonese: l’omaggio ligio di Orso Orsini’, Rassegna storica salernitana 53 (2010), pp. 11‒22. Walbank, Frank William, Speeches in Greek Historians (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966). Westfall, Carrol William, In this Most Perfect Paradise: Alberti, Nicholas V, and the Invention of Conscious Urban Planning in Rome, 1447‒55 (University Park/London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1974). Witt, Ronald G., ‘Coluccio Salutati and the Origin of Florence’, Il pensiero politico 2 (1969), pp. 161‒72. Witt, Ronald G., ‘The De tyranno and Coluccio Salutati’s View of Politics and Roman History’, Nuova rivista storica 53 (1969), pp. 434‒74. Witt, Ronald G., ‘Medieval “Ars Dictaminis” and the Beginnings of Humanism: A New Construction of the Problem’, Renaissance Quarterly 35, 1 (1982), pp. 1‒35. Witt, Ronald G., ‘In the Footsteps of the Ancients’: The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Zabughin, Vladimiro, Vergilio nel Rinascimento italiano. Da Dante a Torquato Tasso: fortuna, studi, imitazioni, traduzioni e parodie, iconografia, vol. 1, Il Trecento ed il Quattrocento (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1921).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 28/10/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

Index Note: Figures are indicated by an italic ‘f ’, respectively, following the page number. (‘conspiracy’, ‘historiography’, ‘prince’, and ‘state’ have not been included in the index) For the benefit of digital users, table entries that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Abbamonte, Giancarlo 41n.31, 42n.34, 130n.45 Acciaiuoli, Agnolo 24–5 Acquaviva, Giosia 132, 138 Aeneas 198–9 Agathocles 233–4 Alamanni, Luigi 217 Albanese, Gabriella 8n.14, 11n.23, 16n.41, 17n.43, 21n.56, 42n.35, 119nn.19, 21, 144n.74 Alberti, Leon Battista 4, 21, 63, 72–112, 120–1, 124, 126, 133–4, 191, 199–203, 205, 216n.14, 229–31 Porcaria coniuratio 4, 28, 51, 61, 72–112, 124, 191–3, 197, 199–203, 205, 216n.14, 229, 231 De iciarchia 74–5, 110–11 De re aedificatoria 75–6, 109–11 Della famiglia 82, 98–9, 103–4 Intercenales 102–7 Momus 75–6, 105–6, 109–11 Theogenius 105–6 Trivia senatoria 103 Vita Sancti Potiti 83–5, 87–8 Alberti, Giovan Battista 91n.55 Alagni, Lucrezia d’ 118 Albino, Giovanni 17n.43 Alessio, Gian Carlo 37n.20, 79n.21 Alexander the Great 66n.81 Alighieri, Dante 47–8, 50–1, 50nn.50,51, 220 Altamura 118 ambition 91–3, 105–7, 124, 167, 177, 194–6, 202, 237–40 Ambrosio, Antonella 140n.67 Andenna, Giancarlo 206n.23 Anjou, John of 113–14, 117–18, 129, 133, 140 Anjou, René of 113–14, 117 Anselmi, Gian Mario 201n.18, 215nn.11,12, 238n.61 Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor 87 Apulia 117–18 Aragon, Alfonso of 7n.13, 21n.56, 30–1, 42–3, 113–14, 117–19, 126–7, 132, 143–4 Aragon, Eleonora of 117–18, 135–6

Aragon, family 5–7, 12–13, 113–15, 117–21, 127–9, 135–6, 140–5, 147–9, 152–5, 201–2, 204 Aragon, Federico of 164n.23 Aragon, Ferdinando of 4, 7n.13, 13–14, 21–2, 21n.56, 43, 113–18, 121–2, 128–9, 131–6, 139–55, 150f, 151f, 152f, 157–8, 162–3, 181–2, 184–6 Arrighi, Vanna 165n.27 Argyropoulos, Johannes 8–9 Ariosto, Ludovico 22–3 Aristotle 8–9, 92–3, 194–6, 224–5, 228n.41, 236–7 Arno, river 177–8, 241–2 Artemon 80n.25 Augustus, Roman emperor 18n.46, 59n.71, 169 Avesani, Rino 30n.7, 31n.9, 59n.70 Bacchelli, Riccardo 22n.62, 23n.63 Badian, Ernst 86n.38 Bagemihl, Rolf 220n.25 Baker, Patrick 11n.23, 17n.44, 194n.8 Baldassarri, Stefano 19n.48, 67n.86, 220n.25 Bandini, Bernardo 152f, 174n.50 Banfield, Laura F. 201n.18 Barbaro, Francesco 144–5 Barchiesi, Alessandro 46n.39 Baron, Hans 5–7, 6n.8 Barrese, Maso 121–2, 127–8, 145n.76 Barreto, Joana 13n.28, 130n.45, 147n.81, 149n.88 Basini, Basinio 30n.6 Bausi, Francesco 161n.14, 219n.22 Beccadelli, Antonio (see Panormita, Antonio) Bertelli, Sergio 230n.46 Berti, Ernesto 87n.42 Barthas, Jérémie 220n.24 Becchi, Gentile 25–6, 157–9, 161–2, 165n.27 Belloni, Antonio 41n.32 Belotti, Bortolo 26n.75 Benner, Erica 212n.1, 244n.70 Bentley, Jerry H. 113n.1, 119n.19, 146n.79 Bercé, Yves-Marie 14n.33, 210n.32

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

282



Berté, Monica 168n.38 Bertoldo di Giovanni 180 Bertolini, Lucia 82n.30, 83n.33, 88n.46, 91n.57 Besomi, Ottavio 17n.43, 90n.53, 91n.54, 119n.18 Bessarione, cardinal 38–40 Bianca, Concetta 24n.67, 161n.14 Bigi, Emilio 59n.69 Billanovich, Giuseppe 16n.41 Biondo Flavio 74–5 Bizzocchi, Roberto 182n.67 Black, Robert 6n.7, 16n.41, 87n.43, 104, 171n.43, 215n.12, 220n.24 body politics 130–1, 134, 137, 155–6, 195–6, 206, 209–10, 235, 249 Bologna 38–40, 51–2, 77, 244–5 Bonadeo, Alfredo 225n.36, 230n.48, 231n.49 Bonatti, Franco 33n.13, 38n.25 Boniface IX, pope 112 Borgia, Cesare 213–14 Borgo San Lorenzo 74–5 Borrelli, Gianfranco 210n.32 Borsi, Stefano 73n.4, 75nn.12–13, 81n.26, 88n.45, 96n.71, 103n.85, 107n.98 Boschetto, Luca 74n.6, 105–6, 111n.107 Boscoli, Pietro Paolo 217 Bracciolini, Iacopo di Poggio 237n.60 Bracciolini, Poggio 5–7, 7n.13, 19, 31–3, 58–9, 63–4, 225 Brancato, Giovanni 153n.92 Briguglia, Gianluca 134n.53 Brivio, Giuseppe 21, 66–8 Brown, Alison 2n.1, 134n.53, 157–8, 192n.3 Brown, Virginia 7n.13, 16n.41, 75n.12 Bruni, Leonardo 8–9, 17–19, 19n.49, 31–3, 100–1, 225, 236–7 Brutus, Lucius Junius 56 Brutus, Marcus Junius 27–8, 44, 55–6, 172, 220 Buonaccorsi, Filippo (Callimaco) 23–4 Buonaccorso da Montemagno 39n.26 Buondelmonti, Zanobi 217 Bullard, Melissa Miriam 171n.44, 180n.62 Bulle, Johannes 184, 186, 187f, 188f Burrough, Charles 58n.66, 73n.3, 74nn.7,8 Burrow, Colin 219n.22 Butler, Shane 18n.46 Caesar 6n.9, 16–19, 27–8, 53–4, 63–5, 167–74, 194, 220, 231 Cafaggiolo 159–60 Caligula, Roman emperor 168–9, 173n.45 Campi, Alessandro 212n.1, 213nn.3,5, 214nn.7,8, 215n.10, 217nn.17,18, 218nn.19,20, 220n.24, 225n.35, 237n.58, 240n.63

Canfora, Davide 6n.9, 11n.23, 19n.49, 64nn.76,78, 105n.94 Cannata, Nadia 24n.70, 158n.5 Cantarella, Glauco Maria 3n.4 Caporali, Riccardo 238n.61 Cappelli, Antonio 25n.71 Cappelli, Guido 6nn.7,8, 7nn.12,13, 8n.17, 9n.21, 11nn.23,24, 13n.28, 14nn.31–32, 64n.76, 68n.92, 115n.9, 130n.45, 131n.46, 133n.50, 134, 139n.65, 142n.69, 144n.72, 147n.81, 153n.92, 155n.97, 193n.5, 197n.14, 206n.24, 208nn.27–28, 223n.29 Capponi, Agostino 217 Capponi, Nicola (Cola Montano) 27–8, 221–2, 244–5 Capua 229–30 Caracciolo Aricò, Angela Maria 13n.28 Carafa, Diomede 11–12 Cardini, Roberto 76n.14, 82n.30, 83n.34, 88n.47, 91n.56, 100n.78 Careggi 159–60 Carew Rolfe, John 18n.47, 52n.55 Carlino, Gueraldona 132n.48 Carlo di San Giorgio (Polismagna) 24–5 Carini, Isidoro 24n.69 Carpi 24–5 Carthage 59–60 Carrara, Francesco da 78–9 Caruso, Carlo 165n.28 Cassani, Alberto Giorgio 73–4, 75nn.9,11,13, 95n.69, 110n.105 Cassius 27–8, 172, 220 Castel Sant’Angelo 37–40, 58 Castracani, Castruccio 213–14 Catanorchi, Olivia 105n.94 Catiline 5, 19–20, 27–8, 51–5, 64–5, 72–3, 81–2, 85–7, 91–7, 122–4, 128, 133, 167–8, 190–3, 195–6, 201–4, 212–13, 222n.27 Cato, Marcus Porcius 44, 54–5, 63–4, 66, 100n.78 Cavallo, Guglielmo 20n.54 Cavarzere, Alberto 78n.18, 80n.25 Celati, Marta 13n.28, 41n.31, 147n.81, 149n.88, 160n.10, 161nn.13–14, 165n.30, 176n.59, 184n.70, 185n.73, 219n.22, 235n.51, 237n.59, 240n.63, 241n.64 Celsus, Aulus Cornelius 174–5 Centelles, Antonio 132, 138 Cesarini Martinelli, Lucia 80n.25, 169n.39 Cessi, Roberto 23n.63 Charles VIII, king of France 115, 148 Chemello, Adriana 78n.18 Cherubini, Paolo 59n.70

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

 Chiabò, Miriam 2n.1, 23n.64, 24n.67, 38n.24, 81n.26 Chiappelli, Alberto 159n.7, 162n.17 Chiappini, Luciano 25n.72 Chiavoni, Luca 77n.17 Chines, Loredana 46n.40 Chittolini, Giorgio 134n.52, 206nn.23–24 Ciampi, Ignazio 35n.18 Ciappelli, Giovanni 11n.23 Cicero 5, 8–9, 51n.54, 59–60, 68, 85n.36, 87–9, 91, 95–101, 120n.22, 122, 138n.64, 168n.36, 192–6 Claudian 46–7, 51–2, 56–7, 69–70, 192 clemency 39n.27, 51, 68–9, 77, 108–11, 146, 155, 194–5, 208–9, 234–5 Clough, Cecil H 119n.19 Cochrane, Eric 16n.41 Cole, Thomas 86n.38 Coleman, Janet 12n.25, 14n.33 Colonna, family 38 Colonna, Prospero 74–5 Colucci, Benedetto (da Pistoia) 24–5 Coluccia, Giuseppe L. 38n.25 Columella 99–100 common people 68, 93–4, 104, 111–12, 126–7, 131, 139, 154–6, 159–60, 172, 174n.49, 179–80, 182–3, 201, 205–6, 224–5, 228, 230–9, 241–2, 247 concordia 5, 19, 61, 104, 178, 194–5, 202–3, 205, 243 consensus 7–8, 13–14, 134, 203–4, 207, 226–8, 231–5, 239–40 Conway, Melissa 159n.9 Conte, Gian Biagio 46n.39 Corella, Gregorio 117–18 Corfiati, Claudia 43n.37 Cornazzano, Antonio 26–7 Corio, Bernardino 26–7 Cotroneo, Girolamo 116n.11, 119n.19 Cranz, Ferdinand Edward 7n.13 Crevatin, Giuliana 76n.14 crime 5, 39–40, 48, 50–1, 67–8, 85–6, 92–3, 126–7, 132–9, 149–51, 178, 180–3, 195–6, 201–3, 207–8, 220–4 Crinito, Pietro 165, 168–9 Cyrus of Persia 7n.13 Daniels, Tobias 158nn.3–5, 159n.8, 162n.17, 165n.27 Dati, Leonardo 80–1 D’Elia, Anthony F. 15n.35, 24n.67, 38n.24, 39n.26, 40n.30, 49–50, 51n.53, 54n.59, 60n.72, 62n.74 De Angelis, Laura 162n.18

283

De Benedictis, Angela 134n.54, 182n.67, 223n.30, 223n.31 De Frede, Carlo 162n.18 De Keyser, Jeroen 17n.44, 42n.35 Della Valle, Lelio 77 Delle Donne, Fulvio 119n.19, 144n.71, 208n.27 Del Treppo, Mario 114n.3 De Marinis, Tammaro 31n.10, 149nn.87–88 De Mattei, Rodolfo 246n.75 Di Meglio, Rosalba 140n.67 De Nichilo, Mauro 25n.71, 64n.76 De Robertis, Domenico 164n.23 Di Stefano, Anita 91n.54, 119n.21 Dionisotti, Carlo 23n.63, 215nn.11–12, 219, 237n.59 Distaso, Grazia 25n.71, 64n.76 discordia 17–19, 102–3, 118, 129, 132, 192, 204–5, 212–15, 221, 225, 241–3 Domitian, Roman emperor 168–9 Donati, Gemma 47n.43 D’Orville, Jacques Philippe 163–4 Duff, James D. 48n.46 D’Urso, Teresa 130n.45 Dursteler, Eric 146n.79 Ebbersmeyer, Sabrina 193n.6 Engel, Anne 73n.3 Este, Alfonso d’ 22–3 Este, Borso d’ 24–5 Este, Ercole d’ 117 Este, Ferrante d’ 22–3 Este, Giulio d’ 22–3 Este, Ippolito d’ 22–3 Este, Niccolo’ d’ 26–7 Eugene IV, pope 31–3, 38–9, 65, 74–5, 77, 81 Everson, Jane E. 41n.32, 46n.40 Facio, Bartolomeo 8n.14, 16n.41, 17n.43, 20–1, 90n.53, 119–21, 120n.24, 144–5, 194–5 Fabbri, Renata 30n.6 Farenga, Paola 23n.63 Fasano Guarini, Elena 13n.29, 14n.33, 210n.32, 212n.1, 213nn.3,5, 214n.7, 216nn.13,16, 218n.20, 220n.24, 221n.26, 224nn.33–34, 225n.36, 228n.40, 244nn.70–71, 245n.72, 247nn.76–77 Fatini, Giuseppe 22n.62 Fahy, Conor 160n.10 Fedeli, Paolo 59n.71 Fera, Vincenzo 31n.10, 47n.43, 161n.14, 167n.34, 169n.39, 173nn.45–46, 219n.22 Ferlisi, Gianfranco 77n.17 Ferrante (see Ferdinando of Aragon)

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

284



Ferrara 22–7, 74–6, 135–6 Ferraù, Giacomo 11n.23, 20n.54, 31n.12, 47n.43, 91n.54, 114n.3, 116n.11, 119nn.19–21, 120n.24, 121n.27, 130n.45, 131n.46, 145, 147–8, 148n.84, 153n.93 Festa, Nicola 47n.43 Fiesole 159–60 Figliuolo, Bruno 113n.1, 135n.57, 140n.67 Filelfo, Francesco 8n.14, 17, 26–7, 42–4, 75n.12 Filelfo, Gian Mario 26–7 Finzi, Claudio 130n.45, 131n.47, 135n.55, 148n.83, 153n.91 Fivizzano 31–3 Flamini, Francesco 159n.9, 182n.65 Florence 5–7, 17–20, 24–6, 37–9, 63–4, 74–7, 88–9, 95, 151–2, 157–64, 167–71, 177–84, 186–9, 194, 200–1, 204, 213–14, 218n.21, 224, 231–2, 240–2 Fo, Alessandro 70n.94 Fonzio, Bartolomeo 25–6, 159–60 Ford, Franklin Lewis 14n.33 fortitude 152–3, 194–5 Fosciano, Giovanni 132 Fosforo, Lucio 23–4 Fournel, Jean-Louis 220n.24 Fracassetti, Giuseppe 79n.23 Fubini, Riccardo 3–4, 15n.35, 20n.54, 26n.75, 73n.4, 75n.12, 79n.24, 101n.80, 105n.94, 158n.5, 162n.16, 182n.64 Fumaroli, Marc 79n.21 Furlan, Francesco 73n.4, 101n.79, 102n.83 Gaeta, Franco 11n.23, 147n.81 Galasso, Giuseppe 11n.23, 117n.13 Galli, Carlo 238n.61 Gamberini, Andrea 26n.74, 134n.52, 206n.24 Gardenal, Gianna 169n.39 Gardini, Nicola 168n.37, 184n.69 Gargano, Maurizio 2n.1, 38n.24, 81n.26 Genoa 76 Gentile, Sebastiano 38n.25 Geri, Lorenzo 8n.14, 134n.53, 189n.76 Germano, Giuseppe 114n.4, 115n.7 Germany 160–1 Geuna, Marco 212n.1, 213nn.5–6, 214nn.7,9, 217nn.17–18, 220n.24, 224n.33, 225n.35, 228n.41, 236n.55, 238n.61, 239n.62, 244n.70, 245n.72 Giannarelli, Elena 83n.34 Gilbert, Felix 11n.23, 20n.54 Gill, Joseph 38n.24 Ginzburg, Carlo 146n.79, 236n.55 Gionta, Daniela 47n.43, 238n.61 Giorgini, Giovanni 220n.24

Giovan Matteo de Russis 149 Giovio, Paolo 165 Giuliari, Giovanni Battista Carlo 39n.26 Giustiniani, Bernardo 194–5 Giustiniani, Vito 21n.58, 76n.15 Godi, Pietro 21, 60, 66–7, 72–3 Gouwens, Kenneth 217n.18 Grado 74–5 Grafton, Anthony 6n.8, 16n.41, 73nn.3–4, 74n.6, 81n.26, 84n.35, 86n.39, 87n.41, 88–9, 89nn.49–50, 101n.79 Grassi, Maria Vittoria 77n.17 Grassis, Angelus de 208n.27 Grayson, Cecil 73–4, 74n.5, 77n.17, 82n.29, 84n.35, 89n.49 Griggio, Claudio 79n.21 Gualdo, Germano 35n.18 Gualdo Rosa, Lucia 8n.14, 31n.12, 33n.14, 35n.18 Guarino, Veronese 5–7, 16, 63–4, 78–9, 87–8, 194–5 Guerin, Philippe 102n.83 Guillemain, Bernard 237n.57 Guerra, Anna Morisi 27n.80 Guicciardini, Francesco 35–7 Helmrath, Johannes 11n.23, 194n.8 Hammond, Martin 83n.32 Hampton, Timothy 54n.57, 193n.4 Hankins, James 5–7, 9nn.18,19, 11n.23, 14n.32, 18n.47, 19nn.48,52, 31n.10, 61n.73, 75n.12, 105n.94, 110n.106, 111nn.107–108, 193nn.5–6 Harrison, Stephen 41n.31, 219n.22 Hay, Denys 38n.24 Henderson, Judith Rice 78n.19, 79n.22, 80n.25 Henderson Burns, James 6n.8 Herodotus 90–1 Homer 30–1 Hope, Charles 89n.50 Iacono, Antonietta 114n.4, 118n.17, 119n.19, 120n.23, 121n.26, 128n.43, 144nn.71,73, 145n.75, 149n.85, 197n.14 Ianziti, Gary 17n.42, 18n.47, 20n.54, 27n.81, 82n.27, 129n.44, 166n.31, 194n.8 image of power 61, 65–7, 92, 105–12, 207 imitation 20, 45–7, 53–4, 59, 72–3, 91–2, 97–9, 175–7, 190–1, 193, 249–50 Indeborg, Walter 121n.28 Infessura, Stefano 24n.66 Inglese, Giorgio 213n.2, 214n.7 internal political conflict (see discordia) Isabella da Chiaromonte 117, 154–5

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

 Ischia 118 Isocrates 7–8, 20–1, 194–5 Italy 1, 2n.1, 3–7, 13–14, 14n.33, 21, 23n.63, 27–8, 31–3, 35–7, 37n.21, 62, 74–5, 107, 109, 138, 160–1, 163–4, 204, 212–14, 244–5, 249 Iurilli, Antonio 25n.71, 64n.76 Janik, Linda Gardiner 90n.53 Jones, Philip 6n.7 Judas 220 justice 62, 68, 99–100, 152–3, 177–8, 194–5, 208n.27 Juvenal 97–9, 101–2 Kaeppelli, Thomas 164n.25 Kahn, Victoria 100–1, 207n.26, 233n.50 Kaiser, Ronny 11n.23, 194n.8 Kallendorf, Craig 41n.32 Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 16n.39, 134n.53 Kiesewetter, Andreas 117n.14 Kircher, Timothy 74n.5, 83n.34 Kirshner, Julius 146n.79 Knight, Sarah 75n.12 Kohl, Benjamin G. 167n.35 Kraye, Jill 6n.7, 9n.18, 89n.50 Kristeller, Paul Oscar 7n.13 Lampugnani, Giovanni Andrea 26–7, 205–6 Landi, Carlo 79n.23 Landrobe, Horacio Silvestre 29n.2 Lanfranchi, Benedetto 159 Langedijk, Karla 180n.62 La Penna, Antonio 2n.1, 15n.36, 19n.48, 210n.32 Larivaille, Paul 219n.22 Laurens, Pierre 102n.83 Law, John Easton 6n.7 Lazzarini, Isabella 134n.52, 206n.24 Lehnerdt, Maximiliam 21n.57, 29n.2, 30nn.6–7, 31nn.8,11, 33n.15, 35–7, 50n.52 Leonardi, Claudio 20n.54 Leto, Pomponio 23–4, 47 Lines, David 9n.18, 193n.6 Livy 16–17, 47, 56, 58–9, 70, 81–2, 116, 122–3, 146n.78, 147–8, 168–9, 173–4, 191, 194, 227–30, 236–7 Lodi 9–10 Lombardi, Giuseppe 29n.3 Lucan 7–8, 41–6, 48–9, 48n.46, 49, 57, 69–70, 192 Lucca 213–14 Lucian of Samosata 16, 75–6, 87–8, 173n.47, 192–3

285

Lunense, Pietro (Pietro Putomorsi) 31–5, 32f, 63 Lunense, Battista 34–5 Lunigiana 31–3 Lupis, Antonio 11n.23 Luscinus, Gaius Fabricius 56 Macleod, Matthew Donald 87n.42 Machiavelli, Niccolò 1–2, 4, 11–14, 23–4, 27–8, 35–7, 111–12, 145–6, 190, 197–8, 200–1, 204, 210–48, 250–1 Discorsi 13–14, 145–6, 213–14, 217–20, 224–32, 235–6, 238–43, 247 Il modo che tenne il Duca Valentino per ammazzar Vitellozzo, Oliverotto da Fermo, il signor Paolo e il duca di Gravina Orsini in Senigallia 214–15 Il principe 4, 12–14, 197–8, 213–15, 217–19, 226–8, 230–1, 233–5, 238–9, 244–5, 248 Istorie fiorentine 4–5, 13–14, 27–8, 200–1, 204, 213–19, 221–3, 225–6, 228, 231–2, 234–5, 237–42, 244–6 Vita di Castruccio Castracani 214–15 Maffei, Antonio 23–4 Maffei, Domenico 30n.7 Magione 213–14 Mancini, Girolamo 74n.8 Manfredi, Antonio 30n.6, 33n.13, 38n.25 Manfredi, Michele 113n.1 maiestas 102, 108–9, 146–7, 207, 220–4, 226–8, 231–2 Maïer, Ida 165n.29, 169n.40 Maio, Giuniano 11–13, 108, 146–7, 149, 207, 227–8, 243n.69 Mallet, Michael 162n.16 Malvezzi, Fosco Paracleto 21–2, 43, 95n.70 Mandragone, Pietro 132 Manetti, Giannozzo 40, 66–9 Mansfield, Harvey 201n.18, 218n.20, 244n.70, 246n.75 Mantua 74–5, 162–3 Manuzio, Aldo 165 Marchand, Jean-Jacques 238n.61, 240n.63 Marietti, Marina 219n.22 Marincola, John 86n.38, 200n.17 Marnix of Saint Aldegonde, Philippe de 35–7 Mariotti, Scevola 30n.7 Marsh, David 7n.13, 80n.25, 98n.75, 101n.80, 102n.83, 180n.61 Marshall, Peter K. 8n.16, 59n.69 Marsico, Clementina 30n.6 Marsuppini, Carlo 30n.6 Martelli, Mario 162n.19, 163n.20, 167n.34, 176n.57, 213nn.4,6, 215n.12, 237n.57, 238n.61, 247n.78

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

286



Martial 58, 99 Martines, Lauro 3–4, 15nn.34–35, 24n.70, 158n.5, 184n.71, 185n.72, 186n.74 Martucci, Giovanni 22n.60, 43nn.36–37, 95n.70 Marzano, Marino 117–18, 120, 124, 133–4, 145–6, 149–51, 201–2 Marzi, Demetrio 160n.12 Maso, Angelo di 39–40, 49 Maso, Clemente di 39–40, 49 Maso, Triburzio di Angelo di 23–4 Mattozzi, Ivo 134n.54 Matucci, Andrea 240n.63 Mastronardi, Maria Aurelia 25n.71 Mastrorosa, Ida 88n.48, 93n.62, 101n.79, 102n.83, 103nn.85–86, 105nn.92,94 Matheeussen, Constant 20n.54 Mattioli, Emilio 87n.42 Matton, Sylvain 102n.83 McCormick, John P. 233n.50 McGrath, Elizabeth 89n.50 McLaughlin, Martin 20n.53, 46n.39, 74n.5, 82n.30, 88n.47, 98n.75, 99n.76, 167n.34, 219n.22 Medici, Bianca de’ 184 Medici, Cosimo de’ 24–5, 63–4, 171 Medici, family 5–7, 6n.7, 18n.46, 24–6, 128, 157–163, 165, 167, 171–2, 177–89, 194, 200–1, 217, 231–2, 237–8, 240–2 Medici, Giuliano de’ 4, 25–6, 157, 159–60, 159n.9, 166, 169, 173–4, 177–8, 180–4, 241–2 Medici, Giulio de’ 214n.7, 217 Medici, Lorenzo de’ 4, 10–12, 24–6, 103, 151–2, 154, 157–63, 169–72, 177–89, 194, 200–1, 204–5, 213–14, 219, 223–4, 234–5, 237n.60, 241–2 Medici, Lorenzo de’, Duke of Urbino 213n.2 Medici, Piero di Lorenzo de’ 18n.46 Medici, Piero di Cosimo de’ 24–5 Medioli Masotti, Paola 24n.67 Menci Gallorini, Anna 73n.4, 79n.24 Menestò, Enrico 20n.54 Meschini, Stefano 27n.80 Meserve, Margaret 129n.44 Miglio, Massimo 20n.54, 21n.59, 29n.3, 30n.4, 33n.13, 38n.25, 39n.26, 66n.82, 67n.84, 67n.85, 67n.86, 77n.16, 77n.17, 79n.24, 95n.69, 144n.74 Miletti, Lorenzo 123n.34 Milan 5–7, 20, 24–8, 34–5, 180–2, 205, 221–3, 231–2, 240–2, 244–5 Miller, Jon 9n.18 Minuziano, Alessandro 27n.79

mirror for princes 11, 16–21, 68, 108–10, 146–7, 196–8, 204–5, 227–8 Modena 24–5 Modigliani, Anna 2n.1, 15n.37, 29n.1, 38–9, 38n.24, 40n.28, 40n.29, 40n.30, 49n.48, 51n.53, 51n.54, 55n.60, 60n.72, 65n.79, 67n.86, 68n.87, 69n.93, 73n.3, 73n.4, 75n.10, 75n.11, 81n.26, 93n.62, 94n.67, 109n.103, 110n.104, 208n.29, 216n.14, 245n.74 Molho, Anthony 134n.52, 206n.24 Molin, Biagio 74–5, 83–4 Mombrizio, Bonino 26–7 Monaco, Guglielmo 148–9, 150f, 151f monarchical power 5–8, 11–13, 61, 64–5, 68, 108, 110–11, 118–20, 124, 128–35, 138–43, 145–6, 148–51, 153–4, 171–2, 193–6, 223–4 Monfasani, John 23n.63 Montagano, Iacopuccio da 117–18 Montano, Cola (see Capponi, Nicola) Montefeltro, Federico da 114–15, 157–8, 180–2 Montesecco, Giovanni Battista 181–2, 241–2 Montevecchi, Alesssandro 201n.18 Monti Sabia, Liliana 17n.43, 114–16, 115n.8, 116n.12, 118n.16, 120n.22, 120n.24, 121n.26, 121n.29, 122n.30, 122n.31, 122n.32, 123n.33, 124, 125n.37, 127–8, 132n.48, 132n.49, 145, 153n.94, 229n.44 Morton Braund, Susanna 98n.74 Mugello 74–5 Munich 186n.75, 187f, 188f Mynors, Roger Aubrey Baskerville 8n.16, 59n.69 Naples 4–7, 10–11, 11n.23, 12–13, 20–2, 43, 113–14, 116–18, 127, 129, 137, 149–51, 150f, 151f, 154–5, 157–8, 162–4, 180–1, 184, 239–40 Natale, Alfio Rosario 27n.81 Najemy, John M. 19n.52, 134n.53, 214n.7, 215n.11, 219n.22, 220n.24 Neroni, Dietislavi 24–5 Netherlands 35–7 Nesi, Emilia 159n.9 Niccolò da Correggio 23n.63 Niccolò di Lorenzo della Magna 157–8, 160–1, 189 Nicholas V, pope 3–5, 10–11, 29–41, 44–5, 47, 51, 54–5, 58, 60–9, 73–7, 90–1, 107–10, 112, 223–4 Nicola delle Tuccia 34–5 Noceto, Pietro da 34–5 Nola 140–2 Nunziante, Emilio 117n.13 Odo, Pietro 47, 58–9 Olgiati, Gerolamo 26–7, 244–5

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

 Oliva, Anna Maria 29nn.2–3, 30n.7, 34n.17 organicism (see body politics) Orlandi, Giovanni 110n.105 Orsini, Clarice 159–60 Orsini, Giovanni Antonio 21–2, 43, 117–18, 124–6, 132–4, 140–1, 145–6 Orsini, Latino 39–40 Orsini, Orso 140–2 Orvieto 38–9 Orvieto, Paolo 27n.82, 175n.53, 222n.27 Osmond, Patricia J. 2n.1, 15n.36, 18n.46, 19nn.48,50, 38n.24, 54n.57, 81n.26, 92n.58, 93n.62, 94n.66, 97n.72, 201n.19, 217n.18 Ovid 49–50, 57, 59, 173–4 Oxford 163–4 Pade, Marianne 8n.14, 91n.55 Padua 37n.21, 76 Pagan, Victoria Emma 5n.6, 14–15, 190n.1, 199n.16 Palmer, Ada 9n.18 Pandoni, Porcelio de’ 30–1, 148–9 Panormita, Antonio 7n.13, 11n.23, 17, 31–3, 119–21 Panou, Nikos 31n.10, 203n.21 Paoli, Michel 107n.97 papal-prince 10–16, 60–9, 105–12, 143–56, 171, 190–211, 224–48 Papy, Jan 20n.54 Paris 212–13 Parroni, Piergiorgio 34n.16, 35n.19 Pastore Stocchi, Manlio 6n.9, 14n.32, 111n.107 pater familias 107 pater patriae 7–8, 63–4, 110–11, 130–1, 134, 137, 206, 224 Patrizi, Francesco 11–12, 63–4 Paul III, pope 66n.81 Pazzi, family 4, 25–7, 157–8, 160–1, 163–5, 169, 171–2, 178, 182, 184–6, 189, 191, 218–19, 223–4, 234–5, 237–8, 240–2 Pazzi, Francesco 125–6, 185–6 Pazzi, Guglielmo 184 Pazzi, Iacopo 124–5, 172, 174–5, 175n.54, 176–8, 185–6, 201, 231–2, 241–2 Pedullà, Gabriele 6n.7, 8n.17, 14n.31, 14n.32, 19n.51, 213n.5, 220n.24, 243n.69 Pennington, Kenneth 182n.67 Percopo, Erasmo 113n.1 Perosa, Alessandro 31n.10, 157n.1, 159–60, 169n.40, 175n.53 Perriccioli Saggese, Alessandra 130n.45 Pertusi, Agostino 31n.10

287

Perugia 163–4 Petrarca, Francesco 42, 46–7, 58–60, 68, 70, 78–9 Petrucci, Cesare 177–8 Petrucci Nardelli, Franca 11n.23 Petti Balbi, Giovanna 33n.13 Piccinino, Iacopo 117–18, 121–2 Piccardi, Andrea 107n.100 Piccolomini, Enea Silvio (Pius II, pope) 29–31, 117, 129, 152–3 Piccolomini, Manfredi 15n.35 Picotti, Giovanni Battista 162n.19 Pieraccioni, Gaia 215n.12, 240n.63 Pietragalla, Daniela 17n.43, 119n.21 Pio, Alberto 24–5 Pio, Gilberto 24–5 Pio, Giovanni Ludovico 24–5 Pisa 19, 125–6, 157–8, 177–8 Pistoia 159–62 Pius II, pope (see Piccolomini, Enea Silvio) Plato 8–9, 194–5 Platina, Bartolomeo 11–12, 23–4, 35–7, 40 Plautus 174–5 Plebani, Eleonora 38n.24 Plutarch 7–8, 8n.14, 173 Pliny the Elder 89–90, 99–100, 174–5 Poggio, family 159 political realism 146–7, 203, 206–10, 250 political theory 7–8, 11–16, 26–7, 107, 113–16, 120–1, 130–2, 139–40, 142–8, 152–6, 194–8, 204–7, 215–16, 235–6, 249–51 Poliziano, Angelo 4, 18n.46, 46–7, 80, 91–2, 124–6, 128, 151–2, 157–89, 191–4, 197, 199–202, 216n.14, 223–4, 236–8, 241–2 Coniurationis commentarium 4, 25–6, 28, 82, 91–2, 112, 124–5, 128, 151–2, 154, 157–89, 191–4, 197, 199–202, 205, 209, 216n.14, 229–31, 234–5, 240–2 Praefatio in Suetoni expositione 16, 173, 194 Sylva in Scabiem, 175n.53 Stanze per la giostra di Giuliano de’ Medici 45–6, 70n.95, 157, 183–4 Translation of Herodianus 236–7, 238n.61 Polybius 224–5 Pontano, Eugenia 163–4 Pontano, Giovanni 7n.12, 12–13, 21–2, 63–4, 101–2, 108, 113–56, 163–5, 191–3, 197–200, 206–9, 223–4, 227–8, 235 Actius 16, 41–2, 115–16, 120n.22, 122–3, 127–8 De bello Neapolitano 4, 21–2, 28, 113–56, 163–4, 191–3, 195–7, 201–2, 204–5, 216n.14, 223–4, 227–31

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

288



Pontano, Giovanni (cont.) De fortitudine 152–3 De fortuna 147–8, 230n.46 De immanitate 145 De obedientia 195–6, 223–4 De principe 11–13, 63–4, 115, 120, 130–1, 137n.61, 138, 143–4, 146–8, 152–5, 204, 223–4, 227–8 De prudentia 229–30, 236–7 Ponte, Giovanni 73n.4 Pontieri, Ernesto 113n.1, 117n.13 Porcari, Stefano 3–4, 14–15, 21, 23–4, 29, 34–45, 48–57, 64–9, 73–7, 81–2, 87, 91–7, 101–2, 104–6, 108–10, 124, 133–4, 200–2, 221–3, 229, 244–6 Portoghesi, Paolo 110n.105 Previtera, Carmelo 16n.40, 116n.11 Priesterjahn, Maike 11n.23, 194n.8 Prodi, Paolo 10n.22, 38n.25, 65, 66n.81 Pseudo-Demetrius 80n.25 punishment 50, 54, 68, 110–11, 146, 185–6, 207–8, 226, 234–5 Putomorsi, Pietro (see Pietro Lunense) Quaglioni, Diego 5n.6, 7n.10, 134n.54, 203n.21, 220n.25 Quintilian 89–91, 116 Ramada Curto, Diego 146n.79 Ramsey, John 18n.47, 52n.55 Rao, Ennio I. 119n.21 Rapicano, Nardo 149, 152f Redhead, Brian 12n.25 Refini, Eugenio 9n.18 Regoliosi, Mariangela 16nn.40–41, 30n.6, 76n.14, 82n.30, 83n.34, 87nn.42–43, 88n.44, 90n.53, 91nn.54–56, 94n.68, 100n.78, 119n.21, 198n.15 Regulus, Marcus Attilius 56 Reiss, Sheryl E. 217n.18 republic 5–7, 63–6, 76–7, 171, 191–2, 194, 221–2, 227–8 res novae 92–3, 105–12, 124, 126, 194–5, 202–3, 206–9, 213–14, 219, 229–31, 234–5, 237–8, 241–2 revenge 145–6, 151–2, 171–2, 174–5, 177–8, 194–5, 206–8 Resta, Gianvito 8n.14, 11n.23, 120n.23 Reynolds, Leighton Durham 8n.16, 46n.41, 59n.69 Rhodes, Dennis 159n.9 Riario, Girolamo 157–8, 181–2, 241n.66 Richardson, Brian 146nn.78–79, 161n.15, 230n.46

Ridley, Ronald 213n.4 Ridolfi, Roberto 161n.14 Rimini 74–5 Rinaldi, Michele 164n.25 Rinaldi, Rinaldo 91n.56 Rinuccini, Alamanno 21, 76–7 Ristori, Renzo 24n.70 Rochon, André 219n.22 Roick, Matthias 115n.9 Roisman, Joseph 15n.34 Romano, Orazio 4, 21–3, 28–73, 77, 81–2, 87, 96, 107, 109, 128, 191–2, 198, 200, 216n.14 Rome 15n.37, 17–19, 23–4, 29–33, 35–40, 45, 47–8, 54–60, 62–9, 72–8, 83, 90–1, 95–8, 102, 109, 157–8, 162–3, 184, 186–9, 187f, 188f, 221–3, 231 Romulus 48, 198–9 Rosa, Asor 11n.24 Rosarno 133–4 Rossi, Sergio 73n.4 Rossi, Giovanni 104n.90, 105, 107n.97 Rubinstein, Nicolai 6nn.7,9, 9n.21, 11nn.23–24, 18n.46, 162n.16, 171n.43, 235n.51 Rucellai, Cosimo 217n.18 Ruggiero, Raffaele 238n.61 Russell, Donald A. 90n.51 Rutulo, Caio Marcio 229–30 Ryder, Alan 119n.19, 132n.48, 149n.86 Rykwert, Joseph 73n.3 Sabellico, Marco Antonio 35–7 Sacchi, Bartolomeo (see Platina, Bartolomeo) Salerno 142–3 Sallust 2–3, 8–9, 14–15, 17–20, 47, 51–3, 64–5, 69–70, 72–3, 80–2, 84–7, 91–9, 105, 112, 116, 123–8, 130, 133, 167–9, 173–5, 190–6, 200–3, 212–13, 236–8, 249–50 Salutati, Coluccio 17–19, 100–1, 220n.25 Salviati, Francesco, archbishop of Pisa 125–6, 157–8, 177–8, 182–3, 185–9 Sampieri, Teresa 29n.3 San Domenico Maggiore in Naples (convent) 163–4 San Iacopo di Ripoli 159–60 San Martino in Gangalandi 74n.8 Sanseverino, Roberto 136n.58, 142–3 Sansoni Riario, Raffaello, cardinal 182–3 Santa Maria del Fiore, church 157, 177–8 Santi, Francesco 3–4 Santoro, Mario 113n.1 Sapegno, Maria Serena 11n.24 Sardina, Patrizia 117n.15

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

 Sarno 117–18, 122–3, 142–3, 148–9, 152–5 Sarti, Alessandro 165 Sasso, Gennaro 212n.1, 215nn.11–12, 220n.24, 225n.36, 231n.49, 233n.50, 235n.51, 236n.54, 244n.70, 245n.74 Savoy, Bona of 26–7, 232–3 Sberlati, Francesco 100n.78 Sbriccoli, Mario 5n.6, 223n.28 Scala, Bartolomeo 25–6, 157–9 Scaramella, Gino 19n.49 Scarton, Elisabetta 136n.59 Schadee, Hester 31n.10, 203n.21 Schellhase, Kenneth C. 247n.78 Schiera, Pierangelo 134n.52, 206n.24 Schiesaro, Alessandro 8n.15 Schoysman Zambrini, Anne 26n.76 Sciancalepore, Margherita 43n.37 Sciarra, Battista 39–40, 49 Scipio Africanus 6n.9, 19, 45, 54–5, 57–60, 62–4, 66–9, 147–8 Senatore, Francesco 114n.3, 114n.4, 117n.13, 120n.24, 122n.32, 129n.44, 130n.45, 136n.59, 140nn.67–68, 142n.69 Seneca 7–8, 68, 194–5 Servius Tullius 56 Sforza, Francesco 31–5, 42–3, 117, 129 Sforza, Galeazzo Maria 26–7, 205, 221, 231–2, 240–1, 244–5 Shadi, Bartsch 8n.15 Skinner, Quentin 2n.1, 5–7, 11n.23, 14–15, 26n.73, 27n.82, 68, 110n.106, 192n.3, 193n.6, 208n.27 Siena 38–9 Simonetta, Cicco 26–7 Simonetta, Giovanni 129 Simonetta, Marcello 129n.44, 158nn.3,5 Sixtus IV, pope 25–6, 157–8, 181–3, 185–9, 187f, 188f, 223–4 Soderini, Niccolo’ 24–5 Soranzo, Giovanni 129n.44 Sozzini, Bartolomeo 161–2, 182–3 Spagnesi, Enrico 182n.67 Spina, Luigi 123n.34 Squitieri, Marialuisa 153n.90 Stacey, Peter 8n.15, 11n.23, 16n.39, 68nn.90–92 statecraft 5, 9–10, 12–13, 65, 73–4, 130, 146–7, 194–8, 204, 206, 209, 215–16, 223–4, 234–5 Statius 41–2, 45–6, 49–51, 57, 70, 192 Storti, Francesco 117n.13, 136n.59, 144n.71, 145n.77, 209n.30 Suetonius 16, 168–73, 170n.42, 175–6, 194 Summonte, Pietro 114–15

289

Tacitus 16, 247–8 Tanganelli, Maria Luisa 88n.47 Tafuri, Manfredo 73–4 Tarantino, Elisabetta 219n.22 Taranto 21–2, 43, 117–18, 124–6 Tarquinius Superbus 27–8, 56, 220n.25 Tateo, Francesco 20n.54, 102n.83, 115n.9, 119n.19, 148n.84, 149n.85, 167n.34 Teano 117–18, 127, 133–4, 148–51, 151f, 152f, 153, 201–2 Terentius 138n.64 Thorsten Callisen, Christian 215n.12 Thucydides 16, 82–8, 87n.40, 90–1, 95–6, 192–3 Tiberius, Roman emperor 168–9 Tobia del Borgo 87–8 Tommasini, Oreste 21n.59, 24n.66, 68n.88 Torella, Giovanni 118, 132 Torquemada, Juan (de) 5n.6 Tortelli, Giovanni 30–1, 44–5, 58–9 Toscano, Gennaro 149nn.87–88 Tournoy, Gilbert 20n.54 Trani 38–9 Trapezuntius, Georgius (George of Trebizon) 23–4 Trevor, Dean 26n.77 Trivellato, Francesca 146n.79 Troia 118, 148–53, 150f Tullia Minor 44 Turchetti, Mario 14n.33 Turchini, Angelo 110n.105 Tuscany 160–1 tyranny/tyrant 5–9, 27–8, 53–4, 64–5, 203–4, 220–4, 228n.42, 233, 235, 236n.54, 246–7 tyrannicide 220–4, 231, 239–40 Ullman, Berthold Louis 59n.71 Urbino 157–8, 213n.2 Utrecht 29–31, 32f, 33n.15, 35–7, 36f Vaglienti, Francesca 26n.75, 206n.23 Valeri, Stefano 73n.4 Valla, Lorenzo 7n.13, 16n.41, 17, 31n.10, 90–1, 100–1, 119–21 Valletta, Francesco 163–4 Valtellino, Antonio 23n.63 Van Buchel, Aernout 35–7 Van Houdt, Toon 20n.54 Varese, Claudio 164n.23 Varotti, Carlo 201n.18 Varro, Marcus Terentius 99–100, 174–5 Vasoli, Cesare 225n.36 Vecchi, Eliana M. 35n.18, 38n.25 Vecchia, Damiana 24n.67 Ventimiglia, Giovanni 117–18

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 29/10/2020, SPi

290



Verde, Armando 163n.21 Vergil 41–2, 45–51, 56–9, 69–70, 80, 166, 173–4, 192 Vettori, Francesco 230n.46 Vida, Girolamo 41n.33 Villard, Renaud 15n.35 violence 55–6, 68, 92–3, 104, 109, 121–2, 145, 157–8, 177–8, 182–3, 185–6, 207–9, 233–5 Viroli, Maurizio 209n.30, 217n.17 virtue 5–8, 27–8, 33, 38–9, 48, 54–5, 58, 61–4, 68–9, 95, 102, 106, 108–11, 133–4, 138–9, 141–55, 193–6, 203–4, 207–10, 212, 227–8, 235 Visconti, Galeazzo Maria 24–5 Visconti, Giovanni Maria 26–7 Visconti, Carlo 26–7 Vitale, Giuliana 113n.1, 140n.67 Viterbo 29–34, 37

Viti, Paolo 19n.48 Walbank, Frank William 200n.17 Watkins, Renée Neu 72n.1, 83n.31, 180n.61 Weijers, Olga 9n.18 Welles, Elizabeth B. 167n.35 Westfall, Carrol William 73n.3 William I of Orange 35–7 Wilson, Nigel Guy 8n.16 Witt, Ronald G. 8n.17, 18n.46, 79n.20, 167n.35, 220n.25 Xenophon 7–8, 7n.13, 194–5 Zabughin, Vladimiro 41n.32, 43–4, 48n.44 Zancani, Diego 27n.78 Zancarini, Jean-Claude 220n.24 Zollino, Giorgia 16n.40, 173n.46 Zuppardo, Matteo 42–3