Humanism and Renaissance Historiography (History Series (Hambledon Press), V. 21.)

Humanism and Renaissance

Historiography

This page intentionally left blank

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography E.B. Fryde

THE HAMBLEDON PRESS

The Hambledon Press 1983 35 Gloucester Avenue, London NW1 7AX

History Series 21

ISBN 0 907628 24 9

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Fryde.E.B. Humanism and Renaissance Historiography - (History series; 21) 1. Historiography - History I. Title 907’. 2 D13

©E.B.Frydel983

Printed and Bound in Great Britain by Robert Hartnoll Ltd., Bodmin, Cornwall

CONTENTS Acknowledgments

vii

Preface

ix

Select Bibliography

xi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The Revival of a ‘Scientific’ and Erudite Historiography in the Earlier Renaissance The Beginnings of Italian Humanist Historiography: The ‘New Cicero’ of Leonardo Bruni

3

33

The Historical Interests of Guarino of Verona hand his Translations of Strabo’s ‘Geography’ 55

5

Some Fifteenth Century Latin Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

83

Lorenzo de’ Medici: A Survey of the Historiography and of the Primary Sources

115

Lorenzo de’ Medici's Finances and their Influence on his Patronage of Art

143

The Library of Lorenzo de’ Medici

159

List of Manuscripts Cited

229

Index

235

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chapters 1, 2 and 6 of this book first appeared in the following places, ar are reprinted here by the kind permission of the original publishers. 1

Inaugural Lecture delivered at University College of Wales, Aberystwyth on 21 November 1973 (University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1974).

2

The English Historical Review, Vol. XCV (1980), 533-52.

6

Studi in Memoria di Federigo Melis, (Giannini, 1978), III, 453-67.

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE The studies included in this volume arise out of research carried out during the past twelve years and four out of seven articles have never been published before. The three articles reprinted here are published in their original form, except for a brief appendix added to article 2. These seven papers arise out of three of my main interests. One is the study of Lorenzo de’ Medici and of the scholars connected with him, especially Politian. Renaissance historiography is the second and, closely connected with it, is my concern with the story of the preservation of the Greek and Latin classics and their recovery during the Renaissance. The late Dr. Henry Kryszek first introduced me to Italy and this volume is dedicated to his memory. I have received generous help from a large number of friends and scholars, some of which is acknowledged in particular articles. I owe special thanks to Professor A.G. Dickens for making this publication possible and to Professor Arnaldo Momigliano and Professor N. Rubinstein for their help and encouragement over many years. I have received invaluable assistance from Miss A. de la Mare of the Bodleian Library, Dr. C. Ligota of the Warburg Institute in London and my friends, Llinos Davies and D. Huws, of the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. Edmund Fryde

This page intentionally left blank

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Some other publications by E.B. Fryde on Historiography, auxiliary Historical Sciences and the Renaissance, not included in this volume. 1961

Handbook of British Chronology (London, Royal Historical Soc., Second ed. by Sir M. Powicke and E.B. Fryde), pp. XXXVIII + 565. 1974

‘Historiography and Historical Methodology’, in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th. ed., Macropaedia, vol. 8, pp. 945-61. 1976

Review of Antonia Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550 - c. 1307 (Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell U.P., 1974), History and Theory, 15 (1976), pp. 341-46. 1977

‘Lorenzo de’ Medici. High finance and the patronage of art and learning.’ In A.G. Dickens (ed.) The Courts of Europe. Politics, Patronage and Royalty, 1400-1800 (London, Thames and Hudson).

This page intentionally left blank

HUMANISM AND RENAISSANCE HISTORIOGRAPHY

This page intentionally left blank

1 THE REVIVAL OF A 'SCIENTIFIC' AND ERUDITE HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE EARLIER RENAISSANCE

I An inaugural lecture may be expected to throw some light on the discipline which the new professor is teaching. My way of attempting to do this will be to focus attention on certain significant changes in historiography that took place in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.1 Historiography, strictly speaking, means only the actual writing of history. But I shall be also concerned with the awakening in that period of a more acute sense of historical change. Some of my principal 'heroes' are people who wrote very little history, or even none at all, but who displayed a sharpened sense of historical change in all human affairs. Through being historically minded they were capable of creating new disciplines such as modern philology or the study of the evolution of law, like that Francois Baudouin, who confessed, 'I have become aware that law books are the products of history.'2 Modern historians aim at reconstructing, as accurately as possible, a continuous record of all human activities throughout the known past and of achieving a more profound understanding of how mankind has developed. The way in which this should be done has been excellently defined by Professor M. I. Finley in his recent inaugural lecture: 'By historiography I mean a systematic, critical inquiry into some part or aspect of the past, critical not only in the sense of critical evaluation of evidence, but also in the larger sense of a conscious, rational examination of one's subject, its dimensions and implications, as free as one can make oneself of the automatic acceptance of received views, approaches, habits of mind.'3 This allembracing conception of the historian's task is quite recent, dating 1 This is an extended version of the inaugural lecture delivered at Aberystwyth on 21 November 1973. A full bibliography would be out of place here. I have used notes mostly for specific quotations of sources and for the discussion of special points. Whenever I could, I have used early Renaissance manuscripts in preference to later printed editions. 2 In De Institutione historiae universae et eius cum iurisprudentia coniunctione, written in 1561, cited in D. R. Kelley, 'De Origine Feudorum: the beginnings of an historical problem', Speculum, 39 (1964), p. 209. 3 The Ancestral Constitution (Cambridge U.P., 1972), p. 47.

4

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

only from the late-eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. In that period there first emerged a scientific historiography, cultivated largely by professional historians. This modern historiography springs from an outlook that is fairly new in human experience: the assumption that the study'of history is a natural and a necessary kind of human activity and that it should form a regular part of education. The changes during the early Renaissance that I wish to discuss represent the humble beginnings of this modern situation. Our understanding of them is still very imperfect and there does not exist at present an up-to-date account of the place of the early Renaissance in the development of modern historiography.4 A single lecture is not a place for a comprehensive survey of the achievements of the Renaissance historians. I can merely attempt a partial assessment of the quality of these achievements. As I shall be chiefly concerned with developments that anticipated the more mature historiography of the future, the promising innovations of the Renaissance scholars will concern me more than their abundant shortcomings, though the latter cannot be entirely overlooked. Most of the works I shall be quoting were written during an early period of the Renaissance, in the hundred years between roughly 1360 and 1460, before the introduction of printing into Italy. During that period only a tiny minority of Italian writers were seriously interested in producing historical works. But a greater awareness of historical changes was one of the distinctive features of the new humanist literature and some elements of historical explanation or description appear in many writings of that age. Our main problem is to explain why a marked change in the quality of historiography occurred in Italy during that century. The main interest of the humanists lay in the recovery of the texts of all the writers of classical antiquity. The increased interest in history was largely a by-product of their efforts to interpret their newly recovered literary treasures. Furthermore, the achievement of a certain degree of expertise in dealing with classical texts gave them a novel assurance that they could apply their methods to other branches of learning. Over-confidence was the besetting sin of some 4 Some of the causes of a relative lack of progress in this field of study are analysed by R. Fubini inRivista storica italiana, 77 (1965), p. 967.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

5

of the men with whom I shall be most concerned. Of Leonardo Bruni (d. 1444) his biographer, Vespasiano da Bisticci, remarked that 'he always held himself to be the sole restorer of Latin'.5 But self-confidence has its uses in a scholar. The humanist historians differed from their medieval predecessors especially in their newly won conviction that, if evidence was adequate, it could settle decisively even highly contentious matters. This novel confidence in their capacity to handle sources will be one of the cornerstones of the new historiography. The rediscovery of the classics falls into two main phases, with the dividing point coming in the last years of the fourteenth century, when the knowledge of ancient Greek was first reintroduced into Italy. Decisive progress in the recovery of Latin texts occurred between c. 1330 and 1370, above all through the activities of Petrarch and his friends. It was not only a matter of rediscovering lost works but also of intelligent improving of previously corrupt or incomplete texts. To Petrarch we owe especially a partial recovery of Cicero and Livy,6 while members of his circle rediscovered some works of Tacitus and Varro, to mention only the outstanding writers. Petrarch's rediscovery, in 1345, of an important part of Cicero's correspondence introduced him to the realities of political and literary life in the last years of the Roman Republic. It helped to equip him for writing a really scholarly biography of Caesar. This unfinished work of Petrarch's old age can be regarded as the first important achievement of the new historiography. For the first time since Antiquity a serious attempt was being made to write Roman history in part from strictly contemporary sources.7 The first major humanist work devoted to Italian history was book I of Leonardo Bruni's History of the Florentine People, completed late in 1415. Bruni wrote a further eight books between 1419 5 Cited from Vespasiano, 'Renaissance Princes, Popes and Prelates: The Vespasiano Memoirs . . ' (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1963), p. an. 6 The best summary is in G. Billanovich, 'II Petrarca e i classici', Petrarca e il Petrarchismo. Atti del III Congresso dell'Associazione Internazionale per gli studi di lingua e letteratura italiana (Bologna, 1961), pp. 21-33. 7 Petrarch, like most medieval readers of Caesar's Commentaries, was uncertain about the name, or names, of the people who had actually written them. He became gradually convinced of their great historical value and came to be assured that they originated in the circle of Caesar's associates. He used them in his late works and did so abundantly in his Life of Caesar, though he still carefully avoided to name their author. Cf. G. Billanovich, 'Nella biblioteca del Petrarca: un altro Svetonio del Petrarca', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 3 (1960), pp. 39-46.

6

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

and 1439.® In arrangement this work owed most to Livy, but Bruni's conception of how history might be written was also much influenced by Sallust, a writer known to many medieval historians. Bruni's ideological assumptions were notably clarified and sharpened by the reading of Bellum lugurthinum and Bellum Catilinae.9 But while his historiography stemmed from the humanist reappraisal of writers familiar to medieval Europe, it owed also something to Tacitus, parts of whose Annals and Histories had been rediscovered in the third quarter of the fourteenth century.10 Bruni's acquaintance with some of the most penetrating historians of Antiquity was further expanded by the recovery of the Greek historians. In the last years of the fourteenth century the teaching of classical Greek was effectively introduced into Italy. Bruni was one of the first Italians to learn Greek and became one of the earliest and most avid readers of Thucydides and Polybius.11 The impact of Greek literature on fifteenth-century Italians still awaits a really comprehensive study and the uncertainties are particularly great in the field of historiography. More detailed attention will be given to some of those problems later on. The Italian humanists had been initially struggling to recover a correct understanding of the Latin world. The reintroduction of Greek now forced them to familiarize themselves with yet another ancient civilization.12 These were Herculean tasks, as at least one leading humanist, Ermolao Barbaro, described them.13 The scholars 8 Our information about the dates is partly derived from the documents published and discussed by A. Gherardi, 'Alcune notizie intorno a Leonardo Aretino e alle sue storie fiorentine', Archivio storico italiano, ser. ix, 15 (1885), pp. 416-21. See also H. Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, ist edn. (Princeton, 1955), ii, p. 611, n. 14, and pp. 618-19, n. 4. 9 A. La Penna, 'II significato di Sallustio nella storiografia e nel pensiero politico di Leonardo Bruni', appendix i, in Sallustio e la 'rivoluzione' romana (Milan, 1968), pp. 409-31 (cited hereafter as La Penma, Sallustio (1968)). 10 Bruni expressly refers to Cornelius (Tacitus) in his Laudatio Florentinae Urbis written in the first years of the fifteenth century. Cf. the edition of H. Baron in his From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, Studies in Humanistic and Political Literature (Chicago, 1968), p. 247. See also H. Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton, 1955), i. p. 47, and ii. 461, nn. 20 and 23 (cited hereafter as Baron, Crisis (1955))11 See below, p. 26. 12 Cf. the remark of A. Momigliano: 'la filologia umanistica . . . e gia in partenza trasformata dall'ideale di ricuperare la fisionomia complessiva del mondo antico'. (Secondo contributo alia storia degli studi classici, Rome, 1960, p. 469). 13 Barbaro likened their task to 'Hercules combating the monsters.' Cf. V. Branca, 'Ermolao Barbaro and late Quattrocento Venetian Humanism' in J. R. Hale (ed.), Renaissance Venice (London, 1973), p. 221.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

7

engaged on them were bound to acquire a sharpened sense of history. Furthermore, the quality of Greek literature was bound to have a profound effect on a small elite of scholars and writers. It is only with that elite that I shall be mainly concerned today.

II

Modern descriptions of Renaissance historiography often stress, as one of its weaknesses, the imitation of ancient models. In doing this modern writers forget that the value we attribute nowadays to originality is something very new in human experience. The types of literary composition preferred by ancient historians were again imitated during the Renaissance. The humanists usually did this more successfully than their medieval predecessors had managed to do. Many of the Renaissance writers were to a much more pronounced degree literary purists to whom style and an appropriate vocabulary mattered at least as much as substance. Their medieval predecessors tended to be more preoccupied with merely setting down what interested them. Purely as sources of information the medieval writers can sometimes be more useful l than the Renaissance historians, whose verbose rhetoric can be infuriating. But these are superficial matters. At a deeper level one of the most important positive achievements of the Renaissance historians was the renewed insistence on the choice of definite, clearly delimited subjects and on a more coherent arrangement of their materials. These qualities were present in the best writers of Antiquity but had partly disappeared in the Middle Ages. The medieval chroniclers were usually interested mainly in their own time. As they were writing for contemporaries about familiar events, most medieval historians simply tried to put down what happened to interest them. Even if this was done in a very unsystematic way, as it often was, it could still remain intelligible and interesting to their readers. The more distant past could not be treated intelligibly in this fashion and most medieval writers made no really serious attempts to do so. The earlier sections of their chronicles are, as a rule, merely a copy or a digest of some more

8

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

ancient writers and their histories usually become alive only when they approach their own times.14 One of the great innovations of the Renaissance historians was to try to write intelligently about very distant events or to make sense of long stretches of the past. Livy was their most influential model here. But Livy had relied entirely on older historians and, where none were to be found, he felt lost, as he complains in the early portions of his Roman history. The best humanist historians from the start displayed a greater confidence in their critical handling of evidence. They used more readily the non-narrative sources. Bruni's History of the Florentine People covered some sixteen centuries.15 Another impressive achievement of the new historiography was Flavio Biondo's Decades of history since the collapse of the Roman Empire to the writer's own time (written in 1439-44). Biondo decided to begin in 410, with the capture of Rome by Alaric. By thus implying that the Western Roman Empire had not slowly decayed from within, but had been ruined by the German invaders, he started a controversy that has continued to this day.16 Biondo comes nearest to being a professional historian among all the humanists discussed here and I shall give later on some more detailed glimpses of his methods. In his introduction Biondo explains that the 'digestion' of his sources in order that they might be incorporated into a single historical work was his major task.17 This type of history necessitated the imposition of a deliberately selected pattern on historical evidence. Coherent, intelligently arranged works might result from these procedures, but there were also some serious dangers. Biondo was primarily concerned with the Christian West and he dealt with crusades and other western activities in the eastern Mediterranean in a very biased fashion. He was particularly unfair to the Byzantines. This could reach 14

Cf. for example, the remarks of D. Hay in 'History and Historians in France and England during the Fifteenth Century', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 35(1962), pp. I I I - I 2 . 15

There is a wise and appreciative discussion of Bruni as a historian in B. L. Ullman, 'Leonardo Bruni's Humanist Historiography', Medievalia et Humanistica, 4 (1946), pp. 45-61, reprinted in B. L. Ullman, Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Rome, 1955), pp. 321-44. 16 Cf. the comments of A. Momigliano, The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), p. 3. 17 'Quorum digestio, ut unum habeant historiae corpus, maiorem est opinione omnium operam habitura.' 'Historiarum ab inclinato Romano imperio decades/IIF, p. 4 in Blondif Flavii Forliviensis Opera (Froben: Basle, 1559) (cited hereafter as Biondo, Decades (1559)).

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

9

monstrous extremes. For example, he says nothing about the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, but simply remarks that the crusaders 'pacified' the Byzantine capital.18 Up to a point he was following here Lorenzo de Monacis, his main Venetian source,19 who had been writing some twenty years before Biondo. But that earlier writer did at least mention the considerable slaughter in the city, the burning of some churches and of other adjoining buildings.20 Lorenzo de Monacis tempers somewhat the fiercely anti-Byzantine bias of his Venetian sources by incorporating a few details from the long eye-witness report of the capture of Constantinople by Nicetas Choniates. Biondo tends to revert here, and in other places, to the more extreme anti-Byzantine attitudes of the older Venetian sources and he appears to have deliberately chosen to do so.21 Bruni declared that the historian's main subject should be the progress of the free peoples, but he gave a peculiarly narrow sense to the concept of liberty. Because Florence was a republic, her history was to Bruni, by definition, a history of freedom, especially from 1250 onwards when she first achieved full civic autonomy.22 Bruni ignores the oppressions inflicted by the free Florentine republic on her neighbours. Besides, Bruni was a leading servant of one of the most opulent oligarchies of his time, acting after 1427 as the chancellor of Florence. The freedom that he extolled included the right of his patrons to maintain their monopoly of power.23 Clearly, there were losses as well as gains from the new historiography. The Renaissance humanists were trying to understand the ancient writers whom they were seeking to emulate. In doing this they were becoming much more acutely aware of the process of historical change. A thirteenth-century author of the 'Deeds of the Romans', a popular history written in French, could innocently describe 18

Ibid., p. 271: 'Quiete urbi data.' Monacis says 'quietatis motibus urbis'. Cited in A. Pertusi, 'Le fonti greche del "De gestis, moribus et nobilitate civitatis Venetiarum" di Lorenzo de Monacis cancelHere di Greta (1338-1428)', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 8 (1965), p. 192. He probably wrote c. 1421-8. 20 Ibid., p. 192^ 21 Ibid., pp. 205-8. 22 The importance attached by Bruni to the year 1250 as the turning point in Florentine history is stressed by N. Rubinstein, 'II Medio Evo nella storiografia italiana del Rinascimento', Lettere italiane, 24 (1972), pp. 435-6, 444-6. 23 See especially the remarks of A. Renaudet in Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 17 (1956), pp. 322-5. 19

10

- Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Caesar as a bishop, because Suetonius metioned that he was a pontifex maximus.24 Such anachronism was becoming intolerable to the Renaissance scholars. They 'were becoming weary . . . of the fancies of the Middle Ages and craved the more substantial food of truth'25 about the ancient civilization. The ancient writers had to be put back into their correct historical setting. As an example of a humanist scholar steeped in such historical preoccupations we can take Guarino's translation from Greek into Latin of Strabo's Geography. He is particularly suitable for this purpose, because he was one of the most influential humanist teachers of his time (d. 1460) and yet he was never interested in writing a proper history. When a friend asked him in 1427 to write a history of Venice he firmly declined, 'because in the past this could earn enmity and today it could even cost one one's head'.26 He was a citizen of one of Venice's subject cities and knew the dangers of writing honestly. Guarino's translation of Strabo, carried out between 1453 and 1458, was the last major achievement of his long life. It exemplifies the mature elaboration of his normal procedures. His autograph working copy of this translation is preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.27 Guarino valued greatly his draft copies, because he jotted down in them anything that seemed of interest.28 The translation of Strabo is profusely annotated by Guarino. Attention is drawn to anything that could help to reconstruct the biography of Strabo: the connection of his family with Knossos in Crete,29 the chronology of his life,30 his attendance at the lectures of a famous teacher, Tyrannion (at Rome),31 the places he 24

'Li Fet des Remains', quoted by J. Rychner, 'Observations sur la traduction de Tite Live par Pierre Bersuire (1354-6)', Journal des Savants (1963), pp. 262-3. 25 B. L. Ullman in the introduction to his edition of Sicco Polenton's History of Latin Literature (1433-7), Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIIIi (Rome, 1928), p. vii. 26 'Un procedimento questo che una volta si attirava I'odiosita, oggi pu6 costar la testa.' Quoted in R. Sabbadini, 77 metodo degli umanisti (Florence, 1922), p. 83. 27 Bodleian, Canon. Lat. 301. 28 In 1432-4 Guarino refused to lend the working copy of his recension of the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius as 'adeo veridicum et magna ex parte emendatum, ut eum pro Croesi opibus et auro Midae mutaturus non sim'. Cited by H. Baron in Studies in Philology, 48 (1951), p. 117 and n. 20. In his draft of Strabo he inserted his own description of Verona, but added a note that it was not to be included in the fair copy (Bodleian, Canon. Lat. 301, f. 72* and d). 29 Bodleian, Canon. Lat. 301, f. i6ir. Guarino's marginal note: 'Strabonis maiores Gnossii'. 30 Ibid., ff. 9ov, 205V. 31 Ibid., f. 182V.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

11

visited (e.g. Populonia in Tuscany, modern Grosseto),32 the mentions of his other works, especially his historical commentaries.33 Between about 1440 and his death in 1457 Valla was one of the most influential humanists. For Valla the meaning of words was not fixed but subject to gradual change. The conventional meanings ascribed to words at different times had to be rediscovered by a careful study of changing linguistic usage. In a preliminary draft of his history of King Ferdinand I of Aragon (written in 1445-6) he discusses in great detail the need for adopting new Latin terms to describe modern institutions and recent technological inventions. In Valla's opinion such words should derive from current colloquial usage in the Italian of his day. A few years earlier Biondo had mentioned the same problem in his Decades.34 A sense of ceaseless historical evolution was planted at the very centre of the humanist preoccupations with the classical languages and with the recovery, the correction, and the interpretation of ancient texts. A sense of historical change is clearly revealed when a scholar tries to recover a vanished civilization in its entirety through a 'systematic collection of all the relics of the past'.35 This was one of Biondo's enterprises. He was following in the footsteps of Varro (d. 27 B.C.), probably the ablest and most erudite ancient investigator of Roman antiquities.36 Biondo was fascinated by the city of Rome, where he resided for many years as a papal official. His description of the Eternal City in Antiquity (written in 1444-6) combined the use of ancient and medieval writers with an exceptionally wide range of other miscellaneous sources, epigraphic, archaeological, and architectural. Biondo's most mature achievement was his last work, Roma Triumphans, written between 1456-60, which he himself described as a superhuman venture.37 It contains a systematic survey of the public and private institutions of the ancient Romans, mainly under the Empire. Biondo's work is uneven because of the 32

Ibid., f. 75v. Ibid., ff. 12V, 1731 ('scriptor historic Strabo'). O. Besomi, 'Dai "Gesta Ferdinandi Regis Aragonum" del Valla al "De Ortographia" del Tortelli', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 9 (1966), pp. 75-121. 35 A. Momigliano, 'Ancient history and the antiquarian', Studies in Historiography (London, 1966), p. 5. 36 As Professor Momigliano has pointed out, however, 'Biondo's method in its relation to ancient antiquarian research has not yet been studied.' (Ibid., p, 31, n. 14.) 37 B. Nogara, Scritti inediti e rari di Biondo Flavio, Studi e Testi no. 48 (Vatican City, 1927), pp. cliv-clv: 'opus supra vires humanas agressi videmur'. 33 34

12

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

varying quality of the sources available to him, but nothing as comprehensive and as penetrating had been attempted since Antiquity. One of the notable things about it was that Biondo was fully aware of the difference between the fundamental values of the ancient Romans and the Christian ideals. If we remember that Biondo was an important papal official and a devout Christian, one of the most astonishing features of this work is his attempt to describe seriously and objectively all the various pagan cults at Rome.

Ill Hitherto I have tried to illustrate the awakening of a sense of historical change. This will serve as an introduction to a more detailed critical appraisal of the Renaissance historians, their views about the nature of historical evidence, their critical judgement in handling facts, and their desire to recapture the rational causes of events. As has been remarked before, one of the distinctive strengths of the new historiography lay in the conviction that if evidence was adequate, especially because it came from well-informed contemporary sources, it could settle decisively even highly contentious matters. This might be best illustrated by a pair of contrasting examples. Giovanni de Matociis, the almoner of the cathedral of Verona (d. 1337), anticipated in many ways the interests of the later Renaissance humanists. Among the treasures of his cathedral library he rediscovered one of the best manuscripts of the correspondence of the younger Pliny. Using this he was able to end once and for all the medieval confusion between the writer of those letters and his uncle, the elder Pliny, who wrote the Natural History. But Giovanni was baffled by the conflict between some of the letters and other sources. Thus, the younger Pliny described in a letter to his friend Tacitus how his uncle had collapsed and died while commanding a naval force that tried to help the victims of the terrible erruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Giovanni set aside this eyewitness report in favour of a different statement by Suetonius, a non-contemporary writer, but of a superior traditional authority. According to Suetonius, the elder Pliny had died while watching an eruption of

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

13

Etna in Sicily.38 By contrast, some thirty years later Petrarch was handling problems of evidence quite differently. In 1361 his friend, the Emperor Charles IV, asked Petrarch to report on two charters, reputedly of Caesar and Nero, granting special privileges to the rulers of Austria. Petrarch had no difficulty in exposing these arrant forgeries, concocted by the emperor's son-in-law and enemy, Archduke Rudolph IV of Austria.39 The significant point is Petrarch's insistence on using arguments based only on authentic documents. He declines to use Caesar's speeches mentioned by other writers as not constituting primary evidence, even though one of them, Sallust, was a contemporary of Caesar. Instead he demonstrates the absurdity of the words found in the alleged charter of Caesar by comparing it with the texts of two of Caesar's letters and an authentic grant by Caesar to the town of Sidon in Syria.40 Petrarch was, of course, an immensely more gifted man than was Giovanni of Verona, but in the fifteenth century ordinary scholars, like Giovanni, would be taught by humanists of Petrarch's stamp to understand the new critical standards of assessing evidence. The newly won assurance in the handling of sources is illustrated in a particularly impressive way by Bruni's account of the foundation of Florence, written in 1415. The traditional, and quite mythical version, repeated by a long succession of medieval writers, attributed this to Caesar. This tradition had been challenged in the circle around Bruni's earliest patron, Coluccio Salutati, the chancellor of Florence (d. 1406). But Bruni went further than any of his predecessors. He 'did not even deign to mention this earlier legendary tradition'.41 He disposes of it in the first sentence of his history of Florence. It is true that he had the added incentive of being able to imitate a comparably terse description of the origins of Rome by Sallust.42 Bruni writes with superb assurance: 'Florence was founded under the Romans by Sulla.' A later sentence names his sources, 38 C. Cipolla, 'Attorno a Giovanni Mansionario e a Guglielmo da Pastrengo', Miscellanea Ceriani nel 777 centenario della Biblioteca Ambrosiana per onorare la memoria di Monsignor Antonio Maria Ceriani (Milan, 1910), pp. 759-60. 39 They are reprinted in P. Piur (ed.), Petrarcas Briefwechsel mil deutschen Zeitgenossen (Berlin, 1933), pp. 120-3. 40 Ibid., p. 116. 41 N. Rubenstein, 'Bartolomeo Scala's Historia Florentinorum', Studi di bibliografia e di storia in onore di Tammaro de Marinis, iv (Verona, 1964), p. 51. 42 La Penna, op. cit., p. 409.

14

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Cicero and Sallust,43 both of whom were, of course, contemporaries of Sulla. It must be admitted that Bruni also had ideological reasons for proving that Florence had not been founded under the tyranny of the Roman emperors but in the time of the free republic. Bruni, Biondo, and Valla have all left us some very perceptive comments about the qualities of a good historian. Reading them we have a brief illusion of dealing with our own professional colleagues. Their practice did not, of course, always come up to their ideal standards, but this is the fate of all historians. In 1415-16, in a preface to his brief biography of Cicero (Cicero Novus), Bruni insisted that a historian must give reasons for all his statements and must provide a certain proof of all his assertions.44 Bruni's appreciation of these rules reappears in his short life of Aristotle, written in 1429. This is one of his most intelligent historical works and I shall be discussing it more fully later on. In comparing Aristotle with Plato, he singled out as Aristotle's distinctive virtue just one quality: Aristotle had asserted nothing that he could not prove.45 It is important to note that in Bruni's eyes Aristotle was very historically minded. He was particularly impressed by the vast amount of historical information included in Aristotle's Politics.46 In a letter written in 1437 Biondo similarly insists on the need for assured evidence. He was referring to the writing of contemporary Italian history in the last portion of his Decades, in which he was either dealing with events witnessed by himself or which had been described by the most reliable witnesses.47 The stress on the careful search for reliable evidence may seem 43 E. Santini e C. di Pierro, Leonardo Bruni Aretino: Historiarum Florentini populi Libri XII e Rerum suo Tempore gestarum commentarius', Rerum Italicarum Scriptores t. XIX, fasc. I (1914), p. 5 (cited hereafter as Santind e Pierro, Bruni (1914)). 44 'De singulis ratioraem reddere et eerta probations asserere volumus', ed. in H. Baron, Leonardo Bruni Aretino, Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften (Leipzig, 1928), pp. 113-14 (cited hereafter as Baron, Bruni (1928)). 45 'Aristotiles vero et cautior in tradendo fuit (nihil enim aggreditur quod probare non possit)', ed. in I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Goteborg, !957). P- '7446 Undated letter to Biondo enclosing Bruni's translation of Aristotle's Politics for transmission to Pope Eugenius IV. The letter is printed very imperfectly in L. Mehus (ed.), Leonardi Bruni Aretini Epixtolarum Libri VIIIi (Florence, 1741), ii. 102-6. The crucial sentence is seriously mutilated there (p. 105) and I am citing the fuller version in Balliol Coll. MS. 310, p. I2ir-i2iv; 'quanta exemplorum historiarum multitudo inducatur ut omnia quae unquam facta sunt nota fuisse huic philosopho videantur.' 47 R. Fubini, 'Biondo Flavio'. Dizionario biografico degli italiani 10 (Rome, 1966), p. 543 (cited hereafter as Fubini, Biondo (1966)).

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

i5

a very elementary requirement, but the emphatic preoccupation with this particular virtue was something of a novelty. To discerning readers it was also a sign of acquaintance with the newly recovered histories of Thucydides and Polybius. Of even greater interest are the comments of our humanist historians about the need for critical judgement. In the preface to his Florentine history, written in 1415, Bruni mentions among the historian's tasks the need to have his own opinion about everything that he discusses.48 Valla has some particularly important things to say about this. The fullest statement of his views is to be found in the introduction to his History of King Ferdinand of Aragon, written in 1445-6, where he extols history above all other disciplines.49 The historian must proceed like a judge or a doctor. Valla stresses the need for shrewdness, acuteness, judgement.50 In a letter written some years earlier to a close friend, Giovanni Serra, Valla commented on the universal prevalence of controversies in all branches of human knowledge, religious as well as secular. He produced a long list of scholars and other writers who had disagreed with everyone else.51 The more erudite a man was the more it was incumbent upon him to correct the errors of others.52 The exercise of a critical judgement is, in fact, one of the qualities that one may confidently expect from the abler Renaissance scholars. All authorities might be questioned, however eminent, even the religious ones. Petrarch made some very thoughtful and independent comments on the margins of his favourite books. He questioned the contention of St. Ambrose, the fourth-century bishop of Milan, that God had assured the expansion of the Roman Empire in order to facilitate the spreading of Christianity. Petrarch added the comment that he did not know whether this was more a matter of religious conviction or of historical fact.53 Such a distinction between Christian dreams and historical realities would probably 48

'De quaqua re iudicium in medio proferendum', Santini-Pierro, Bruni (1914), p. 3. Laurentius Valla, Opera Omnia (Turin, 1962), ii. 5-6. 50 'Oportet in historico esse . . . in cognoscenda re solertiam, acumen, iudicium', ibid., p. 6. 51 Ibid., pp. 387-94. 52 Ibid., p. 393: 'nam ut quisque eruditissimus est, ita frequentissime insectandis aliorum erroribus et exercetur et exerceri debet.' 53 Ambrose's text: 'Deum rem Romanam usque ad fines orbis propagari voluisse et deinde ecclesia facilius diffunderetur.' Petrarch's note: 'Nota de imperio Romano. Nescio an devote potius dictum quam ystorice.' Petrarch MS. is Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS. lat. 17857. Cited in P. de Nolhac, 'De patrum et medii aevi codicibus in bibliotheca Petrarcae olim collectis', Revue des Bibliotheques (1893), p. 252. 49

16

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

not have been made by any earlier medieval writer. In his T)e vita solitaria' Petrarch had expressed a doubt whether Peter Abelard had been rightly suspected of religious errors. Petrarch's notes on his own copy of the 'Historia Calamitatum' of Abelard supply more evidence of the sympathy and compassion that Petrarch felt for the twelfth-century scholar.54 In dealing with Bruni's religious attitudes we have unfortunately no private sources about his real views. He deliberately edited his correspondence for public circulation and nothing is to be learnt from the few surviving first drafts of his works. The general impression of caution and orthodoxy, though coming only from his published writings, may yet be substantially correct. A letter of Bruni criticizing a correspondent for trying to learn Hebrew reveals a very old-fashioned refusal to apply the new humanistic learning to religious sources. Bruni explained that he had spent much time on translating authoritative Greek writers, like Aristotle, only because the existing Latin versions were utterly inadequate. He was quite sure that St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible, embodied in the official Vulgate version, was completely satisfactory. There was, therefore, no need to check on Jerome's Hebrew sources. If this was unnecessary, Bruni could not conceive of any other reason for wanting to learn Hebrew.55 We are in a different world with Valla, who in the preface to his translation of Thucydides, completed in 1452, urged the need for a fresh translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek.56 Valla has been described by A. Renaudet as the earliest exponent of 'systematic doubt'.57 The recent rediscovery of the first drafts of several of his writings, including an early version of his Annotations on the New Testament, have increased our appreciation of Valla's great intellectual courage and independence of mind, especially in religious matters. One of his most famous exploits in this field dates from 1440, when he decisively 54 Revue des Bibliotheques (1893), pp. 270-3. Petrarch's MS. is Bibl. Nat. MS. lat. 2923. For a recent discussion of it cf. J. Monfrin, Aboard 'Historia Calamitatum'. Texte critique avec une introduction (Paris,, 1967), pp. 13-14, 18-19. 55 Mehus, op. cit., pp. 160-4. A better text is in Balliol MS 310, pp. I5or-i52v. 56 'Adeo nullum cum deo nos Latini commercium haberemus1 nisi testamentum vetus ex hebreo et novum ex graeco foret traductum.' I am using Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS. Kk 4. 2., brought from Italy in 1454 by Bishop William Gray. 57 A. Renaudet, Humanisme et Renaissance (Geneva, 1958), p. 101.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

17

disproved the genuineness of the so-called 'Donation' of Constantine.58 The accepted story was that the first Christian emperor had conferred immense privileges on Pope Sylvester I. The 'Donation' which embodied this supposed grant appears, ;n fact, to be a concoction of the eighth century. Its authenticity Lad been questioned by Otto of Freising in the middle of the twelfth century and by Dante and Marsiglio of Padua in the first half of the fourteenth century.59 In 1433, a few years before Valla's attack, it had been questioned at the Council of Basle by Nicholas Cusanus and in 1435-6 a papal official, Leonardo Teronda, had rejected it as an outright forgery in two private memoranda.60 There is at present no evidence to show whether Valla knew anything about these earlier criticisms. Valla's attack on the 'Donation' differed from all the previous ones in its exceptional thoroughness.61 His patron, King Alfonso of Sicily, was at war with Pope Eugenius IV and asked Valla to write some treatise against the papacy. Valla obliged by demolishing the credibility of the 'Donation' which had been used to support papal claims to secular authority in Italy. He proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this document could never have emanated from an ancient Roman emperor. Its Latin was much too barbaric and its use of official nomenclature was absurdly anachronistic. Valla also adduced sufficient historical arguments to show that the 'Donation' conflicted with several known facts about the emperor Constantine. This combination of both historical and linguistic expertise constitutes the main novelty of Valla's methods. One serious limitation of Valla's approach should be mentioned because, possibly, it throws interesting light on the outlook of his own generation of humanists. There is nothing to indicate that he asked himself questions about the descent of the text that he was 58 The best edition of the 'Donation' is in H. Fuhrmann, Constitution Constantini. Fontes iuris germanici antiqui, x (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hanover, 1968). 59 The medieval controversies about the Donation are discussed in G. Laehr, Die Konstantinische Schenkung in der abendldndischen Literatur des Mittelalters bis zur Mitte des 14 Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1926), and in D. Maffei, La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali (Milan, 1964). 60 Published in F. Gaeta, Lorenzo Valla. Filologia e storia nell'umanesimo italiano (Naples, 1955), pp. 201-52. See also G. Billanovich, 'Leonardo Teronda, umanista e curiale', Italia medioevale e umanistica i (1958), pp. 379-81. 61 I have used the edition of P. Ciprotti, Laurentii Vallae De Falso Credita et Ementita Constantini Donatione Declamatio (Milan, 1967). Particularly useful is also the annotated Italian translation in G. Radetti, Lorenzo Valla, scritti filosofici e religiosi (Florence, 1953), PP-285-375-

18

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

criticizing or whether it was a particularly corrupt text. As it happens, the textual history of the 'Donation' is terrifyingly complex62 and no scholar of Valla's time could have handled this particular problem satisfactorily. Some forty years later Angelo Poliziano was at least aware that these problems existed but he was apparently the first Italian pioneer to do so. In the eyes of most Italian humanists Livy was the greatest of the ancient Roman historians. There is in the British Museum Valla's own copy of Livy that had previously belonged to Petrarch. A group of marginal comments that seem to be made by Valla shows a special concern with certain aspects of Roman history, particularly the religious practices and the office-holding under the early republic.63 In his polemics with humanist rivals he published a list of 185 suggested emendations to books 21-6 of Livy, many of which are accepted today by modern scholars.64 But Valla also wrote a little treatise showing that there are internal contradictions in Livy's account of the two Tarquin kings of Rome. Valla asserted, quite correctly, that Livy was confused in calling the second Tarquin a son, and not a grandson, of the first. This represents the first known attempt since Antiquity to discuss critically a detail of the earliest Roman history.65 But to at least one reader, Benedetto Morandi, a Bolognese official, a criticism of Livy constituted a mortal offence to his memory and he complained in 1451 to Pope Nicholas V. In his reply Valla pointed out that he was not trying to belittle Livy, whom he greatly admired, but was simply proving that even Livy could err at times, as do many other historians.66 62 See especially W. Levison, 'Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester-Legenda' in Miscellanea Fr. Ehrle, ii (Studi e Testi 38, Vatican, 1914), pp. 159-247; S. Williams, 'The oldest text of the Constitutum Gonstaratini', Traditio, 20 (1964); H. Fuhrmano, op. cit. (1968). 63 Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 24931. Its creation by Petrarch is described in G. Billanovich, 'Petrarch and the textual tradition of Livy', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 14 (1951)) pp. 137-208. What seem to be Valla's notes are found, for example, on pp. 3r, 7v, 8v (against 'L. Quinctius Cincinnatum' a note 'Magister equitum'), 25V, a6v, 281, 41 v ('nofta] de auspiciis pullorum'), 49v. 64 R. Valentini, 'II "Codex Regius" de T. Livio', Studi italiani di filologia dassica, 14 (1906), p. 213. 65 H. J. Erasmus, The Origins of Rome in the Historiography from Petrarch to Perizonius (Leiden, 1962), pp. 28-31, and A. Momigliano, Terzo Contributo alia Storia degli Studi classici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1966), p. 550. 66 'Ego nego me damnare Livium, sed aio una in re ab eo dissentire, ut alii plurimi ab aliis dissenserunt', Erasmus, op. cit., pp. 28-9. See also Valla's letter of 1455 to Giovanni Tortelli in Opera Omnia (cited above), ii. 450, and L. Frati, 'Le polemiche umanistiche di Benedetto Morandi', Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 75 (1920), pp. 2-3.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

19

A more fundamental criticism of Livy was made by Nicholas Perotti, a humanist in the service of Cardinal Bessarion, in a preface to his Latin translation of the first five books of Polybius dedicated to Pope Nicholas V (in c. H54).67 Perotti pointed out that a part of Livy's account of the beginnings of the Second Punic War was copied almost word for word from Polybius, except that Livy had added various portents and miracles which Polybius had never mentioned. Perotti contemptuously lists the examples of stones retailed by Livy, of a god appearing to Hannibal, a rain of stones, or a baby publicly proclaiming a triumph and the like Perotti concludes that in this respect the Roman historian was clearly inferior to Polybius especially as, in Perotti's opinion, Livy himself did not believe in these tales.68 Biondo's large output of historical works and the seriousness with which he tried to equip himself for becoming a professional historian give him a place apart among the humanists of his time. He is a dull writer and was so regarded by his contemporaries. But he was indefatigable in his search for correct information. Much of what he says is true and very thoughtful, so that one is at times inclined to judge him as if he were a modern historian. I have referred earlier on to Biondo's imaginative grasp of the difference between the Roman civilization and the Christian values. In his Rome Triumphantt he had to face up to the contrast between the ideology of the ancient pagan Romans and the Christian view of the Roman empire as it was formulated by St. Augustine. Biondo understood clearly that if he was to recapture sympathetically the nature of Roman institutions there was no room in his account for Christian apologetics. In discussing, for example, the Roman conception of 'the love of glory' he recognizes the essential part it played in maintaining the Roman state, though, as he explicitly admits, this was contrary to Christian values expressed in St. Augustine's City of God.69 Attention has been drawn already to some of Biondo's inveterate prejudices, such as his hostility to the Byzantines. He was prepared, however, to surmount some of his dislikes, when it became clear 67 I am using Brit. Mus., Harleian MS. 3293, containing a copy very near in time to Perotti's translation. The preface is on ff. 2-4. 68 Ibid., f. y: 'que res ne ab eo [i.e. Livio] quidem sunt credite a quo scribuntur.' 69 Cf. Fubini, Biondo (1966), p. 553.

20

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

that he had got his facts wrong. In his Italia Iliustrata Biondo deliberately belittled the scholarly achievements of Petrarch.70 He began by describing Petrarch as * a man of great intelligence, but of even greater diligence'.71 Anything might be expected after this grudging preface. Biondo proceeded to list all the works of Cicero that Petrarch did not know. In his first draft, completed by 1453, Biondo even denied to Petrarch one of his greatest scholarly triumphs, the rediscovery in 1345 of Cicero's letters to Atticus.72 When in 1462 Biondo produced his revised, final version he tacitly dropped this gratuitous denial of Petrarch's discovery.73 Biondo's diligent search after evidence and his judicious evaluation of sources have been admirably discussed by Professor Denys Hay74 and a few additional examples may suffice to illustrate his methods. Biondo is very 'modern' in his frequent mentions of the authors that he is using. His source for the sack of Genoa by the Moslems in 935 is the narrative of a fourteenth-century Venetian doge, Andrea Dandolo. Biondo noted that this account showed sympathy for Genoa's disaster and that it was all the more reliable for coming from a man during whose dogeship Venice and Genoa had been involved in a bitter war.75 When a particular source underlies a whole section of his narrative Biondo sometimes discusses it at length. He does this with Procopius, our chief source for Justinian's reconquest of Italy. Biondo was aware that Procopius had been an eyewitness of some of the events described in his Gothic War. His interest in Procopius is limited to the facts that he can derive from this Byzantine source and he had no concern with what might lie behind the prejudiced statements of this enigmatic assistant to Belisarius, the Byzantine commander in Italy. The 70 I am using Biondo's first draft, completed by 1453, a copy of which was brought to England by Bishop William Gray in 1454 (Balliol MS. 286). 71 Ibid., p. 6pv; 'Franciscus Petrarcha, magno vir ingenio, maiorque diligencia.' 72 Ibid, 'aliud non vidit volumen earum que ad Atticum inscripte sic grandiorem habent eloquentiam sicut maiora et Ciceronem magis amicum attentumque habentia continent' (the italicized word appears as 'auctorem' in Nogara, op. cit. (1927), p. 223, who prints another version of the first draft). Later on (p. yor) Biondo refers to the Letters to Atticus as discovered 'at an uncertain date'. 73 Nogara, op. cit., p. 223. 74 'Flavio Biondo and the Middle Ages', Proceedings of the British Academy, 45 (1959). I owe thanks to Professor Hay for his generous loans of some of Biondo's works and for much other help. 75 'Italia Iliustrata', Balliol MS. 286, p. 8v;: 'Est quoque testimonium eius eo locupletum* . . . as the Venetians and the Genoese 'per Danduli ducatus tempora gravi ac periculosissimo utroque bello conflict! sunt'.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

21

Secret History of Procopius, which would suffice to arouse any reader's suspicions had not yet been rediscovered in Biondo's time. Biondo took a great deal of trouble to procure a good text of the Gothic War. He mentions a recent adaptation of it by his friend Bruni, but he obviously did not regard it as sufficient for his purpose. He candidly admits that his own knowledge of Greek was inadequate and that he had therefore arranged for a translation of the relevant portions of Procopius. He stresses his great debt to the Byzantine author, while deploring the errors and confusions. He cites as an example one error of Procopius. Biondo came from Fork', which lies very near Ravenna. It seemed singularly absurd to him that Procopius should have described Ravenna as divided into two halves by the river Po. Biondo mentions that he will have to correct Procopius in other matters. He will not do so out of any desire for controversy but only in the interests of historical truth.76 Several humanist historians were particularly attracted to the study of the origins of the states about which they were writing. They prided themselves on their critical ability to destroy the legends in which various countries and cities had concealed their ignorance of the remote past. For Italians this meant especially the expulsion of Virgil from the ranks of historians. Giovanni Villani in a famous passage ascribed the origin of his Chronicle to a visit to Rome for the jubilee of 1300. This made him think of the deeds of the Romans commemorated by their famous historians starting with Virgil.77 We are in a different world with Bruni. In writing in 1415 the first book of his History of the Florentine People he prefers a statement of Livy to one of Virgil, dismissing the 'poetic figments' of the latter.78 He was equally resolute, though much more nervous in writing in 1418 a letter about the origins of Mantua to its lord, Francesco Gonzaga. He was trying to argue that Virgil, the greatest of Mantua's sons, was wrong to attribute the city's name to Mantos, its traditional founder. Bruni's clumsy repetitions betray an obvious fear of giving offence. He was daring to maintain that nothing certain was known about the origin of Mantua and that Virgil's 76

Biondo, Decades (1559), p. 43. 'Le storie e' grand! fatti de Roman! scritti per Virgilio e per Sallustio e Lucano e Tito Livio . . . e altri maestri d'istorie.' Cited in G. Billanovich, Tra Dante e Petrarca', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 8 (1965), p. 41. 78 Santini e Pierro, Bruni (1914), p. 8. 77

22

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Mantos was a poetic fiction. Bruni was, however, prepared to concede the poet's authority for facts which could be corroborated from other sources, such as the Etruscan origin of Mantua.79 There are still preserved in the Vatican Library copies of some books that had been used by Biondo containing fascinating marginal comments. Against a passage of the 'Gesta regum francorum' proclaiming the Trojan origin of the Franks, Biondo wrote one single word, 'dreams'.80 In keeping with this, in his Decades he describes the Franks as Germans.81 The mythical Trojan ancestors of the Franks had still, however, a long future ahead of them. As late as 1714 Louis XIV imprisoned Nicholas Freret in the Bastille for stating that the Franks were originally a confederacy of German tribes. Biondo similarly dismissed the History of the Kings of Britain of Geoffrey of Monmouth. This work had had its detractors almost from the time of its first appearance, but most medieval readers had treated it as sober history. Biondo having perused it, entered only a single comment: 'I have never come across anything so stuffed with lies and frivolities.'82 It is an amusing fact, which would have horrified Biondo, that in the inventory of the papal library drawn up in 1475, twelve years after Biondo's death, one of his main works, Italia Illustrata, is entered next to Geoffrey's fabulous book.83 Biondo's most extensive attempt to reconstruct the origins of a state concerned Venice. After discussing this in two of his main works, he returned to the same subject in a separate history of Venice of which he managed to write only an initial fragment.84 Biondo's successive reconstructions of the origins of Venice are unsatisfactory because he tried to find a fixed date for the creation of the first substantial settlements on the Venetian islands and opted for the invasion of Attila and its aftermath in the middle of the fifth century. We realize now that the Venetian archipelago was settled very gradually over a prolonged period and that the story of the 79 I am using the text in Balliol MS. 315, ff. 53V~57V (a manuscript of Bishop William Gray). 80 'Somnia.' Cited in Fubini, Biondo (1966), p. 546. si Ibid. 82 Hay, loc. cit. (1959), p. 118. 83 E. Miintz et P. Fabre, La Bibliotheque du Vatican au XVe siecle . . . (Paris, 1887), p. 223. 84 Edited by Nogara, op. cit. (1927), pp. 77-89; cf. Fubini, Biondo (1966), p. 554.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

23

emergence of Venice cannot be reconstructed in a satisfactory manner.85 Biondo sensed this himself and a marginal comment on his unfinished draft records his desire for more sources.86

IV The appearance in humanistic historiography of a much higher standard of critical judgement was obviously a complex process. It arose gradually out of the things the humanists were trying to do, their desire to understand the ancient writers and their study of the evolution of the classical languages. But the pace of development seems to have quickened after the introduction of classical Greek literature into Italy. There is much controversy about the nature and extent of the influence of the Byzantine scholars on Italian humanists. I personally rate the small elite of the leading Byzantine scholars very highly. There seems to exist a considerable connection between the special interests and the methods of scholars like Manual Chrysoloras, who first introduced Greek scholarship into Italy, and the novel achievements of their leading Italian pupils.87 In discussing the influence of the recovery of Greek on the Italian humanist historians two separate problems must be faced. There is, first, the narrower problem of the impact of the Greek historical texts on the Italian historians. This is as yet an obscure subject. It is difficult to prove direct stylistic or verbal influences of the ancient Greek historians on the humanist writers. No major humanist historian has been systematically subjected as yet to this kind of scrutiny. The subjects treated by Thucydides or Herodotus were of no special interest to our group of Renaissance historians who were chiefly concerned with writing the history of Italy. Among the major Greek writers only Polybius, Strabo, and Procopius could be of much use for this purpose. Taken as a group, the Greek historical writings could influence the Italian historians profoundly only 85

See especially R. Cessi, Le origini del ducato veneziano (Naples, 1951). 'Vide ntmquid allegari debeant auctores a quibus hec traduntur.' Cited and discussed in A. Pertusi (ed.), La storiografia veneziana fino al secolo XVI (Venice, 1970), p. 302 and n. i. 87 See especially P. O. Kristeller, 'Umanesimo italiano e Bisanzio', in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e I'oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento (Florence, 1966), pp. 24-8, yi. 86

24

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

through their intrinsic high quality. How soon this did in fact happen must remain an open question for the time being.88 This brings me to my second, wider problem of the impact of the entire range of Greek literature, of which the historical writers formed only a small part. The intellectual horizons of the early Renaissance historians were bound to be widened by their contact with Greek civilization in all its aspects. This can be clearly seen, for example, in reading Bruni's short life of Aristotle, written in 1429. It is a piece of philosophical and literary criticism based on a profound grasp of the writings of both Plato and Aristotle. It is a reasonable conjecture that Bruni was applying here the methods inculcated by Chrysoloras, his first teacher of Greek. Bruni compares the two Greek philosophers, notes their common basic assumptions, but also traces the way in which Aristotle's interests and methods gradually diverged from those of his master. There are almost no factual errors in this little treatise and Bruni is right on all the essentials.89 The introduction into Italy of the texts of the leading Greek historians was bound to consolidate the lessons that the Italians could draw from the ancient Latin writers. It would make them appreciate more strongly the need for the choice of definite, clearly delimited subjects for historical study and for a more coherent arrangement of materials. It would sharpen their grasp of the nature of evidence and of what constituted a convincing proof. They could learn better how a historian reconstructed a reasonable chain of causes. Plutarch and Xenophon, the two Greek historians most popular with the fifteenth-century Italians, need not be discussed here for their influence could not be very profound. The more weighty historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius all reached Italy during the first quarter of the fifteenth century and Procopius was certainly known a few years later. According to my provisional calculations at least twenty-one manuscripts of Thucydides can, with fair probability, be traced in fifteenth-century Italy.90 The com88 O. Luschnat has recently observed in Thukydides der Historiker (Stuttgart, 1971), p. 1310, that there is as yet no study of the influence of Thucydides in the Renaissance and this equally applies1 to most of the other Greek historians. 89 The best critical edition is in During, op. cit. (1957), pp. 169-78. 90 This is a cautious list. I shall discuss the evidence in a future publication. The list, in a roughly chronological order, runs as follows:

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

25

91

parable figures for Herodotus and Polybius are smaller. In the first half of the fifteenth century only a tiny elite of leading humanists could read these writers in the original Greek, but this small group included all the men I have been discussing; Bruni, Guarino, Valla, Perotti. Only Biondo did not know enough Greek and had to use translations. In the later Middle Ages educated Byzantines were familiar with Thucydides and Herodotus. Men like Demetrius Cydones, the friend and patron of Manuel Chrysoloras, cite them quite casually.92 A copy of Thucydides that had once belonged to Giovanni Tortelli throws an interesting light on the importance attached to Thucydides by Byzantine teachers. Tortelli came to play an important part in assisting Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) to procure translations of the major Greek historians. Earlier on, in 1435, Tortelli had gone to Constantinople in order to study Greek. Within two months of his arrival his Byzantine teacher presented him with a manuscript (Not included in my total because unidentified), a MS. of Peter Miani, read by Bruni in 1407. 1. Vat. Urb. gr. 02, inherited by Francesco Barbara in 1415. 2. Laur. 69. %. Sold by Aurispa to Niccoli in 1417. 3. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 11727. In the Corbinelli Library, 1425. 4. Bodleian Canon, gr. 48, brought to Italy by Ciriaco of Ancona (but probably later on taken by him back to Constantinople). 5. ParisinuS' gr. 1734 (or a lost copy of it) used by Valla for his translation. 6. Neap. HI. B. 10 (or a copy of it) used by Valla for his translation. 7. Vat. gr. 126. Lent by Pope Calixtus HI to Cardinal Isidore Rutenus. 8. Marc. cl. 7 cod. 5. Copied by Palla Strozzi. 9. Cambridge Nn. 3. 18. Copied before 1469 from no. 8. 10. Vat. Pal. gr. 185. Belonged to Gianozzo Manetti. 11. Marc. gr. 364. Copied for Cardinal Bessarion. 12. Ambros. G. 72. Copied in 1461 by Giovanni Rhosos. 13. Bodl. Canon gr. 47. Owned by Ermolao Barbaro. 14. Monac. gr. 126. At Bologna in 1467. 15. Vat. Urb. 91. Copied at Constantinople c. 1461 from no. 4. Probably at Urbino by 1482. 16 and 17. Vat. Urb. gr. 89 and 90. Probably at Urbino by 1482. 18. Oxford, Corpus Ch. 80, copied by Michael Apostolios and therefore presumably destined for Italy. 19. Vat. gr. 1293. Copied in 1479, probably at Rome. 20. Florence, Laur. 69. 30. In the library of S. Marco by 1499-1500. 21. Florence, Laur., Conv. Sopp. 179. Copied at Florence in the fifteenth century. In addition there were in Italy at least three incomplete MSS. (Vat. 1353, Vat. Urb. gr. 131, Barb.gr. 95). 91 I shall list them in a future publication. The paucity of the manuscripts of Polybius was commented upon by Professor A. Momigliano in a lecture at the Warburg Institute in November 1973. 92 The references in the correspondence of Cydones to Greek writers are conveniently indexed in R. J. Loenertz, Demetrius Cydones. Correspondence, ii (Studi e Testi 208, Vatican, 1960), pp. 470-1. See also his remarks, p. xii.

26

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

of Thucydides.93 It is not surprising that soon after 1400 several Italian pupils of Chrysoloras were reading Thucydides. Petro Miani, who in 1409 became bishop of Vicenza, possessed a copy. As early as 1400-1 he lent it to the Paduan humanist Pier Paolo Vergerio, another disciple of Chrysoloras.94 In 1407 Miani lent his copy again to yet another pupil of Chrysoloras, and the ablest of them all, Leonardo Bruni. In a letter to Miani, Bruni apologizes for not returning it because> as he explained, 'I can never read him enough.'95 Bruni is the first important humanist historian to be clearly influenced by the ancient Greek historical writers. He uses them in his earliest historical works. In the first book of his History of the Florentine People, written in 1415, he used Dionysius of Halicarnassus as evidence for the Asiatic origin of the Etruscans.96 In 1418-19 Bruni wrote a commentary on the first Punic War, which is largely a paraphrase of the relevant portions of Polybius. In describing the Roman warfare in Sicily, Bruni also quoted passages from Thucydides giving details about that island.97 Bruni clearly modelled himself on Thucydides in preparing his funeral oration on Nanni degli Strozzi, the Florentine general killed in the war against Milan. In this speech, delivered in 1428, there are obvious echoes of the Periclean oration for the Athenians killed in the first year of the Peloponnesian war.98 Already in 1415 Bruni had used Procopius for his brief account of the Gothic wars in the sixth century A.D." In 1441 he completed an extended narrative of those wars, covering this time the whole of Italy. It is very largely a paraphrase of Procopius. Guarino had no intention of writing history, but he was fascinated by Thucydides and Herodotus. As early as 1411 he was thinking of translating Thucydides, whom he called 'the most noble and dis93 Cited in M. Regoliosi, 'Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli' Italia medioevale a umanistica, 12 (1969), p. 139. 94 L. Smith (ed.), Epistolario di Pier Paolo Vergerio (Rome, 1934), 240-2. 95 'Thucydides tuus apud me servatur, quern ideo non remitto mine per istos legates quia nondum satis ilium legi', in a letter of Bruni to Miani late in 1408, printed in Baron, Bruni (1928), pp. 200-1. An earlier letter of 1407 is printed ibid., pp. 107-8. 96 Santini e Pierro, Bruni (1914), p. 7, n. i, referring to a letter of Bruni. 97 B. Reynolds, 'Bruni and Perotti present a Greek historian', Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 16 (1954), p. 112. 98 La Penna, Sallustio (1968), p. 414, and Baron, Crisis (1955), i. 358-60. 99 Santini e Pierro, Bruni (1914), p. 20.

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

27

tinguished Greek writer'.100 Of Herodotus he spoke with delight. He translated an incomplete fragment of Herodotus and sought eagerly for a better and fuller text.101 Tortelli's vast orthographic dictionary included entries on several Greek historians. It is not a lively work and Tortelli's own personality is seldom revealed in it. The entry on Herodotus forms one of the rare exceptions. Tortelli confesses in it that he has always read Herodotus 'with the greatest delight'.102 I have already referred previously to Tortelli's share in procuring the Latin translation of several Greek writers, of whom only a few were historians. His correspondence shows that only the lack of suitable collaborators prevented the translation of even more historical texts. Tortelli had tried in vain to arrange for a translation of Procopius by one of Guarino's pupils.103 Most of the successful translations were made by men who were in the papal service at that time. The manner in which the team of translators employed by Pope Nicholas V executed their task tells us something about the attitude of this group of leading humanists to the Greek historians. No exhaustive survey of all the translations commissioned by Nicholas V can be attempted here. Their quality differed greatly. None of them are satisfactory by our modern standards but a few were as good as could be expected around 1450 and their very shortcomings are instructive. At least two were quite deplorable. One of those 'disasters' was Poggio's translation of the first five books of Diodorus Siculus,104 the author of a compilation chiefly valuable for the excerpts from the numerous writers cited in it. When Poggio carried out his translation he was acting as one of the papal secretaries. Poggio had won a great reputation as a rediscoverer of long-lost Latin texts, but he was not a proficient Greek scholar. He tried to turn out an elegant Latin work and produced a version that 100

R. Sabbadini (ed.), Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, i (1915), pp. 17-18, and iii (i 919), p. 13. 101 Ibid., i (1915), pp. 512, 564. See also ibid., ii (1916), pp. 89, 423-4, and R. Truffi, 'Erodoto tradotto da Guarino Veronese', Studi italiani di filologia classica, 10 (1902), pp. 73-94. 102 'Historicus graecus omnibus preferendus cuius historiam magna cum voluptate semper legi.' Balliol MS. 290, p. i68r (a manuscript brought from Italy in 1454 by Bishop William Gray). 103 R. Sabbadini, Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, iii (1919), p. 535. 104 See especially E. Walser, Poggius Florentinus, Leben und Werke (Leipzig-Berlin, 1914), pp. 229-30.

28

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

is more an adaptation than a real translation. There is no evidence that he was seriously concerned with the quality of the manuscript that he was translating. It is not surprising that he was the first to finish his allotted task (by August 1449), nor that the pope asked another scholar, Pier Candido Decembrio, to revise Poggio's version.105 Decembrio's own translation of the bulk of the 'Roman Histories' of Appian must also be regarded as a failure,106 though contemporaries apparently did not realize this. He had entered the papal service in the course of 1450 and Nicholas V, besides putting at his disposal a Vatican manuscript of Appian, borrowed two other manuscripts from Cosimo de' Medici. As we still have all the texts that Decembrio was using, it is clear that he had some very satisfactory manuscripts at his disposal. He mismanaged the translation badly and produced by 1454 a slovenly piece of work. Perhaps he became tired of translating a rather mediocre historian, though he never says so. The most difficult task of translating Thucydides was entrusted to Valla, who had entered the papal service in 1448. Valla greatly admired the Athenian historian whom he coupled with Sallust as an exponent of mature political outlook.107 He felt unequal to the task of translating him, as he honestly admits. Both in letters to his friend Tortelli and in the preface to his translation he deplores the absence from Rome of Cardinal Bessarion, the greatest Greek scholar in Italy. He had agreed to translate Thucydides on the assumption that he could depend on Bessarion's aid and he could not rely on anybody else to help him.108 Valla had at least two Greek texts at his disposal, both belonging to the same family of manuscripts, of which one at least was of high quality. Modern reconstructions of the text of Thucydides have to use at some points 105

V. Zaccaria, 'Sulk opere di Pier Candido Decembrio', Rinascimento, 7 (1956), p. 53. See especially ibid., pp. 47-53, and an earlier study of E. Ditt, Tier Candido Decembrio, contribute alia storia dell'umanesimo italiano', Memorie del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Cl. di Lett . . . 24 (1930), pp. 33-4. Cf. also the Teubner editions of Appian by L. Mendelssohn I (1878), pp. viii-ix, xxi-xxiii, and E. Gabba (1962), pp. xv-xvi. 107 G. Zippel, 'Lorenzo Valla e le originii della storiografia umanistica a Venezia', Rinascimento, 7 (1956), pp. 106-7,. In tne preface to his translation of Thucydides, Valla expresses high praise for the Athenian historian: Tanta in eo gravitas, tanta vis, tanta sine ulla, ut sic dicam, scoria fides.' Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS. Kk 4. 2, p. 2«\ 108 Camb. Univ. Libr. MS. Kk. 4. 2., p. iv; a letter of Valla to Tortelli in L. Valla, Opera Omnia (1962), ii. 425-6. 106

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

29

Valla's translation as the only evidence for a textual tradition now lost.109 How far Valla realized the excellence of what he was using there is no means of telling. His actual translation did not live up to his opportunities and it has been harshly criticized by modern experts.110 My impression is that Valla tried to do the best that his less than perfect mastery of Greek allowed him. He succeeded at least in conveying adequately the high quality of the mind of Thucydides. His translation is at times not easy to follow, but it recaptures the sophisticated complexity of the original and results in some very dramatic passages.111 On completing the translation of Thucydides in 1452, Valla was asked to tackle Herodotus, another of his favourite Greek historians. We are lucky to have all the three manuscripts used by Valla and his marginal annotations allow us to follow his careful comparisons of the original texts. One of his manuscripts is among the best we possess.112 The resultant translation is again disappointing by modern standards.113 But for more than a century, the vast majority of Western Europeans had their only chance of reading Thucydides and Herodotus in these versions of Valla. Perotti completed the translation of the first five books of Polybius (all that was available in Italy at that time), between 1452 and 1454, while he was in the service of Cardinal Bessarion. He probably used two manuscripts, one of which may have belonged to Bessarion, but there is as yet no detailed study of his methods of translating.114 By the late sixteenth century his version justifiably 109 There is an extensive literature on this subject. The best recent summary is in Luschnat, op. cit., pp. 1310-11, 1323. See also G. B. Alberti, 'Tucidide nella traduzione latina di Lorenzo Valla, Studi italiani di filologia classica, N.S., 29 (1957) and G. B. Alberti, 'Question! tucididee', Bollettino del Comitato per la Preparazione dell'Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greet e Latini, N.S., 15 (1967). 110 See especially Alberti's article (1957) cited in the preceding note, pp. 224-6. 111 I am using the version in Camb. Univ. Libr. MS. Kk. 4. %. Some of the marginal annotations in it must be copies of Valla's own marginal notes: e.g. p. 31'. 'Multa sunt similiter cadentia . . . apud Thucydidem que in Latino reddere laboravi.' A note on p. 65' referring to the speech of Diodotus against Cleon treats Sallust as an imitator of Thucydides: 'mos suus loquendi Thucydidis ut Salustius eum imitatus.' This also is probably a copy of one of Valla's notes. 112 See especially G. B. Alberti, 'Autografi greci di Lorenzo Valla nel Codice Vaticano Greco 122', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 3 (1960), pp. 287-90, 113 Ibid., pp. 289-90, and L. Alberti 'Erodoto nella traduzione latina di Lorenzo Valla' Bollettino del Comitato per la Preparazione dell'Edizione Nazionale dei Classici Greci e Latini, N.S., 7 (1959), pp. 80-2. 114 I have adopted the suggestions of Professor A. Momigliano in a paper read by him at the Warburg Institute in November 1973.

30

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

ceased to satisfy the more meticulous scholars like Casaubon.115 Perotti's preface is of special interest, revealing a sincere admiration for Polybius whom he regarded as an outstanding historian, superior in some respects to Livy.116 The translation of Strabo's 'Geography' was tackled by Guarino, who was justifiably regarded as the most experienced textual scholar of his generation. This was to be his last major work. The first two books were completed and sent to Nicholas V already by March I 453>117 though the whole work was completed only in I458.118 Nicholas V placed at his disposal one good text and Guarino possessed also two other texts belonging to the same family of manuscripts. We still possess all of them and they contain Guarino's marginal notes that can be compared with his translation.119 In the surviving draft of this translation, his invaluable working copy, Guarino repeatedly recorded what gaps he had encountered in any one of his manuscripts and how he filled them from his other sources. This draft, with its crossings out and alternative versions of sentences, also reveals Guarino's painstaking efforts to hit upon the right words.120 The resultant translation is too literal to be readily readable. Sabbadini, a stern but fair critic, remarked that it could serve better as an aid to the reading of the Greek text of Strabo than as an independent version.121 The prefaces to all the translations lavish praise on Pope Nicholas V. These tributes were thoroughly deserved. He had commissioned these works, had procured the necessary Greek manuscripts and had paid generously for the completed translations. Without the initiative of this first humanist pope most of the principal Greek historians would not have been translated so soon. 115

Reynolds, loc. cit., p. 118. Brit. Mus., Harleian MS. 3293, pp. v-if. Mention of the first section sent to Pope Nicholas V in a letter of Guarino to Tortelli of 7 March 1453 im R. Sabbadini, Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, ii (1916), p. 609. My suggestion that this may correspond to the first two books is based on a marginal note in Guarino's draft at the end of Book 2: 'hunc usque transcriptum missum est ad pontificem maximum' (Bodleian Libr., Canon. MS. 301, p. 42v). 118 Ibid., p. 2v, cited in Sabbadini, Epistolario, iii (1919), p. 485. 119 See especially A. Diller, 'The Greek codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino Veronese', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 24 (1961), p. 321, and A. Diller, 'Codex B of Strabo', American Journal of Philology, 56 (1935), pp. 97-9. 120 Bodleian Libr., Canon. MS. 301, passim. 121 In La scuola e gli studi di Guarino Guarini Veronese (Catania, 1896), p. 129. 116

117

The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography

31

V Despite promising beginnings, historiography as a systematic discipline did not make any decisive progress during the Renaissance. It did not emerge as a securely established branch of knowledge before the nineteenth century. The reasons for this delay would fill a large book, but one vital factor must be mentioned now: the fear to write freely. The Renaissance governments, much more than their medieval predecessors, were aware that historians could be valuable propagandists, but also dangerous enemies, because what they wrote was now likely to reach a wider and more influential audience. I have already referred to Guarino's refusal, out of fear, to write a history of Venice. Valla put his finger on the vital point in a candid private letter to Biondo written in 1444. He was explaining why he would not satisfy the wish of his master, King Alfonso I of Naples, that he should write the King's life. Valla referred with contempt to the recent adulatory life of Alfonso, written by the King's doctor. He, Valla, could not write like that and he also implied that he could not in this case procure the true facts that mattered. He preferred therefore to remain silent.122 Probably the greatest historical work by a Renaissance Italian was the History of Italy, written during the Italian Wars (between 1494 and 1534), by Francesco Guicciardini. It was written by that eminent Florentine statesman at the end of his life (c. 1535-40), mostly, it seems, in order to clear up in his own mind what had gone wrong with Italy during his lifetime. He wanted to explain the terrible tragedy of the foreign invasions which had destroyed Italian and Florentine liberty. He was dealing also with his own personal tragedy of failing, as the papal lieutenant-general, to avert the sack of Rome in 1527, with its sequel of the rebellion and the downfall of his native Florence. Guicciardini tried to puu the record absolutely straight, but he came to realize that his work could not, therefore, be safely published. When dictating his last will the day before he died, he firmly ordered that the History should be burnt.123 Fortunately his relatives disregarded this last directive, but twentyone years passed before they deemed it politic to publish the History. 122

In Opera Omnia (1962), ii. 411-12. R. Ridolfi, 'Fortune della "Storia d'ltalia" Guicciardiniana prima della stampa', La Rinascita, ii (1939), p. 829 and n. 2. 123

This page intentionally left blank

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF ITALIAN HUMANIST HISTORIOGRAPHY: THE 'NEW CICERO' OF LEONARDO BRUNI I IN 1962, while surveying the progress of Renaissance studies during the preceding twenty years, P. O. Kristeller noted that 'strangely enough' comparatively little had been written on humanist historiography. He ascribed this partly 'to the prejudice against the rhetorical style of the humanist historians, partly to the recent tendency among historians to concentrate either on documents rather than on narrative sources, or else on the intellectual history of the period'.1 The situation is not much different today after the passage of a further sixteen years. In addition to the factors enumerated by Kristeller, the absence of well-annotated, critical editions forms another major obstacle to fruitful study. Most of the more important or interesting works of Italian humanist historians of the fifteenth century must still be read in the original Renaissance editions or have to be studied in widely scattered manuscripts. In the case of Leonardo Bruni, the pioneer humanist historian, scholars have been exceptionally ill-served by some of the modern editions of his writings. In re-editing in 1928 a few sections of Bruni's Cicero Novus, Dr Hans Baron explained that he was omitting the bulk of this work as 'for a good part, though not always, it closely follows Plutarch, as is stated in Bruni's preface'.2 In fact Bruni departed later on much further from this plan than his preface might suggest, but this has not been generally realized. Bruni's initial statement probably accounts for subsequent neglect of Bruni's biography of Cicero. He has even led astray so acute a scholar as Antonio La Penna, who in his book on Sallust devoted a very interesting chapter to the influence of the Roman historian on Bruni,3 but omitted to include in it Bruni's Cicero Novus. Baron never gave the slightest hint that Sallust's Conspiracy of Catiline was one of the primary sources used by Bruni in his reconstruction of this episode. Bruni tried to revive most of the main types of ancient historiography and to acquaint his contemporaries with some of the best 1. P. O. Kristeller, 'Studies on Renaissance humanism during the last twenty years', Studies in the Renaissance, ix (1962). 2. H. Baron, Leonardo Bruni Aretinos Humanistisch philosophische Schriften (LeipzigBerlin, 1928), p. 114, n. 2. The sections of the Cicero Novus published by Baron are printed on pp. 113-20. Cited thereafter as Baron (1928). 3. A. La Penna, Sallustio e la 'rivolu^ione' romana (3rd ed., Milan 1973,). Appendice prima, pp. 409-31.

34

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

works on the history of Italy by ancient Greek writers.1 He made a start with Latin translations of some of Plutarch's lives, chiefly of Roman statesmen or of Greek invaders of Italy. This encouraged him to attempt original biographies of his own, beginning with Cicero, which was certainly completed some time in 1416, and possibly earlier. It is one of the more carefully prepared early historical works by Bruni, exhibiting his mastery of a wide range of classical sources and his critical capacity for combining and correcting his primary authorities. A remarkable short life of Aristotle followed, not later than 1429, and a few years later brief sketches, in Italian, of the lives of Dante and Petrarch. Bruni's enthusiastic reading of Thucydides2 and Sallust encouraged him to cultivate a terse Latin style and to present crucial episodes in a dramatic manner. Most important of all, they taught him the art of cogent and rational discussion of the causes of events. His most ambitious work was a continuous history of Florence from its foundation by the Romans to his own time. In conception and arrangement it was modelled on Livy's 'History of Rome'. The first book was completed by 1416 and Bruni was still working on the twelfth book shortly before his death in 1444. Thucydides and Sallust provided models of historical monographs on important but clearly delimited subjects. By 1419 he had completed a history of the First Punic War, mainly based on Polybius.3 This offered to readers ignorant of Greek a chapter of Roman history missing from the surviving portions of Livy. In 1441 Bruni similarly narrated what to him would appear as the last episode in the ancient history of Italy, its reconquest by the Emperor Justinian. This was principally based on the account of Procopius, but Bruni may have also used some other unspecified sources.4 His main excursion into Greek history consisted of a brief summary of Xenophon's Hellenica, completed 1. In what follows I give bibliographical references only to those of Bruni's works which will be cited again in this article, but which will not require detailed discussion. Further information is provided by the publications of E. Santini (1914) and B. L. Ullman (1946), cited below. 2. For Bruni's avid reading of Thucydides in 1407-8 see E. B. Fryde, The Revival of a 'Scientific' andErudite Historiography in the Earlier Renaissance , supra, p. 26 and n. 95. 3. The most recent discussions of this work are in B. Reynolds, 'Bruni and Perotti present a Greek historian', Bibliotheque d'humanisme et renaissance, xvi (1954), 108-14 and A. Momigliano, 'Polybius' reappearance in western Europe' in Entretiens sur I'Antiquite Classique, xx, Polybe (Geneva, 1973), 352-7.1 have extensively compared Miss Reynolds' summary of Bruni's work with his text. Her article needs amplifying but its main conclusions are fully justified. For Bruni's text I have used several fifteenth-century manuscripts including B.L. Add. MS 14777 (°f tne Gonzaga of Mantua), Florence, Laur. MS 65.11 (of Francesco Sassetti) and Riccardiana MSS Rice. 690 and 882. 4. E.g. Bruni's account of Totila's burning in Rome of the buildings on the Capitoline Hill and the Roman Forum is not based on Procopius ot any other easily identifiable source. It is on p. 3 8V of Leonard Aretini de Eello Gothorum seu de Bella Italico LibriQuattuor (ed. S. Petit, Paris, 1507). Bruni's manuscript of Procopius was almost certainly Laur. MS 69.8, with Bruni's autograph marginalia (e.g. fos. 2r, i8 r ). Cf., infra, chapter 4. For Bruni's hand, cf. the Appendix, infra, p. 53.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

35

probably in I439-1 ^ was written, apparently, for moralistic reasons, to warn his contemporaries of the dangers of internal discord and is the least satisfactory of all his historical writings. An autobiography modelled on Caesar's Commentaries was occupying Bruni in his old age. He brought it down to 1440, four years before his death. Another glance at the texts might usefully conclude this introduction. The History of the Florentine People was edited in 1914 by E. Santini,2 whose introduction must form the starting point for all serious work on Bruni as a historian. It is not an entirely satisfactory edition but is serviceable.3 The same is true of Bruni's autobiographical Commentaries, edited in 1926 by C. di Pierro.4 All his other historical writings await proper editions. Bruni's works were popular, they frequently survive in numerous manuscripts and the tracing of these texts to their original versions needs careful scrutiny. Before discussing further his edition of the Cicero Novus, a brief comment is needed on the only other modern edition of one of Bruni's historical works, I. Diiring's text of Bruni's Life of Aristotle, published in 1957. I shall be comparing this work, later on, with Bruni's biography of Cicero and the deficiencies of the printed text must therefore be mentioned. During frankly admitted that he had used only one late manuscript, presumably because it happened to be readily available at the British Library.5 It differs on a number of significant points from three other manuscripts, all apparently independent of each other, preserved today at Florence.6 In one crucial passage, Diiring's edition speaks of Plato's rather despicable (despicabilius] advocacy of the community of women, but the three Florentine manuscripts instead regard Plato's idea as rather inexplicable (inexplicabilius}.1 One is tempted to treat this second version as representing what Bruni may really have written. Dr Baron's edition of Bruni's writings, published in 1928, does contain much useful information, but its sources need controlling.8 1. Bruni's Xenophon manuscript was probably Laur. S. Marco 330. It contains several Greek marginal notes that may be in his hand. Cf. Appendix, infra, p. 53. 2. Leonardi Aretini Historiarum Florentini Populi Libri XII, Raccolta degli Storici Italiani, xix, pt. 3 (Citta di Castello, 1914). 3. Cf. La Penna, op. cit. p. 409, n. i. 4. Leonardo Bruni, Kerum suo Tempore Gestarum Commentarius (1)78-1440), Raccolta degli Storici Italiani, xix, pt. 3 (Bologna, 1926). 5. I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient biographical Tradition (Goteborg, 1957). Bruni's Life of Aristotle is edited from Add. MS 27491 (ibid. p. 168) which had once belonged to the abbey of St Flora. The text is printed on pp. 168-78 and the annotation of its non-textual aspects is very useful. 6. Florence Laur. MS 52.3, Laur. MS 52.5 and Riccardiana, Morenianus MS Fullani 22. 7. In Diiring's edition this passage is on p. 174. In Laur. MS 52.3 it is on fo. 86r, in Laur. 52.5 on fo. 99' and in Rice. Morenianus Fullani 22 on fo. 7 V . In collating these manuscripts with Diiring's edition I have noted numerous other significant differences. 8. Cf. L. Bertalot, 'Forschungen iiber Leonardo Bruni Aretino', Archivum Romanitum, xv (1931), 284-320; in Historische Vierteljahrschrift, xxix (1934), 385-400; 'zur Bibliographic der Ubersetzungen des Leonardus Brunus Aretinus', Quellen und Forschungen aus

36

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

The Cicero Novas happens to represent one of the more extreme examples of its overhasty textual scholarship. A critical edition of Bruni's biography of Cicero would have to go beyond Dr Baron's use of an inadequate edition of iSiy. 1 While Dr Baron's observed that Sicco Polenton's life of Cicero, completed some twenty years after Bruni's 'New Cicero', had tried to expand Bruni's biography,2 it escaped his notice that Polenton incorporates almost word for word large sections of Bruni's text. B. L. Ullman, who edited Polenton's Life of Cicero, also did not perceive this, but his critical comments on Polenton's sources provide, in effect, an invaluable guide to the classical texts used by Bruni.3 II

The best introduction to Bruni's achievements as a historian is to be found in B. L. Ullman's 'Leonardo Bruni and Humanistic Historiography', published in 1946.4 He successfully refutes Edward Fueter's grotesque underestimate of Bruni's ability and importance,5 but he does not try to trace Bruni's gradual development as a critical researcher and skilled historical writer. It is the aim of this article to throw some fresh light on the early stages of Bruni's apprenticeship to the historian's craft. His Cicero Novus, which is the main subject of this study, had an important place in Bruni's evolution as a historian. In a letter written probably late in 1416, Bruni remarked that he had been studying Greek literature for eighteen years.6 He claimed Italienischen Arcbiven und Bibliotheken, xxvii (1936-7), 178-95 and ibid, xxviii (1937-8), especially, pp. 268-85. Except for the article of 1931, I use the reprinted versions in L. Bertalot, Studien %um italienischen und deutschen Humanismus (Rome, 1974). 1. Bertalot, he. cit. (1934), reprinted 1974, p. 431. For establishing my own text I have used sections of a fifteenth-century manuscript, 136 of Bibl. Riccardiana at Florence (fos. i74r-2O4v), annotated by a well-informed humanist. I have collated it with the first printed edition in G. A. Campano's version of all the Latin translations of Plutarch's Parallel Lives (Rome, Udalricus Gallus, 1470) vol. u (using the copy at Venice, Bibl. Marciana, Incun. 98). I have also used two other Italian manuscripts of the fifteenth century in the British Library, Harleian MS 3426, fos. I34 v -i57 r and Add. MS 22318, fos. 2O2V-227V. This is a superbly illustrated manuscript produced for some princely patron in the third quarter of the fifteenth century, studied by C. Mitchell, A Fifteenth Century Italian Plutarch (London, 1961). 2. H. Baron, 'Cicero and the Roman civic spirit in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance', Bulletin of John Rj'lands Library, xxii (1938), 91, n. i. 3. The life of Cicero fills pp. 265-462 ofB. L. Ullman (ed.),SicconisPolentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVlll (Rome, 1928). 4. Published originally in Medievalia et Humanistica, iv (1946), and reprinted, without any changes, in B. L. Ullman, Studies in the Italian Renaissance (2nd ed., Rome, 1973), pp. 321-43. 5. In Geschichte der neueren Historiographie (1911, republished without altering the comments on Bruni in 1936). Cf. Ullman, op. cit. (1973, ed.), p. 323 and nn. 9 and 10. 6. B.L., Harleian MS 3426, fos. 6or-6iv (a hitherto unpublished letter from a miscellaneous collection of Bruni's writings).

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

37

that during that period he had not neglected any important Greek writer.1 His translations had included numerous works of Plato, Demosthenes, Plutarch and Xenophon. Bruni's first translation of a historical work was his version of Plutarch's Life of Mark Antony, carried out perhaps before 1405, and dedicated to the chancellor of Florence, Coluccio Salutati, his chief patron. This dedicatory preface gave Bruni his first opportunity for a few brief reflections on the historian's tasks. As he saw it 'there were only two ways of writing history: one was to observe and recount contemporary facts and the other to discover new sources and to present their accounts in one's own appropriate language'.2 The second type of enterprise was the harder of the two.3 He also informed Salutati that he intended to translate all the surviving biographies written by Plutarch.4 We know for certain of six more translations. Some twenty years later Bruni referred to all his renderings of Plutarch's works as belonging to an early stage of his scholarly activity5 and they should probably all be placed between 1405 and 1413. Only two, the lives of Sertorius and of Pyrrhus, cannot be dated with any precision. While Dr Baron, for unaccountable reasons, dated them between 1420 and 1423, L. Bertalot was most probably right in placing them some ten years earlier.6 Bruni's decision to switch from translations of historians to the writing of his own histories needs explaining, for it turned him into the leading historian of his time. The evolution of his plans can be traced from his letters and from the preface to the Cicero Novus, though they only tell one part of the story. We do not know whether the decision to write his own biography of Cicero preceded the project to embark on a history of Florence. The two works were connected, as some of the research involved in writing the story of Cicero's consulate would also provide evidence about the earliest Roman settlers at Florence. For some years after 1405 Bruni's efforts to translate Plutarch's lives of Roman statesmen were hampered by the lack of satisfactory manuscripts. Though as early as October 1405 he was working on a translation of the Life of the Younger Cato, this was still unfinished in 1407, because he was searching for a better Greek text. At that time he was also torn between the desire to continue his historical 1. Ibid., fo. 6ov: 'nullum prestantem grece lingue autorem'. 2. Momigliano, loc. cit. (1974), pp. 355-6. 3. Ibid. p. 356: 'In utroque enim par labor est, aut etiam maior in secundo''. Ten years later the Cicero Novus will represent one of Bruni's first attempts to write this most difficult kind of history. 4. Cited in Bertalot, loc. cit. (1938, reprinted 1974), p. 287. 5. In the preface to Bruni's translation of Plato's Phaedrus (in Baron, 1928, p. 167). Dr Baron unaccountably ignored this conclusive piece of evidence. 6. Bertalot, loc. cit. (1931), p. 290 and (1934, reprinted 1974), p. 436; Baron (1928), p. 123.

38

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

translations and a growing interest in Greek philosophy.1 However, by 1412 he did apparently translate five more biographies, four of Roman statesmen (Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Macedonia, Tiberius and Caius Gracchus, Sertorius) and the fifth of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, an opponent of the Romans in southern Italy. One has an impression that Bruni was not doing his best work in tackling this group of translations. Only the Life of Sertorius contains a preface and that is of scant interest.2 Bruni's contemporaries had particularly harsh things to say about that translation of Sertorius. A Milanese humanist, Pier Candido Decembrio, even accused him of omitting some passages 'by design or accident'.3 Bruni was more interested in Demosthenes. Between 1406 and 1412 he had also translated several speeches of the great Athenian orator. Loren2o Valla, a fastidious critic, later hailed them as Bruni's masterpieces. Bruni claimed that he had undertaken them in order to compensate for the loss of the famous Ciceronian translations of the same speeches.4 One is not surprised to find Bruni also working in 1412 on the translation of Plutarch's parallel lives of Demosthenes and Cicero. In the prefaces to his translations of the orations of Demosthenes Bruni was careful to add useful brief historical commentaries and this may have whetted his interest in providing a Latin version of Plutarch's biography of the Athenian statesman. Another consideration may also have influenced Bruni, though this is only a mere conjecture. We know that at some stage in his career Bruni used and annotated the best and oldest extant manuscript containing this particular pair of Plutarch's Lives, Vaticanus graecus 13 8.5 Future research will be needed to clear up whether this text was accessible to Bruni as early as 1412. His translation of the Life of Demosthenes was completed by December i4i2. 6 Bruni was delighted that his former Greek teacher, the great Manuel Chrysoloras, should have praised it, but work on 1. R. Sabbadini, 'Briciole umanistiche', Giornale Storico delta Leiterafura Ita/iana, xvii (1891), 219-20 (letter of 12 Oct. 1405); Baron (1928), 107-8 (letter probably of Oct.Nov. 1407); Sabbadini, loc. tit. 224-5, 227~8 (letters of 17 and 20 Dec. 1407). 2. Published in Baron (1928), pp. 123-5. 3. Firenze, Bibl. Riccardiana, MS 827, fo. 37r and v (a collection of correspondence of Pier Candido Decembrio). 4. For translations of the speeches of Demosthenes (and of a connected speech of Aeschines) see Bertalot (loc. «'/., 1931), pp. 299, 303-4 who extensively corrects Baron (1928); F. de Marco 'Un nuovo codice di Leonardo Bruni traduttore', Aevum, xxxiii (1959), 274-7. Baron's partial editions of texts (1928), pp. 108-9, 128-32 must be supplemented (for historical comments of Bruni) from unpublished manuscripts. I have used Oxford, Bodl. Libr., MS Canonici Lat. Class. 304, Venice, Bibl. Marciana, MS 4711 and Laur. MS 82.8 (a book of Piero de' Medici, copied in 1457). For Valla's praise of Bruni's translations cf. Bertalot (1937-8, reprinted 1974), p. 279. 5. I owe this information to the kindness of Professor David Thomason who had identified several of the Greek manuscripts used by Bruni. 6. Letters of Bruni, book 4, no. i, dated 26 Dec. 1412.1 have used vol. i of the edition of L. Mehus, Leonardi Bruni Aretini Epistolarum Libri VIII (Florence, 1741) and have collated it with fuller versions in Oxford, Balliol MS 310.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

39 1

the parallel Life of Cicero was giving him no pleasure. He had originally embarked on this translation because he had become very dissatisfied with an earlier Latin version, produced by Jacopo Angeli, another pupil of Chrysoloras. But as Bruni, in turn, worked on it, he began to doubt whether it was worth doing. In a letter that seems to belong to 1412, he remarks wistfully that he is much less pleased with this task than with reading the speeches of Demosthenes.2 He became convinced that Plutarch's biography did not do justice to Cicero and that Plutarch's comparisons with Demosthenes were unfavourable, to the Roman statesman. Bruni was right. Plutarch's Life of Cicero is today generally regarded as one of his less successful biographies and it is unfortunate that it happens to be the only ancient 'Life of Cicero' that has survived in full. D. R. ShackletonBailey harshly, but not unjustifiably, refers to it as 'largely anecdotal'.3 Ill

The years 1413-14 form an almost complete gap in Bruni's surviving correspondence. This largely explains why we know nothing about Bruni's scholarly activities during that dangerous and turbulent period of his life, when his whole future in the papal service was increasingly in jeopardy.4 Early in 1415, with his erstwhile patron, Pope John XXIII, rapidly heading for disaster, Bruni realized that only a hasty withdrawal from the Council of Constance could reestablish his fortunes. He appears to have reached Florence by the middle of March5 and permanently settled there. He was now a fairly wealthy man and a mature scholar of 45, 6 with ten years of varied political experience behind him. He had been, at times, very close to the centre of papal government. His assurance that he knew how to write history may have owed much to this practical familiarity with politics. Within a year of his return to Florence Bruni produced the first book of his Florentine History, which earned him Florentine citizenship in June I4i6. 7 During the same period he also completed his biography of Cicero.8 It now emerged as an independent historical 1. Mehus (1741), book 3, no. 19 and Bruni's preface to the Cicero Novus, in Baron (1928), pp. 113-14. This portion of Baron's edition of the text is quite correct. 2. Mehus (1741), book 3, no. 19. 3. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero (London, 1971), p. xii. There is a useful survey of all the recorded ancient biographies of Cicero in J. Guillen, 'Conoscimento indirecto de Ciceron a traves de sus biografos', Atti del I Congresso Internationale di Studi Ciceroniani (Rome, 1961), i. 4. The best account of Bruni's life is by C. Vasoli in Di^ionario Biografico degli Italiani, xiv (1972), 613-31. 5. Ibid. p. 624 and A. Gherardi, 'Alcune notizie intorno a Leonardo Aretino e alle sue Storie Florentine', Archivio Storico Italiano, ser. 4, xv (1885), 418. 6. Cf. H. Baron, 'The year of Leonardo Bruni's birth . . .', Speculum, Hi (1977). 7. Gherardi, loc. cit. p. 416. 8. A manuscript containing the Cicero Novus was copied at Constance in 1416 (Bertalot, loc. cit., 1938, reprinted 1974, p. 289, n. i). A letter of Bruni, Mehus (1741), book 4, no.

40

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

monograph, not a mere translation. In the dedicatory preface to his friend Niccoli, Bruni expressly stresses that he 'had not written as a translator but had composed his narrative according to his own judgment and wishes'.1 He was therefore pleased to call it the 'New Cicero'.2 His biography still owed a great deal to Plutarch, but it contained much else besides. It set the pattern for his subsequent handling of other Greek historians. He would henceforth produce adaptations or summaries of Polybius, Diogenes Laertius, Xenophon and Procopius, but never again mere translations of ancient historians. At this decisive moment in his scholarly career Bruni was very self-conscious about the duties of a historian. He had learnt from the best ancient authorities that he should explain in his prefaces what he was trying to do. In introducing his Cicero Novus he stressed that 'he must give reasons for all his statements and provide certain proof for all his assertions'.3 A less conventional comment appears in the preface to Book i of his History of the Florentine People dating from the same period. There he mentions among the historian's preoccupations 'the need to have his own opinion about everything he discusses'.4 This is one of Bruni's most thoughtful and penetrating observations. Outside his prefaces Bruni was not normally in the habit of explaining the rules that he meant to observe in selecting his evidence. We hear very little about how he tried to reconcile conflicting versions derived from different authorities. As Professor A. Momigliano had rightly noted, he does not appear to have ever 'formulated any general principle about the solution of such difficulties'.5 But in his biography of Cicero he repeatedly had to correct Plutarch and this work offers, therefore, an unusual opportunity for scrutinizing Bruni's criteria for preferring one type of authority over another. The sources used by Plutarch and Bruni for their biographies of Cicero demand some comment. This is a controversial subject. Professor F. Millar in his book on the historian Dio Cassius has urged that in studying an ancient historian a modern scholar has more important tasks than speculating about the sources that his author might have used. Even if some of the sources are fairly certain, 7, answering queries by a correspondent who had seen the completed Cicero Novus, appears in the edition of Bruni's correspondence based on Bruni's own selection between a letter (bk. 4, no. 6), dated i Dec. 1416 and another (bk. 4, no. 8) dated 4 Dec. 1416. (F. Beck, Studien %u Lionardo Bruni, Berlin und Leipzig, 1912, pp. 71, 82). 1. Baron (1928), p. 113: 'vitam et mores et res gestas eius . . . non ut interpretes, sedpro nostro arhitrio voluntateque descripsimus'. 2. Ibid. p. 114: 'Ciceronem hunc novum diligenter leges'. 3. Ibid. p. 113-14: 'De singulis rationem reddere et certa probatione asserere valeamus''. I printed this incorrectly in my paper of 1974. (fit. supra, p. 14). 4. Santini, op. at. (1914), fasc. i, p. 3 : 'de quaqua re iudidum in medio proferendum'. 5. Momigliano, loc. fit. (1974), p. 356.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

41

which is rare, this cannot take us very far because 'we do not know enough about how ancient historians worked. We have no grounds for general assumptions about what an ancient historian would do when using one or more existing works as sources of material.'1 The same doubts apply equally well to Bruni. Millar went on to explain that he was chiefly concerned with the pattern of Dio's narrative and with what Dio regarded as worth saying rather than with the precise derivation of his materials. This must also be our main approach to a thoughtful historian like Bruni, who deliberately combined quite varied authorities in a way that best suited his purpose. A dispassionate survey of Plutarch's methods confirms that he, too, worked in a similar way.2 Plutarch's priorities were different from Bruni's and the latter sensed this, though he could not define the difference as clearly as we can grasp it today. Plutarch stressed more than once that he was writing not history but biography, which he regarded as something quite distinct. He was primarily a writer of readable, moralizing essays offering edifying examples of distinguished men. He was trying to convey their characters through a selection of incidents from their lives.3 Bruni was convinced that Plutarch's treatment of Cicero had produced an unsatisfactory picture of the Roman statesman. He was determined to improve upon it by providing a more historical work, a fuller account of Cicero's career and achievements, which would, therefore, do him better justice. In his preface to the Cirero Novus he expressed his dissatisfaction with Plutarch's 'Life' by claiming that he had to turn away from Plutarch to other Latin and Greek sources. In fact, his authorities may not have differed as much from Plutarch's sources as he imagined, but Bruni's choice of new information was, at times, significantly different. Most scholars would agree with Shackleton-Bailey's comment that in dealing with Plutarch's Life of Cicero 'as a rule it is impossible to trace particular statements . . . to their sources'.4 One of the main difficulties is created by the uncertainty whether Plutarch used some of his sources at first hand or through unidentifiable secondary authorities. The same doubts beset us when we speculate about Bruni's sources, though here we are on firmer ground over essentials. He certainly derived significant additional information from some of Cicero's speeches and letters. Secondly, in retelling the story of Cicero's con1. F. Millar, A Study ofCassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), p. viii. 2. For a very fair and balanced discussion see A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1945), i, pp. 54-84, and particularly the comments on pp. 81-82. I owe this reference to my friend Professor Bryan Reardon, who has given me invaluable advice on all the classical ^sources used in this article. 3. Gomme, op. cit. pp. 54-56, quoting all the relevant passages from Plutarch. For a general discussion of ancient Greek biographical writing see especially A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971). 4. Shackleton-Bailey, op. cit. (1971), p. xii.

42 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography sulate he corrected and supplemented Plutarch's remarkable narrative of the events of that year by using Sallust's Conspiracy of Catiline, which Plutarch, probably, had not known at first hand.1 IV

Only a man steeped for many years in Cicero's dialogues, speeches and letters could have produced the sort of improved version of Plutarch's 'Life' that Bruni was able to write. In one of his earliest works, Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum, he was, clearly modelling himself on Cicero's De Oratore and there are echoes of phrases used in Cicero's correspondence in some of Bruni's earliest surviving letters.2 By November 1407 he had a manuscript of the speeches against Verres and was complaining in a letter to Niccoli about the corruptions in its text.3 A month later he was hoping to procure a better text of the collection of Cicero's letters to Atticus. In March 1408 he was reporting the acquisition of several more speeches of Cicero which Poggio was transcribing for him.4 Bruni's use of Cicero's speeches in the Cicero Novus is quite varied. They were particularly important for his narrative of Cicero's consulate.5 Sometimes he expanded Plutarch's reference to a speech by adding direct quotations from it. He did this, for example, by citing a particularly dramatic passage in Cicero's successful defence in October 46 B.C. of Q. Ligarius prosecuted at Caesar's instigation. Plutarch mentions that Cicero embarrassed Caesar by referring in his presence to the fratricidal bloodshed at the battle of Pharsalus. Bruni cited Cicero's actual words which had so greatly disturbed Caesar.6 A characteristic example, illustrating Bruni's familiarity with Cicero's speeches, comes from his account of an incident in 74. According to Plutarch, Cicero after acting as a questor in Sicily, discovered to his great surprise from a chance encounter with a friend that influential people had heard nothing of his exploits. According to Plutarch he met this friend somewhere in Campania. Bruni traced the source of Plutarch's anecdote to a passage in the speech 'Pro Cn. Plancio'. 1. For the relation of Plutarch's biography to Sallust see especially D. Magnino, Plutarchi Vita Ciceronis (Florence, 1963), pp. x-xi. 2. R. Sabbadini in Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, xcvi (1930), 129-33; idem., Storia e Critica di Testi latini (new ed., Padua, 1971), pp. 57-58, 60. 3. Ibid. (1971), pp. 40-41. The manuscript of Cicero referred to in this letter is Laur. Strozzi 44. It contains several autograph notes of Bruni. Cf. Appendix, infra, p. 53. 4. Sabbadini, op. fit. (1971), pp. 40-41; idem., Giornale Storico della L.etteratura Italiana, xvii (1891), 225, 228. 5. See below. For Plutarch's text I use the edition of R. Flaceliere et E. Chambry, Plutarque, Vies, xn, Demosthene-Ciceron (Collection G. Bude, Paris, 1976) cited hereafter as Plutarque (1976). 6. Plutarque (1976), Ciceron, 39, 6-7; Baron, op. cit. (1928), p. 117. Baron's text is quite correct here.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

43

Cicero had said there that it had happened at Puteoli. Bruni replaced this by 'at the baths', as presumably more intelligible to his readers.1 Bruni did particularly impressive preparatory work on the texts of Cicero's letters. When he cites them verbatim, his transcripts are so careful that it is possible to identify with complete assurance the manuscript that he was using. One of the letters cited integrally by Bruni is the message sent by Caesar to Cicero on 16 April 49. It so happens that important emendations to this letter are derived entirely from one particular manuscript (MS H).2 Bruni too gives all these correct readings.3 His manuscript was derived from an ancient text (yolumen antiquissimum sane ac veneranduni] that he and Niccoli had acquired in the autumn of 1409 from Bishop Bartolomeo Capra of Cremona. In reporting on this manuscript to Niccoli on i November 1409, Bruni observed that it contained only the first seven books of the letters to Atticus, but that it could be used to emend the text that they already had.4 The story does not end here. Some years later, we do not know when, Bruni came to own a famous manuscript of Cicero's letters to Atticus which had once been possessed by Salutati.5 This belongs to a different, and somewhat less reliable family of manuscripts, and does not appear to have been used by Bruni for his Cicero Novus. But, after it came into his possession, he began to insert in it conjectural emendations, some of which have been subsequently accepted by modern scholars as representing the best readings.6 At least one letter thus emended was summarised by Bruni in his Cicero Novus.1 Bruni's textual scholarship obviously inspires respect. Only a critical edition of the text, accompanied by a detailed commentary, can display fully Bruni's use of Plutarch and of other classical sources. The selection of examples that follows merely tries to illustrate Bruni's approach to such problems. 'He was well aware that ancient writers contradicted each other because they followed different sources. He thought he was imitating the ancients in so far as the ancients themselves blindly followed their sources; he knew that this situation created difficulties.'8 The Cicero Novus is a good text for studying how Bruni tried to cope with this predicament. 1. Plutarque (1976), Ciceron, 6, 3; A. C. Clark, M. Tulii Ciceronis Orationes (Oxford, 1911), 26, 64-65; Bruni, MS Riccard. 136, fo. 177". 2. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge), i (1965), 78-79 and iv (1968), 252-5. 3. Bruni, MS Riccard. 136, fo. 191' and v. 4. In Mehus (1741), book 13, no. 9. Bruni's description of this manuscript provides the evidence for the modern identification of the manuscripts stemming from it. See especially A. C. Clark, 'A Paris manuscript of the letters to Atticus', Classical Rev., x (1896), 321-3. 5. B. L. Ullman, The Origin and Development of Humanistic Script (Rome, 1960), p. 76. 6. For a list of the most useful emendations see W. S. Watt, M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae, n, i (Oxford, 1965), p. viii (to the end of book 8). A few more emendations from books 9, 10 and 14 are noted by D. Shackleton-Bailey, ibid. n. ii (Oxford, 1961), 22, 27, 49, 79, 218-19. Bruni must have used for this purpose other manuscripts besides MS H. 7. Book VII, no. i (Watt, op. cit. p. 225); Bruni, MS Riccard. 136, fos. i89v-i9Or. 8. Momigliano, loc. cit. (1974), p. 356.

44

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Bruni could be very prejudiced and obstinately wrong-headed. In his History of the First Punic War, written around 1418-19, because he suspected everywhere hostile bias against his beloved Romans, 'he deduced rather perversely* from Polybius that while Livy had followed the chief Roman authority, Fabius Pictor, 'Polybius had preferred Philinus', a pro-Carthaginian source.1 In fact, any dispassionate reading of Polybius shows that he had tried to use them both impartially and that he had often followed Fabius Pictor. The Cicero Novus starts with a very one-sided and uncritical discussion of Cicero's origins. Fortunately, a reader questioned Bruni about his sources at this point and Bruni's reply supplies valuable additional information.2 Faced with Plutarch's rather malicious statement that, while some said that Cicero was descended from an ancient king of the Volscians, others alleged that his father had been raised in a fuller's workshop, Bruni refused even to mention the second alternative. Here he was quite wise, but he was less well-advised in treating Cicero's royal descent as a certainty.3 He appealed to most 'authoritative writers',4 but it is somewhat disturbing to note that he only named one of them, St Jerome, in the Latin version of De Temporibus of Eusebius. Perhaps Bruni really did believe that this patristic authority silenced all doubt. Bruni tried to bolster up his case further by mentioning that Cicero himself had once referred to his regal descent. Cicero did so, indeed, jestingly, in the Tusculans, but Bruni accepts this in deadly earnest.5 In his letter he piles up some very specious reasons why Cicero on all other occasions might have been always reticent about his royal ancestors. He is on solid ground only in dealing with the evidence of Sallust. His correspondent had adduced Sallust's mention of Cicero's undistinguished origins. Bruni, quite correctly, replied that Sallust had merely spoken of Cicero as a 'new man' among the Roman senators. In the Cicero Novus, after this initial display of encomiastic prejudice, Bruni went on to record soberly that Cicero was of knightly rank. Plutarch did not bother to mention it in this context, though he did record it later when speaking of Cicero's election to the consulate.6 Bruni showed at this point his special interest in Roman institutions by adding an explanatory note that the knights were a group in the middle between the senatorial class and the ordinary plebeians.7 Other sensible things follow. Plutarch failed to indicate Cicero's youthful age when the latter had undertaken his first legal 1. Ibid. pp. 356-7. 2. MS Riccard. 136, fos. iy4 v -i75 r , modifying Plutarch's account, i, 1-2; Bruni's letter in Mehus (1741), i. 115-17 (bk. 4, no. 7 of Dec. 1416, cf. supra). 3. MS Riccard. 136, fos. 174^175': 'Principium vero generis Tullium Volscorum regem satis constanti opinione hominum referebat'. 4. Mehus (1974), i. 115: 'probatissimos auc'tores'. 5. Cf. the commentary of D. Magnino, Plutarchi Vita Ciceronis (1963), p. 4. 6. Plutarch, n, 3 (p. 78 of Bude edition). 7. MS Riccard. 136, fo. 174": 'equestrem locum qui medius interpatres etplebem habeb
The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

45

case by courageously defending Roscius, a victim of one of Sulla's freedmen. Bruni found in the Attic Nights of Gellius a quotation from the life of Cicero by Cornelius Nepos showing that Cicero was twenty-three. Other writers had alleged that he was four years older. Very reasonably, Bruni justifies his preference for the authority of Nepos, a contemporary and a friend of Cicero.1 Cicero's consulate in 63 fills almost a quarter of Plutarch's biography.2 Like most extant accounts of that year, it is derived in some way that cannot be precisely defined from Cicero's versions of what had happened.3 For the rest of his life Cicero never stopped talking and writing about his consular achievements and he had influenced in a one-sided way our conceptions of what really occurred in that year. Hence even Plutarch is more partial here to Cicero than in any other portion of his biography. Sallust's more detailed and much more exciting narrative of Catiline's conspiracy is also, probably, largely derived from Cicero,4 though his exact sources were partly different from those of Plutarch and he had, of course, some eyewitness information. Bruni mingled Plutarch and Sallust in a very discriminating way and he also made excellent use of the one relevant letter of Cicero and of Cicero's speeches against Catiline. Bruni's narrative of these events occupies a somewhat smaller proportion of his biography than does the corresponding section in Plutarch, 18 per cent of the Cicero Novus as compared with about a quarter of Plutarch's Life of Cicero.5 What Bruni jettisoned from Plutarch could well be spared, especially as it was replaced by more precise details derived from Sallust and the speeches. Bruni was fortunately innocent of all the many problems that modern scholars have discovered, and sometimes unnecessarily invented, in dealing with Cicero's consulate.6 He tells a closely-knit story well and in a consistent manner. It is the most masterly section of his biography. 1. Ibid. fos. I75 v -i76 r : 'Ego Cornelia Nepoti ut pote coetaneo et in primis fatniliari et cum dilgentia hominem observanti magis crediderim. Ullman's edition of Polenton (tit. supra, 1928), p. 277, identifies Gellius, xv, 28 as the source used by Bruni. 2. Sixteen pages out of sixty-three in the Bude edition (1976), Plutarch 10-24. 3. The most detailed discussion of the possible sources is in Magnino's edition (cit. supra, 1963), pp. ix-xiii. M. Gelzer's review of it in Gnomon, xxxvi (1964), 658-62, fails to make out a convincing case that Plutarch followed throughout mainly one unspecifiable source, though it adds some useful details. 4. R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley and Cambridge, 1964), p. 73. 5. Four folios, I38 r -i42 r , out of twenty-two in Harl. MS 3426 (fos. I34 v -i57 r ). In what follows I use this manuscript as the most careful of the versions seen by me. Detailed references will be given only on points of special importance. 6. B. A. Marshall, Crassus. A Political biography (Amsterdam, 1976), as one of the latest contributions, provides a good introduction. Syme, Sallust, ch. 6-9 (pp. 60-137), contains a most readable and penetrating discussion. Both these accounts dispose of the bulk of the ill-founded speculations of much modern scholarship on Catiline. For the exact identification of the sources at each point in the story, E. G. Hardy, The Catilinarian Conspiracy in its Context: a Re-study of the Evidence (Oxford, 1924), remains indispensable. There is a useful summary of the exact order and dates of events in D. Stockton, Cicero. A Political Biography (Oxford, 1971), Appendix A (pp. 336-9).

46

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Bruni noted from a letter of Cicero to Atticus, written shortly after 17 July 6 5, that at that time Cicero was quite willing to have Catiline as his fellow consul if they were elected together the following year. He was even prepared to defend him in court against a charge of extortion.1 Bruni cites the relevant sentences from this letter and sensibly comments that a suspicion of conspiracy could not yet have arisen in Cicero's mind.2 Bruni was preferring here a primary source to Sallust who, in fact, 'will not have known that item'.3 Perhaps this piece of evidence persuaded Bruni that Catiline could not have been wholly detestable. He prudently omitted the wilder allegations against Catiline's character made by Plutarch and Sallust. He likewise ignored Sallust by remarking that during the early part of Cicero's consulate Catiline's designs still remained hidden,4 as most modern scholars would agree. In dealing with the escalation of the troubles from late October 63, Bruni chiefly followed Sallust's dramatic account. From there he supplied the personal details and names that were missing in Plutarch. The latter had incorrectly named the leader of the rising in Etruria as Mallius and Bruni corrects this to Manlius. Bruni provides the name of Q. Curius who unwittingly betrayed the proposal to assassinate Cicero to his mistress Fulvia who, in turn, warned the consul. The names of the two would-be assassins who went to Cicero's house were given quite wrongly by Plutarch. Bruni not only provided the correct names of C. Cornelius and L. Vargunteius, but worked out, following Cicero's first speech against Catiline, that they were both knights. Again he preferred here a primary source to Sallust's misleading statement that Vargunteius was a senator, which, in fact, he had ceased to be three years earlier.5 Bruni supplies the details given by Sallust, but missing in Plutarch, about the treasonable contacts between the conspirators at Rome and the envoys of the Gallic tribe of the Allobroges, the uncovering of which finally gave Cicero his chance to imprison the leaders of the conspiracy. Bruni knows that the man who contacted Cicero on behalf of the terrified Allobrogan envoys was Fabius Sanga. The crucial compromising papers were found on an agent of the conspirators described by Plutarch as merely a man of Croton. Bruni supplies his correct name, T. Vulturcius, and describes how his full confession before the senate led to the imprisonment of the conspirators. In reporting the debate in the senate that sanctioned their execution, 1. Shackleton-Bailey, Letters to Atticus, (cit. supra, 1965), i, pp. 130-1; Bruni, Harl. MS 3426, fo. i38 r . 2. Ibid.: 'Credo nondum orta erat coniuracionis suspicio que paulo post intellecta vel suffragata Ciceroni putatur'. 3. Syme, op. cit. pp. 93-94. 4. Bruni, Harl. MS 3426, fo. I38 V : ''Nam res quidem Catiline ab initio consulatus in occulto adhuc manebant'. 5. Cf. J. Linderski, 'Cicero and Sallust on Vargunteius', Historia, xii (1963), 511-12,

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

47

Bruni, instead of following Plutarch, which would have been more correct here, accepted Cicero's statement in the fourth speech against Catiline implying that he, as consul, had pronounced in favour of the death penalty.1 Bruni could not know that this represented Cicero's later version, rewritten some three years after the event.2 Sallust was of no help here as he had ignored Cicero's real speech which was too ambiguous to be worth reporting.3 In any case no scholar can entirely escape error in dealing with the deceptively plentiful but treacherous materials about Cicero's consulate. Our overall judgment on Bruni's handling of it must be one of admiration for his good judgment in selecting evidence and his skill as a writer. Bruni's treatment of this episode does provide enough examples of choice between discordant authorities to permit some speculation about the rules that he may have followed. Fairly consistently he seems to have preferred primary documents to narrative sources. Admittedly the documents were all either Cicero's letters or speeches and Bruni admired Cicero too much to have serious doubts about his veracity. That was one of his limitations as Cicero's biographer. V

Bruni had special ideological and 'Florentine' reasons for being interested in Catiline's revolt. C. Manlius, who first assembled the rebel army in Etruria, recruited some of his followers from the Roman veterans settled by Sulla at a new colony near Fiesole. This was the original centre for the assembly of his forces. The evidence in Sallust and in Cicero's speeches about the rising represented, therefore, the first certain references to Florence in the only ancient sources available to Bruni and his Florentine contemporaries. On it rested the proof, dear to the heart of Bruni's original patron, the Florentine chancellor Salutati, that Florence had been founded under the republic and not by Caesar, as was universally believed by the older medieval chroniclers.4 In his History of Florence Bruni 'did not even deign to mention this earlier legendary tradition',5 but the more scholarly of his Florentine readers would have appreciated that both there and in the Cicero Novus, he was restating the case for the 1. Plutarch (Bude edition), 21, 2 and commentary on it, ibid. p. 152; Bruni, Harl. MS 3426, fo. 141". Cf. Also Hardy, op. at. pp. 89-97 (sources for the senate debate). 2. Hardy, ibid. p. 94, n. i; Syme, op. cit. pp. 74, 109. 3. Syme, ibid. p. 109. See also G. Boissier's severe comment on Cicero's speech in Ciceron et ses Amis. &tude sur la Societe romaine du Temps de Cesar (i6th ed., Paris, 1912), p. 48. 4. See especially N. Rubinstein, 'The beginnings of political thought in Florence. A study in medieval historiography', journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, v(i942), 198-227 and R. Witt, 'Coluccio Salutati and the origins of Florence', Pensiero Politico, ii, (1969), 161-72. 5. N. Rubinstein, 'Bartolomeo Scala's Historia Florentinorum', Studi di Bibliografia e di Storia in onore di Tammaro de Marinis (Verona, 1964), iv. j i.

48

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

republican origins of Florence. In his biography of Cicero Bruni has one explicit reference to the recruitment by Catiline of 'many former soldiers of Sulla settled in colonies around Fiesole'.1 The History of the Florentine People starts with a superbly assured statement: 'Florence was founded under the Romans by Sulla.' A later sentence tells us that 'these colonists were mentioned by Tullius (Cicero) and Sallust, two most distinguished Latin authors'. There follows a brief account of Catiline's conspiracy and of the ultimate destruction of his army near Pistoia.2 It agrees with Bruni's fuller account in the Cicero Novus, except for one significant detail. In the biography of Cicero the references to Caesar's part in the events of 63 are purely factual and show no special bias against him. He is mentioned as a custodian of one of the imprisoned conspirators and as urging in the senate that their lives should be spared. These were well known facts. But in the History of the Florentine People Bruni inserts a barbed remark about suspicions of Caesar's original share in the conspiracy. He presumably took it from Plutarch.3 Perhaps it was his way of stressing the absurdity of the older Florentine legends that Caesar had been one of the commanders who had defeated Catiline and had then founded the new city of Florence. It might equally well form part of Bruni's recurrent denunciations of the Roman emperors. In Bruni's eyes Caesar was the first emperor. He hated them because in his view they had gradually destroyed all the best achievements of the Roman republican civilization.4 That note is struck only once in the Cicero Novus, in the account of Cicero's consulate. In recording that for the destruction of Catiline and his followers Cicero was proclaimed 'the father of his country', Bruni remarks that this was the title usurped later by the Roman emperors. To Cicero it was granted in a free city and not by some sycophantic adulator but on a motion of M. Cato.5 The facts are in Plutarch, the comment is Bruni's own. For the period of Cicero's consulate Bruni could combine two differing narrative sources and this confers exceptional interest on his narrative. After 63 the situation was simpler, but duller. He had only Plutarch for his guide, except where speeches or correspondence of Cicero could be cited. Bruni's account of Cicero's proconsulate in Cilicia in 51-50 B.C. improves notably on Plutarch's less detailed version through the use 1. Harl. MS 3426, fo. I39 r : 'multi ex Syllanis militibus qui olim circa Fesulas in colonias deducti\ 2. Santini ed., op. cit. (1914), pp. 5-6. 3. Plutarch, 20, 6-7; Bruni (Santini ed.), p. 6; 'Tetigitque suspicio C. Caesarem". 4. There is a long and eloquent passage to this effect in the Florentine History (ed. Santini, 1914), pp. 14-15 starting with the words 'Declinationem autem romani imperil ab eo fere tempore ponendam rear quo atnissa liber tate, imperatoribus servire Roma incepit' (p. 14). He returned to this theme around 1436 in the preface to a brief life of Petrarch (published in Baron, op. cit. 1928, pp. 64-65). 5. Harleian MS 3426, fo. 138*: 'Sed Ciceroni, libero adhuc civitate, et non ab hoc vel illo adulator e sed ex sententia M. Catonis hie tantus honor accessit''.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

49

of Cicero's letters to Atticus. Cicero's correspondence plays an even greater part in Bruni's reconstruction of the difficult years that followed, when Cicero hesitated between remaining a neutral observer of the civil war and joining Pompey. Plutarch had little patience with Cicero's doubts. Bruni's account1 is more sympathetic to Cicero and historically probably nearer the truth. It is somewhat confused in places, but so was Cicero's mind. Bruni thought that Cicero was ultimately swayed into joining Pompey by his traditional loyalty to what he came to regard as the true cause of the republic.2 This is probably true and takes us nearer to the understanding of Cicero's motives than does Plutarch's narrative. But Cicero was also weighing the chances of the two combatants and here he miscalculated.3 In what follows, Bruni sympathetically conveys Cicero's dignified independence under Caesar's victorious regime. Bruni's citing of Cicero's speech in defence of one of Caesar's opponents has already been mentioned.4 However, Plutarch also correctly stated that the conspiracy of Brutus and Cassius to assassinate Caesar was concealed from Cicero. He explains this by the lack of confidence in Cicero's courage.5 Bruni preferred to omit the whole passage, perhaps because it was too critical of his hero. Plutarch's account of the grim period between the assassination of Caesar on 15 March 44 and the murder of Cicero by the orders of the Second Triumvirate on 7 December 43 forms one of the weaker sections of his biography.6 Bruni rightly thought that it did not tell a clear enough story to those who did not already know the facts. There was even no mention of Mutina (Modena) as the pivot of the military operations in the winter of 44-43. Bruni was familiar with the history of that period from his translation, some ten years earlier, of Plutarch's Life of Mark Antony. In the Cicero Novus he improves upon Plutarch by giving a more intelligible account of the main events.7 Bruni's vision of Cicero's last fight for the cause of the republic was totally different from Plutarch's unsympathetic attitude. Plutarch viewed cynically Cicero's activities in this last period of his life and, especially, his reasons for allying with Octavian. Recent historians of these events have shared Plutarch's doubts about Cicero's motives, though of course, in a much more sophisticated and less one-sided manner.8 Bruni went to the other extreme. In his 1. Riccard. MS 136, fos. I90r-i92r. 2. Ibid. fo. 191*: 'Virum bonum [i.e. Cicero] et optimas reipublicae partes suscipere consueturn pudebat in his castris non esse in quibus Pompeium ducem . . . esse videbaf. 3. For Cicero's motives see R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (paperback ed., Oxford, 1960), pp. 137-8 and D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero (1971), pp. 152-5. 4. Supra, p. 42. 5. Plutarch, 42, 1-3. Cf. commentary in Magnino, op. cit. pp. 144-5. 6. Ibid. 42-49. 7. Bruni, Harl. MS 3426, fos. I54 r -i57 r . 8. See especially, Syme, The Roman Revolution and Stockton, Cicero. A Political Biography.

50

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

eyes it was Cicero's finest hour. Oratorically it certainly was, and Bruni had thoroughly absorbed Cicero's Philippics against Mark Antony. As he saw it, he was recording the end of republican freedom and he described the victims of the proscriptions ordered by the triumvirs as being 'all the good and most notable men and the chief aim of this proscription was to destroy good men and lovers of liberty'.1 Bruni's account of Cicero's death follows Plutarch's, but with some of the more gruesome details left out. The concluding sentences of the Cicero Novus are Bruni's own. He records that the greatest enemies of Cicero, M. Antony and his brother Caius, died violent deaths, while the third triumvir, Lepidus, was stripped of power and ended his days in wretched poverty. 'Thus all the enemies of Cicero perished miserably and ignominiously.'2 VI

Bruni was not satisfied with writing a mere 'political' biography of Cicero. He realized the importance of Cicero's activities as a translator of Greek orators and philosophers and as a writer of dialogues and treatises on government, rhetoric and philosophy. But at the time of the composition of the Cicero Novus Bruni did not know how to create an 'intellectual' biography. There were no models to follow. Plutarch let him down badly at this point. Bruni did try, at least, to bring together into one section all the scattered remarks of Plutarch about Cicero's remarkable intellectual gifts. This is the one section of Bruni's biography that Dr Baron republished integrally in 1928.3 Dr Baron's neglect of the rest of Bruni's biography has led him to attach exaggerated importance to what is not the most successful part of Bruni's little monograph. Dr Baron regards some of Bruni's statements here as forming the core of his message. Cicero is portrayed as a model of 'civic' humanism, as a man who admirably blended political activity with scholarly achievement. One sentence of Bruni is interpreted as claiming that Cicero derived from the same philosophical convictions the mainsprings of his political attitudes and scholarly teachings.4 These general statements are not, however, followed up by an exposition of Cicero's philosophical views. Bruni at this point merely follows almost word for word Plutarch's meagre few sentences. Cicero was the first to expound philosophy in Latin. 'Previously philosophy was unknown in our language and almost abhorred Roman speech. Many learned men thought that it was im1. Harl. MS 3426, fo. 156*: 'Et erant sane hi omnes boni etprestantes viri nihil enim magis in ilia proseriptione quesitum est quam bonos et amatores libertatis extinguere''. 2. Ibid. fo. 157': 'Ita omnes Ciceronis inimici misere tandem ignominioseque perierunt'. 3. Op. at. pp. 114-17. His version requires several emendations of single words. 4. H. Baron, 'Cicero and the Roman civic spirit in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance' (ubi supra), 90-91.

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

51

1

possible to write or speak about it in Latin'. Bruni then went on to mention Cicero's attempts to create a new vocabulary of Latin terms derived from the Greek language or to provide new Latin equivalents of Greek words. He omitted, however, the seven specific examples listed by Plutarch.2 Bruni presumably assumed that he was writing for readers .who did not know any Greek. Going beyond Plutarch, Bruni praised Cicero in a few brief sentences as the father of Latin eloquence, who had added rhetorical excellence, the queen of humanities, to the other spheres of Roman power.3 For some inexplicable reason Bruni omitted one of the few comments about Cicero's intellectual interests that Plutarch does vouchsafe to us. Not a word in Bruni about Cicero's alleged intention to write Roman history and to narrate myths and fables that he had collected.4 Bruni's one detailed addition to this meagre section of Plutarch was to append a list of Cicero's works, consisting both of things he had seen himself and of writings mentioned by others. It is a reasonably full list and some fifteenth-century readers regarded it as one of the most valuable features of the Cicero Novus, Battista Guarini, in his lectures on Cicero delivered at Ferrara in the second half of the fifteenth century, told his pupils to read Bruni's biography for the facts of Cicero's life and the list of his works. 5 An English contemporary of Guarini, William Worcester, copied into one of his notebooks only Bruni's list of Cicero's writings.6 Our sense of the inadequacy of the 'intellectual' section of Bruni's biography of Cicero's is enhanced by a comparison with his brief Life of Aristotle, which he completed probably in 1430.7 His main source was the life by Diogenes Laertius, but Bruni achieved something much superior. During the preceding thirteen years he had translated some of Aristotle's works, including the Nicoma,chean Ethics, and had come to appreciate the essential features of Aristotle's outlook and manner of reasoning. He tried to convey these things by comparing Aristotle with Plato. Probably Bruni was applying here the methods inculcated by his old master Chrysolaras, who in his teaching had resorted to comparisons between contemporary writers.8 In dealing with each of these two philosophers Bruni put 1. In Baron (1928 ed.), pp. 114-15: 'Hie enim primus philosophiam antea nostris litteris ineognitam et paene a Romano sermone abhorrentem, de qua nee La fine scribi nee disputari posse plerique docti viri arbitrabantur, Latinis litteris explicuit (explieavit in Riccard. MS 136, fo. I93 V )2. Plutarch, 40, 2. Their sources in Cicero's writings and their Latin equivalents are given in A. Gudeman, The Sources ofPlutarch's "Life of Cicero (Philadelphia, 1902), p. 103, n. 8 (continued on p. 104). 3. In Baron (1928 ed.), p. 115. 4. Plutarch, 41, i. 5. Riccard. MS 681, fo. 149'. 6. B.L., Cotton MS Julius, F. vn, fos. 6yv-68v. 7. During, op. cit. (1957), p. 168. The biography is mentioned in Bruni's undated letter in Mehus (1741 ed.), bk. 6, no. 3, which follows immediately a letter of November 1429. The best text in Balliol MS 310, fos. 89r-9or. 8. Cf. Guarino's Life of Plato, Oxford, Magdalen Coll. MS Lat. 39 (deposited at the Bodleian Library), fo. 93' , discussed in detail, infra, chapter 3.

52

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

into his own words the results of his own extensive reading of their works. His brief summary of how they basically differed and of what is particularly important about Aristotle's handling of evidence is essentially correct. As During pointed out, this little monograph of Bruni is 'a remarkable achievement'.1 In contrast to the Cicero Novus, Bruni was here providing an acceptable model of how intellectual history might fruitfully be discussed. One last comment about the Cicero Novus. Plutarch thought he was illustrating Cicero's personality by providing an anthology of anecdotes about him. Some are of doubtful authenticity and several are frankly malicious. Bruni duly translated these stories. This is no way to appreciate Cicero. Despite his genuine admiration for Cicero, Bruni was not the man to convey, or even probably to grasp, the things that mattered most. Not the 'statesman, moralist and writer but . . . the vivid, versatile, gay, infinitely conversable being who captivated his society and has preserved so much of himself and of it in his correspondence. Alive, Cicero enhanced life'.2 Plutarch did not appreciate this and Bruni did not know how to go beyond Plutarch in recapturing what we best like to remember about Cicero.

1. Op. fit. (1957), p. 178 and his instructive notes to the text, pp. 168-78. See also my comments in Fryde, op. fit. (1974), supra, chapter 1, pp. 14, 24. 2. D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero, p. 280. There are exceptionally perceptive appreciations of Cicero in H. Marrou, 'Defense de Ciceron', Revue Historique, clxi (1936) and P. Boyance, Etudes sur fhumanisme cieronien (Bruxelles, 1970).

The 'New Cicero' of Leonardo Bruni

53

APPENDIX

A definitive identification of Bruni's handwriting would require photographic illustrations. This is only a preliminary statement of the evidence discovered so far. The starting point for the identification of Bruni's handwriting was provided by a note in a manuscript at Florence. Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. Strozzi 44, fol. 104v. (Cicero's speeches against Verres). In discussing this manuscript Bruni remarked 'Hie liber, cum ab initio recte scriptus fuisset, postea corruptus est ab homine qui, cum vellet eum corrigere, corrupit. Qua re priorem litteram accepta, correctiones reice'. This is substantially the same as the description of this manuscript in a letter of Bruni of 7 October 1407 to his former pupil. Niccola de'Medici (ed. L. Mehus, Leonardi Bruni Aretini Epistolarum Libri VIII, Florence, 1741, book 2, no. 13): 'Mitto tibi orationes Ciceronis in Verrem recte quidem scriptas sed, ut videbis, male emendatas: qui enim corrigere voluit, eas plane corrupit'. These texts were noted by R. Sabbadini in 1911 (reprinted in R. Sabbadini, Storia e critica di testi latini, Padua, 1971, pp. 40-41). He recognised that the note in ms. Strozzi 44 is an autograph of Bruni ('E veramente la nota e di Leonardo Bruni'), but did not try to pursue this discovery any further. I have identified the same hand in numerous marginal notes in ms. Laur, 49.18, known to have been owned by Bruni. It reappears also in Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. Rice. 166, fos. 247r-248r, in a document that one would expect to be written in Bruni's own hand. This is a letter of 4 March 1441 (Florentine style), addressed to King Alfonso V of Aragon, enclosing the gift of Bruni's translation of Aristotle's 'Polities'. The text of the translation is written in a different hand, of one of Bruni's copyists. For the letter of dedication see L.G. Rosa (ed.), Studi su I'Epistolario di Leonardo Bruni (Rome, 1980), pp. 148-149 (book 9, no 2).

This page intentionally left blank

3

THE HISTORICAL INTERESTS OF GUARINO OF VERONA AND HIS TRANSLATION OF STRABO'S 'GEOGRAPHY'.* 1

The Italian humanists of the fifteenth century were, like Petrarch, their ablest precursor, of necessity, a historically-minded group.1 They were trying to recover and interpret all the surviving writings of the ancient Greek and Latin authors. Their professional activities as emendators, editors and translators of classical texts and as writers of minutely detailed commentaries on these works inevitably sharpened their sense of history. The rediscovery of the need to understand the historical evolution of the classical world was one of the most important and novel features of humanistic scholarship. Besides, some of the best prose writers of Antiquity were historians and humanists had to be familiar with that part of classical literature. Guarino Guarini of Verona (c. 1374-1460) was a very representative figure among a small elite of early humanists who were able to master Greek as well as Latin.2 He had a deservedly high reputation as an efficient teacher of Latin and Greek and as the author of useful aids to * I owe thanks to my friends Philip Davies and Gwyn Walters for numerous valuable corrections. 1 A detailed bibliography would be out of place here. I have attempted a brief discussion of the historical interests of the early humanists in The Revival of a 'Scientific' and Erudite Historiography in the Early Renaissance [Cardiff, 1974, cited henceforth as Fryde, Historiography (1974), above, chapter 1]. Among other recent publications should be mentioned especially V. R. Giustiniani, 'Umanesimo : la parola e la cosa' in Studia Humanitatis Ernesto Grassi zum 70 Geburtstag (Munchen, 1973), particularly pp. 27-29; E. Kessler, 'Petrarch's contribution to Renaissance historiography, Res Publica Litterarum (Lawrence, Univ. of Kansas), 1 (1978), pp. 129-49 and E. Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1981). 2 The best biographies are in two books of R. Sabbadini, Vita di Guarino Veronese (Genoa, 1891), cited thereafter as Guarino I (1891) and La scuola e gli studi di Guarino Guarini Veronese (Catania, 1896), cited thereafter as Guarino II (1896). Sabbadini's best work of synthesis, // metodo degli umanisti (Florence 1922), cited henceforth as // Metodo (1922), is partly illustrated from Guarino's scholarly activities.

56

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

the study of classical languages and literature. Guarino and Leonardo Bruni, both pupils of Manuel Chrysoloras, were regarded by their contemporaries as the two foremost translators into Latin of ancient Greek writers. This was, for example, the opinion of Francesco Barbaro, one of the most scholarly and distinguished Venetian statesmen of that time.3 Guarino was particularly noted for his translations of many of Plutarch's 'Lives of illustrious Greeks and Romans.' Between 1408 and 1437 he translated at least thirteen biographies.4 Guarino's editions of classical texts had a wide circulation, particularly his recension of Juvenal's Satires.5 Our modern text of the letters of the Younger Pliny is partly based on a manuscript rediscovered and carefully transcribed by Guarino.6 His voluminous correspondence7 reveals contacts with humanists from all over Italy, who sought his advice on every imaginable topic pertaining to the novel studio, humanitatis. Like the vast majority of the humanists, Guarino was not primarily a historian but he was an avid reader of ancient historians. He had carefully assembled the precepts about the value of history to be found in the writings of the Roman rhetoricians, especially Cicero and Quintillian, and he cited them repeatedly.8 Piero del Monte, one of Guarino's most eminent pupils, reminiscing many years later about his master, thought it quite natural to describe Guarino as a man most expert in all ancient history.9 3 Venice, Bibl. Marciana, ms. Marcianus lat. XIII 71 (4142), pp. 9r - 10V, an undated letter to Lorenzo Monaco. It is edited as no. 127 in A. M. Querini, FrancisciBarbari et aliorum ad ipsum epistulae, Brixiae 1743, p. 188: For Bruni's translations of Plutarch's 'Lives' see Fryde, Bruni (1980), above chapter 2. 4 The translations with their appropriate dates are discussed in Guarino II (1896), 130-33, 235 (later corrections). Sabbadini also illustrated Guarino's methods of translating Plutarch (p. 133). The most detailed list of all the fifteenth century Latin versions of Plutarch's 'Lives' is provided by V. R. Giustiniani, 'Sulle traduzioni latine delle Vite di Plutarco in quattrocento', Rinascimento, 2nd. ser., 1 (1961) pp. 14-41. It is not certain whether Guarino completed a translation of the 'Life of Sertorius'. Guarino referred to such a version in one of his letters (Giustiniani, p. 31, n. 3) and it is also attributed to him in a set of translations in mss. Vat. Lat., 918-19. Guarino also started a translation of 'Brutus' but did not complete it after he had learnt of the, existence of an earlier Latin version (Giustiniani, p. 37 and n. 3). 5 Cf. E. Pellegrin (et alii), eds., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliotheque Vaticane, I (Paris, 1975), p. 15. 6 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), pp. 96, 111-13 and in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 8 (1900), pp. 446-47. Several of Sabbadini's publications dealing with Guarino's work on Pliny's 'Letters' are conveniently grouped together in his Storia e Critica di Testi Latini (Padua, 1971), pp. 264-70. 7 Edited by R. Sabbadini> Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, 3 vols. R. Deputazione Veneta di Storia Patria, Miscellanea di Storia Veneta, Venice 1915-19, cited henceforth as Epistolario. 8 Cochrane, op. cit. (1981), pp. 73, 157-8 and 536, no. 102. See also section II below.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

57

By the standards of his ablest contemporaries, like Leonardo Bruni, Flavio Biondo or Lorenzo Valla, Guarino's historiographical enterprises and his comments about history may not seem impressive. Unlike them he did not have a markedly original mind and he also lacked their experience of having to face up to the crucial problems encountered by a professional historian.10 Guarino was, in fact, a fairly typical humanist, though of exceptional technical competence. We need to know what were the historical interests of such men and what they were capable of doing. We cannot usefully assess Guarino if we start by writing off his reflections and priorities as simply platitudes inherited from the writers of Antiquity.1 x Remigio Sabbadini, Guarino's most distinguished modern biographer, did discuss, among other things, Guarino's historical interests. Where his account is adequate there is no need to cover the same ground and this article rather aims at supplementing Sabbadini's writings. More information has come to light since Sabbadini's last extensive study of Guarino in 1922. Sabbadini did not treat as fully as is desirable Guarino's 'Life of Plato,' written in 1430, and he never discussed in sufficient detail Guarino's last semi-historical enterprise, the production of a Latin version of Strabo's Geography, translated by the Veronese humanist between 1453 and 1458, when he was in his eighties.12 Strabo wrote it in the time of Augustus and Tiberius and it is one of our major sources of information about the Roman Empire, and especially about its eastern provinces, during that period.13 It is an immense work. We are lucky to have Guarino's complete first draft of his latin version (Bodleian Libr., ms. Canonici lat. 301) which fills 551 folio pages and is profusely annotated in his own hand. There also exists a partial transcript with less full annotation (Brit. Libr., ms. Burney 107). Guarino attached great value to his drafts. Some twenty years earlier he had refused to lend a manuscript of the 'Attic Nights' of 9 R. Fubini (ed.), Poggius Bracciolini, Opera Omnia, IV (Turin, 1969), pp. 621-2: 'vir omnium historiarum et totius antiquitatis pertissimus (a letter of Piero del Monte to Poggio of 31 January 1440). 10 For some of their comments see Fryde, Historiography (1974), in this volume, chapter 1, p. 8 and n. 17, p. 15 and n. 48 and Fryde, Bruni (1980), above chapter 2, pp. 37, 41-3, 545-7. For Biondo see also R. Fubini, 'Papato e storiografia nel Quattrocento', Studi medievali, 3rd ser., 18 (1977), pp. 326-7. 11 Cf. the comments of G. H. Nadel in History and Theory, 3 (1963), p. 258. 12 For the 'Life of Plato' see section III and for Strabo's Geography see sections V-VI below. 13 For a fairly complete bibliography of works on Strabo see A. M. Biraschi, P. Maribelli, G. D. Massaro, M. A. Pagnotta, Strabone. Saggio di Bibliografia, 1469-1978 (Perugia, 1981), cited hereafter as Strabo, Bibliografia (1981).

58 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography Aulus Gellius in which he had been entering his emendations as he 'would not exchange it for all the riches of Croesus and all the gold of Midas.'14 His very numerous marginal notes in ms. Canon 301 provided, among other things, a working index which allowed easier checking of his version against the original Greek texts. But the usefulness of his marginalia goes well beyond this. They reveal Guarino's insatiable curiosity, including a wide interest in ancient history. He noted carefully everything connected with Strabo's personality and travels. Perhaps Guarino was originally planning to preface his translation with a brief life of the Greek geographer, though, as far as we can tell, he never wrote this. His marginal notes certainly draw attention to almost all the necessary information and anticipate most of the contents of the brief biographies provided by Strabo's sixteenth-century editors, Xylander and Casaubon.15 Sabbadini was not interested in Guarino's notes since he was only intent on procuring from Guarino's draft the most authoritative versions of a succession of prefaces written by Guarino at different stages of his undertaking.16 It is one of the main purposes of this article to survey more fully these marginal notes of Guarino. This is particularly desirable as ms. Canon. 301 is in a very bad condition and is no longer normally accessible to scholars. Such a study will confirm that Guarino had an acute eye for detecting valuable evidence,. There are several earlier glimpses of this in his works and correspondence. One earlier example may suffice. It occurs in a letter written in 1449 to his former pupil, Leonello d'Este, the ruler of Ferrara, and forms part of a controversy among several leading humanists about the intelligibility of literary Latin to the ordinary Roman population. Guarino, quite correctly, opposed the view that standard Latin used by ancient prose writers and orators was unintelligible to uneducated Romans. As an irrefutable piece of evidence he adduced a text discovered by his friend Poggio. This was a list of shorthand abbreviations, dating from the age of Constantine, used to record official speeches addressed to Roman troops or to the 14 'Adeo veridicum et magna ex parte emendatum ut eum pro Croesi opibus et auro Midae mutaturus non sim'. Cited by H. Baron in Studies in Philology, 48, (1951), p. 117 and n. 20. 15 For these editions see Strabo, Bibliografla (1981), p. 23; A. Diller in P. O. Kristeller (ed), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, II (Washington, 1971, cited henceforth as Diller, Catalogus (1971), pp. 230-32; A. Diller, The Textual Tradition of Strabo's Geography (Leiden, 1975), pp. 168-69. See also sections V-VI below. 16 Sabbadini discusses these prefaces most fully in 'La traduzione guariniana di Strabone' 77 libro e la stampa, new ser, 3 (1909) cited henceforth as Sabbadini, La Traduzione, 1909, pp. 5-16.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

59

populace. As Guarino was quick to see, it proved that standard Latin usage was identical with the language of the ordinary people.17 Not all of Guarino's humanist contemporaries shared his strong historical interests. The Florentine Niccolo Niccoli annotated very fully his autograph copy of the 'History' of Ammianus Marcellinus.18 Niccoli was particularly curious about all geographical details and even frequently tried to emend this text by restoring what he regarded as the correct forms of place names. His marginal notes on matters of historical interest are rare and of scant interest, in marked contrast to Guarino's treatment of Strabo. Above all, Niccoli ignored in his notes the valuable autobiographical passages of Ammianus which provide our only source of evidence about this fascinating fourth-century historian. By contrast, Guarino drew attention to virtually every scrap of information about Strabo's life. Guarino's 'Life of Plato,' completed in 1430, was mainly based on the Greek lives of Plato and Socrates by Diogenes Laertius at a time when these were not yet available in a Latin translation.19 It forms one of the earliest humanistic attempts at writing intellectual history and, for this reason, it deserves more attention than Sabbadini has given to it. Admittedly it is an unsatisfactory work, even by the standards of its own time, and is much inferior to Leonardo Bruni's brief 'Life of Aristotle,' written in the previous year. Guarino's very limitations are, however, significant, highlighting the difficulties experienced by a devout Catholic humanist in handling pagan philosopy. Bruni was able to face this problem outside a religious framework as did Guarino's greatest Byzantine scholarly contemporary, Cardinal Bessarion. Unlike Bessarion, Guarino lacked the mastery of the philosophical thought of Plato and Aristotle that could only be acquired through prolonged familiarity with their original Greek writings.20 One of the features of Strabo's Geography that appears to have attracted Guarino was Strabo's wide learning and especially his 17 R. Sabbadini, 'Spogli ambrosiani latini', Studi italiani di filologia classica, 11 (1903), p. 295. The most recent discussion of this controversy is in R. Fubini, la coscienza del latino negli umanisti: an latina lingua Romanorum esset peculiare idioma', StudiMedievali, 3rd ser., 2 (1961), especially, pp. 507-11. 18 R. Cappelletto, 'Niccolo Niccoli e il codice di Ammiano, Vaticano latino 1873', Bollettino del comitato per la preparazione dell' edizione nazionale dei dassici greet e latini (cited henceforth as Bollettino del Comitato per Edizione Nazionale, new ser., 26 (1978), especially pp. 62-70. 19 The copy of Ambrogio Traversari's Latin translation presented to Cosimo de' Medici (Florence, Bibl. Laur., ms. 65.21) bears the date of 8 February 1433 (1432 according to the Florentine style of dating). Cf. A. Sottili, 'Autografi e traduzioni di Ambrogio Traversari', Rinascimento,6 (1966), p. 11. 20 See section III below.

60

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

familiarity with the Greek philosophers. Strabo had been influenced by Stoic philosophy but was also well-acquainted with the Aristotelian teachers of his time. The first sentence of his treatise proclaims that 'The science of Geography ... is ... quite as much as any other science, a concern of the philosopher.'21 Some of his miscellaneous information about philosophy, and about Greek science in general, is of unique value. 22 Guarino's marginalia in ms. Canon. 301 confirm his interest in making this learning more widely available. II

Guarino's earliest published comments on the value of history date from around 1426. It tells us something about the old-fashioned background of his scholarship that they should appear in the preface to his lectures on the 'Famous Deeds and Sayings' of Valerius Maximus, a collection of memorable or edifying stories culled out of earlier classical writers in the time of Augustus or Tiberius. Sabbadini has conjectured that Guarino's familiarity with Valerius was of long standing, assuming that Guarino had been a pupil of Marzagaia of Verona whose principal work had been modelled on Valerius.23 This relationship has been recently questioned and all that can be proved is that the two men knew each other.24 It is also certain that as far back as 1415 Guarino was emending a manuscript of Valerius by inserting into it the missing Greek words.25 Valerius was so popular in the Middle Ages that Niebuhr, with some pardonable exaggeration, described his work as 'the most important book next to the Bible.'26 Guarino was most probably unaware that fifty years before his lectures Luca de Penna, writing in the service of Pope Gregory XI, had already firmly denied that Valerius could be of any serious use to historians and had described this work as a compilation made by a poet and a moralist.27 In any case Guarino would have undoubtedly dismissed as unjustified these acute critical 21 I am citing the translation of H. L. Jones (Loeb. ed.), vol. I (1917), p. 3. 22 See sections V-VI below. 23 Sabbadini, Epistolario, III (1919), pp. 96,103 and IlMetodo (1922), p. 78. 24 R. Avesani, 'Guarino Veronese, Marzagaia e Manuele Crisolora' Universitd di Macerata, Annali della facolta di left e filos., 8 (1975), pp. 367-79. 25 Sabbadini, Guarino I (1896), p. 176. 26 C. J. Carter, 'Valerius Maximus' in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II (London, 1975), p. 26. 27 G. di Stefano, 'Ricerche sulla cultura avignonese del secolo XIV, Studi Francesi, 1 (1963), p. 13: 'Errat si quis ex lectione Valerii noticiam hystoriarum habere se putet' and 'Exempla autem Valerii non sunt pro hystoriarum noticia recensenda'.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

61

comments of the great Avignonese jurist. In his eyes history was inseperable from moral instruction and the value of Valerius lay precisely in the moral teachings. Guarino concluded his preface by commending Valerius for not only aiming at instructing his readers but also at making them good men. 28 In February 1459, not long before Guarino's death, the same note was struck by his son, Battista, in a letter describing Guarino's educational methods. Valerius was one of the two historians expressly mentioned by Battista. He was to be valued for 'offering actual illustrations of virtuous precepts couched in an attractive style.'29 Guarino's preface covers very adequately the usual humanist expositions of the value of history, citing, of course, Cicero's oft-quoted description of it as 'a witness of the times, the light of truth, the life of memory, the guide of life and the messenger of the past.' 30 Guarino enumerates the pleasure and instruction given by history and insists, especially, on its usefulness. This stress on its practical uses will recur in his later reflections. It will form the keynote, in 1446, of his Latin adaptation of parts of Lucian's little treatise on 'How to write history.'31 Lucian is, at least, very amusing at times. This is not a quality one associates with Guarino but he was trying to produce an elegant adaptation of Lucian in a Latin literary setting, replacing allusions to Greek authors by citations from Cicero and other Roman writers. Echoing again Cicero's remarks on the utility of history, Guarino wrote that 'the primary purpose of history and its unique aim is to be useful.' 32 He detected a kindred spirit in Strabo. He liked Strabo's reiterated advocacy of the utility of geography. In ms. Canon 301 Guarino noted in the margin against the first of these passages 'geographiae utilitas.'33 Guarino also drew attention to a later passage 28 There exists a modern edition of Guarino's prefatory lecture on Valerius by K. Miillner in Wiener Studien, 18 (1896), pp. 292-4, but I am using a mid-fifteenth century manuscript version, Oxford, Balliol Coll. ms. 135, fo. 8V: 'Valerius ex rebus gentis ita singula virtutum genera excerpsit, ut non tarn erudire mortales quam eos bonos reddere visus est'. 29 Cited from W. H. Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators (Cambridge, 1912), p. 169. 30 Balliol Coll. ms. 135, fo. 8V quoting Cicero, De Oratore, II, 36. I am citing B. L. Ullman's translation in his Studies in the Italian Renaissance (2nd ed., Rome, 1973), p. 329. 31 Edited by Sabbadini in Epistolario, II (1916), no. 796, pp. 458-65. See also Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 136 and //Metodo (1922), p. 79. For the text of Lucian I have used Loeb. ed. by K. Kilburn, Lucian, vol. VI (London, 1959) and the Italian translation (with useful annotation) by L. Canfora, Teorie e tecnica delta storiografia classica (Bari, 1974), pp. 41-80. 32 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), p. 462: 'primus autem historiae finis et unica est intentio utilitas'. 33 Fo 8r referring to Strabo I 1.1 In Bude ed. by G. Aujac et F. Lasser re (Paris, 1969), I, p. 65. Strabo's faith in the utility of geography is discussed by J. G. C. Anderson, "Some questions bearing on the date and place of composition of Strabo's Geography' in Anatolian Studies presented to Sir W. M. Ramsay, Manchester, 1923 (cited hereafter as Anderson, 1923), p. 13 and G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford, 1965 (cited hereafter as Bowersock, 1965), p. 128 and n. 2.

62 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography claiming that the utility of history is of even more importance than the pleasure that it gives.34 However, Guarino did not himself dare to write contemporary history. When, in 1427, a Venetian friend asked him to write an account of the recent war between Venice and Milan, he firmly declined to do so, remarking that 'in the past this could earn enmity and to-day it might even cost a man his head.'35 This well-known incident may have contributed to the prevalent impression that Guarino was not deeply interested in history but proves only that he was prudent and an honest scholar. He was a citizen of one of Venice's subject cities and knew the dangers of writing candidly about contemporary events. Nineteen years later, in his little treatise of 1446, he wrote an eloquent passage about the duty of the historian to be impartial and nobody's man, 'following solely his own principles.'36 Ill

In 1429 Guarino migrated from Verona to Ferrara. The move gave him a higher income, better conditions of work and new and stimulating intellectual contacts. One of the first fruits was the completion, at the request of Filippo Pellicioni, the physician of the ruling Marchese Niccolo III of Ferrara, of a 'Life of Plato.'3 7 It was written in 1430 and may have been influenced by the knowledge that Lorenzo Bruni had just completed a short 'Life of Aristotle.'38 There is, however, no evidence that Guarino had read it when he was writing about Aristotle's principal teacher. A brief warning is necessary about the quality of our texts of Guarino's 'Life of Plato.' The first printed edition may have done a disservice to its reputation. It was published in 1470 at Rome as part of a collection of Latin versions of Plutarch's 'Lives' and of other biographies. Parts of Guarino's text were arbitrarily left out and there are glaring errors which make some sentences unintelligible.39 One 34 Ms. Canon. 301, fo 12r., referring to Strabo I, 1. 19 (in Bude ed., I, p. 81). 35 Cited in Sabbadini, // Metodo (1922), p. 83: 'un procedimento questo che una volta si attirava 1'odiosita, oggi puo costar la testa'. 36 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), p. 462: 'suis vivens legibus'. 37 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 136 and Epistolario, III (1919), pp. 270-71. I am using Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, ff. 77V - 96r. It was copied c. 1440 by Thomas Candour who brought it to England. I owe this information to the kindness of Miss A. de la Mare (cited henceforth as Magdalen Coll. ms. 39). 38 Fryde, Bruni (1980), above, chapter 2, pp. 35, 51-2. 39 Edited by G. A. Campano (Udalricus Callus, Rome, 1470), vol. II. I have inspected Cardinal Bessarion's copy at Venice, Bibl. Marciana, incun. 98 and a copy at London, Brit. Libr., pp. 564-71.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography' 63 40 must use only the earlier manuscript versions of Guarino's treatise. As has been already noted, Guarino's 'Life of Plato' is an inadequate work even by the standards of his own time. However, in order to judge him fairly, one must remember some of the difficulties that he was facing. Even the most learned of his contemporaries were apt to make absurd statements about Greek history. Towards the end of 1429 or early in 1430 Leonardo Bruni, in a reply to Poggio's letter claiming that Aristotle had been for three years a pupil of Socrates, had to point out the absurdity of this suggestion as Aristotle had not yet been born at the time of the death of Socrates in 399 B.C.4 x It is even more astonishing to find the same nonsense appearing in the commentary of J. Argyropoulos on the Nicomachean Ethics, dating from February 1456.42 He was an outstanding Byzantine scholar and had taught at Constantinople before becoming professor of Greek at the University of Florence. This must make us more indulgent towards Guarino's factual errors. For example, he found in Plato's 'Apology for Socrates' that Plato had attributed some of the bitter prejudice shown against Socrates at his trial to the influence of the 'Clouds' of Aristophanes.4 3 Guarino misunderstood this to mean that the accusers of Socrates had incited Aristophanes to produce this comedy expressly in order to discredit Socrates. Guarino believed that the trial occurred three days after the performance of the 'Clouds' when its parody of Socrates was 'ringing in everybody's ears.'44 In actual fact, nearly a quarter of a century separated the performance of the 'Clouds' from the trial of Socrates. Guarino's 'Life of Plato' was the first modern biography of that most influential Greek philosopher based directly on Greek sources, including at least some of Plato's surviving writings.45 Above all, Guarino tried to keep as closely as possible to the 'Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers' of Diogenes Laertius, using the lives of both Socrates and Plato. Despite their uncritical and predominantly anecdotal character they continue to constitute our chief ancient 40 In addition to Bodl. Libr., Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, used by me, at least two other manuscripts are known in Italian collections, cited in Ian Thomson, 'Some notes on the contents of Guarino's Library'. Renaissance Quart., 29 (1976), p. 172, n. 17. 41 Letter of Bruni, book 6, no. 3. Cf. L. G. Rosa (ed.), Studi su I'Epistolario di Leonardo Bruni (Rome, 1980), p. 113. Poggio had discovered in Germany some 'Life' of Aristotle that contained such a statement. 42 Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, Rice. ms. 120, fo.8 r : 'sub preceptore Socrate prime, deinde Platone'. The manuscript may be an autograph of Argyropoulos. 43 M. Croiset (ed.), Platon, Oeuvres completes (Bude ed., Paris, 1966), I, p. 143. 44 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 81V. 45 For a tentative list of Plato's works which certainly, or probably, were known to Guarino by 1430 see Thomson, loc. cit. (1976), p. 175.

64 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 46 source. Guarino's 'Plato' was the first of three fifteenth century biographies. Giovanni Tortelli covered the life of Plato very summarily in three biographical entries in his De Orthographia under the names of Anytos, who was the chief prosecutor of Socrates at his trial, and of Plato and Socrates.47 Tortelli went back directly to the original sources, but it was not his purpose to discuss Plato's doctrines. His biographical sketches, except for his account of the trial of Socrates, are less informative than Guarino's 'Life.' Ficino prefaced his printed edition of the Platonic 'Dialogues' with an account of the life of their author.48 He excused himself from any discussion of Plato's philosophical doctrines on the ground that he had expounded them elsewhere.49 As was to be expected, he writes more as a moralist than a historian and does not discuss the problems of evidence that a biographer of Plato must face. Guarino does show some awareness of these problems. His biography compares not unfavourably with both these nearly contemporary attempts. He offers a more sober and factual account than Ficino was interested in providing. Guarino's biography is something more than a mere adaptation of Diogenes. As befitted an accomplished humanist, Guarino virtually started the biography with a personal comment on Plato's superb literary skill. He praised the excellence of Plato's style and dwelt on the difficulties of translating such an elegant and complex writer. However competently it might be done, there was always a danger of something valuable being lost. In a later passage he declared Plato to be a more eloquent writer than Aristotle.50 He was familiar with Plutarch's life of Dion, Plato's Sicilian friend and disciple, which he had himself translated in 1414. He used the letters attributed to Plato. His list of Plato's writings appears to be based on a conflation of two separate lists 46 W. K. C. Guthrie, The History of Greek Philosophy, IV (Cambridge, 1975), p. 9. It should, however, be stressed that, to judge by the surviving evidence, ancient biographers of philosophers were not, as a rule, concerned with the philosophical problems raised by them. Cf. ]. Mejer, Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden, 1978, Hermes Einzelschriften, no. 40), pp. 94-95. 47 I am using Balliol Coll. ms. 290, fos. 64, 261 v, 314-15. This manuscript was brought to England in 1454 by Bishop William Gray of Ely. It was thus copied very soon after its completion by Tortelli c. 1452. Cf. M. Regoliosi, 'Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 12 (1969), pp. 175-82. 48 First ed. published Sept. -Oct. 1484 (cf. P.O Kristellei,Supplementum Ficinianum, Florence 1937, I, p. LXI). I am using the Venice ed. of Aug. 1491 from a copy at the Brotherton Library, University of Leeds. I owe thanks to Mr. P. S. Morrish, the Keeper of Rare Books there, for his kind help. 49 Ibid., fo.4 r ; 'Quod autem in philosophia senserit satis in libro nostro de amore et theologia nostra tractavimus'. 50 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fos. 79r., 94V.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

65

that Diogenes provides in different parts of his work, but Guarino may have supplemented it from some of Plato's original writings.5 l The desire to go beyond Diogenes may have prompted Guarino to compare what Xenophon and Plato had to say about the teachings of Socrates. Diogenes had some comments about this52 but Guarino's discussion is more instructive. He expressly mentioned at this point that his beloved Byzantine master, Manuel Chrysoloras, had been interested in the relationship between these two friends of Socrates. Guarino went on to compare Xenophon's description of the doings and sayings of Socrates in the Memorabilia with the views attributed to Socrates in Plato's dialogues.53 Modern discussions of this comparison approach it as part of a wider debate about the differences between the ascertainable views of Socrates and the further development of them in Plato's writings. Xenophon realized that he did not fully understand Socrates, just as he did not share Plato's illusion that he had fully understood the deeper causes of the condemnation of Socrates to death.54 He is a more limited but in some ways a more reliable guide to the real Socrates. But, in W.K.C. Guthrie's words, Xenophon showed 'little sign of any capacity for profound philosophical thought' and could only grasp the practical side of Socrates, while understanding little of the philosophical ideas which so excited Plato.55 Guarino grasped that Xenophon understood best the moral teachings of Socrates but he could not unravel the other differences between Xenophon and Plato and merely describes them as irreconcilable.5 6 He goes on to treat the contrast between Xenophon's and Plato's approaches to Socrates as if it were merely some kind of a rhetorical debate and opines that Xenophon was simply trying to 'bite' Plato.5 7 It is, however, worth stressing that he was raising questions that anticipate modern ways of discussing Socrates and Plato. Apart from this passage, Guarino had very little to say about the nature of Plato's doctrines. He makes the valuable comment that Plato represented Socrates as affirming nothing with certainty and doubting everything. He cites a remark of Socrates, recorded by Diogenes, that 51 Thomson,/oc. cit. (1976), p. 175. 52 Loeb ed. by R. D. Hicks (London, 1972), pp. 306-9. 53 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 93r and 93V. 54 L. Raditsa, 'Athens and the trial of Socrates', Rivista storica dell'Antichitd', 9 (1979), pp. 12, 24. 55 Guthrie, op. cit., Ill (1969), pp. 33348. 56 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 93V: Xenophon 'ineptive eos asserit qui Socratem de coeli naturaeque rationibus occultis disputantesque introducunt. Bum enim tantum de moribus et rebus ad bene beateque vivendum dissertare solitum.' 57 Ibid.,: 'Quibus quidem in verbis Platonem momordit'.

66 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 'he knew nothing except the fact of his own ignorance.'58 Unfortunately, this excursion into Plato's theory of knowledge concludes speedily with an elementary summary of the three main categories of Plato's philosophical thought, which Guarino defines as physics, ethics and dialectic.59 Guarino was particularly interested in Plato's cosmology because of possible parallels with Christian beliefs. His close dependence on Diogenes left him baffled here as any reader would be baffled by Diogenes's long, pedantic and very confusing exposition of Plato's alleged teachings. Guarino tried to summarize in two sentences what he deemed to be one of the essential tenets of Plato's cosmological doctrines60 and then gave up, remarking that these things can be read more clearly in Plato's own writings.61 The inadequacy of Guarino's treatment of Plato as a thinker is brought into sharp relief by a comparison with the writings of some of his contemporaries. For an extreme contrast one might cite a little treatise of Cardinal Bessarion, written probably in 1459, which its English translator has entitled 'Plato's criticism of Aristotle's ontology'.62 The core of it is formed by a discussion of Aristotle's handling of Platonic 'ideas.' Bessarion makes the threefold distinction between Aristotle's treatment of 'ideas' in logical arguments, in studies dealing with descriptions of natural phenomena and in metaphysical discussions. The sophistication, clarity and precision with which Bessarion defines these problems would do credit to a present-day historian of philosophy. Bruni's 'Life of Aristotle,' completed shortly before Guarino's biography of Plato, lacks the philosophical rigour of Bessarion's treatise but it, too, is much superior to Guarino's work.63 Bruni had the sound idea of defining Aristotle's methods by a comparison with those of his teacher, Plato. Bruni had made himself familiar with the writings of both philosophers and he conveys in a few precise and sensible sentences the things that matter most. He notes their common basic 58 Ibid., fo. 86r: 'Praeterea Socratem in omni sermone turn hoc turn illud asserere, nichil affirmare ... hoc unum sese tantum scire quod nichil sciret'. Cf. Diogenes II, 32, pp. 162-3 of Hicks ed. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid., fo. 86V: 'Duo quoque rerum principis constituebat, deum scilicet atque Hylen, ex quo elementa quotuor derivarentur, ignis, aer, aqua, terra. Ex quibus mundus ipse constaret et quae in mundo'. The corresponding passage in Diogenes is on pp. 336-39 (ed. Hicks). 61 Ibid. 62 J. W. Taylor, 'Bassarion the Mediator', Trans. andProc. of the American Philological Association, 55 (1924), pp. 120-27 (Greek text with an English translation). The Greek text is also edited in L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann (Paderborn, 1942), pp. 149-50. 63 See Fryde Bruni (1980), above, chapter 2 in this volume, pp. 35, 51-2.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography' 67 assumptions but also stresses how Aristotle's interests and methods gradually diverged from those of his master. Guarino was very struck by the high moral tone of the teachings of Socrates and Plato and by their virtuous conduct throughout their lives but he never discusses Plato's 'political' writings. This contrasts with Bruni's strong interest in the divergent ideas of Plato and Aristotle on the proper organization of human societies. However, Bruni had to confess that he had found some of Plato's views inexplicable.64 No such critical independence can be found in Guarino's comments on Plato. Bruni is correct in all essentials. He provides a satisfactory brief summary of how these two philosophers differed and defines what was particularly important about Aristotle's methods of handling evidence. There are very few factual errors in his impressive little treatise. He displayed acute judgement in deciding what could be safely selected from Diogenes and he combined this source with a much wider range of other materials than Guarino ever dared to do. Before 1430 Guarino had lectured on St. Augustine at Verona65 and he was impressed by St. Augustine's admiration for Plato. Guarino was firmly convinced, and he quotes St. Augustine as his authority, that Plato came nearer than any other ancient pagan thinker to apprehending the true God and the truth of the divine creation of the world.66 Guarino's outlook on the religious significance of Plato's ideas differed from Bruni's. The latter was primarily concerned with presenting Plato and Aristotle as ancient Greek philosophers whose activities and thought ought to be explained for their own sake, without any Christian preconceptions.67 Even when dedicating his translations of Plato and Aristotle to successive popes, Bruni limited himself to stressing those features which might particularly attract Christians, like Plato's belief in the immortality of the soul, the moral teachings of Socrates or Aristotle's eminently sensible views on the nature of the good state.68 Guarino's conviction that Plato was a 64 Ibid., p. 535. 65 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), pp. 67, 139, 142. 66 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 94r and 94V: 'Adeo cognitionem veri del et rerum omnium creatoris proxime accessisse visus est'. 67 Cf. P. O. Kristeller's penetrating remarks on this current of humanistic scholarship in 'Un codice padovano di Aristotele postillato da Francesco e Ermolao Barbaro', Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Rome, 1956, 339. 68 H. Baron (ed.), Leonardo Bruni Aretinos humanistisch philosophische Schriften (Leipzig - Berlin, 1928, cited henceforth as Baron, Schriften, 1928), pp. 34 (a letter of dedication of Phaedo to Innocent VII); ibid., 70-73 (letter of dedication of Aristotle's Politics to Eugenius IV). Cf. a better text in Oxford, Balliol Coll. ms. 242, ff. 87-88-

68

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

precursor of Christian doctrines made him handle the relevant evidence with less detachment than Bruni was prepared to do. The contrast comes out sharply in the discussion of Plato's visit to Egypt. The writings of St. Augustine provided the common starting point. Petrarch offered the clearest statement here, pointing out that St. Augustine had changed his ideas about this matter. 69 In De Doctrina Christiana St. Augustine had speculated that Plato might have become acquainted with Jewish religious truths through meeting in Egypt the prophet Jeremiah. Subsequently, in De Civitate Dei, Augustine recognised that this was a chronological impossibility as Jeremiah was active a century before Plato. St. Augustine now also pointed out that it was impossible that Plato could have read in Egypt the Greek 'Septuagint' version of the Old Testament as this was not translated until sixty years after Plato's death. In the preface to his translation of Plato's 'Phaedo,' dating from 1404-5 and dedicated to Pope Innocent VII, Bruni followed the lead of St. Augustine, though without naming him. He took over the view that it was chronologically impossible for Plato to have met Jeremiah or to have known the 'Septuagint'.70 It is probable that Guarino did not have before his eyes either Petrarch's or Bruni's comments when he turned to this subject in his 'Life of Plato.' Unlike Petrarch and Bruni, he would not give an unambiguous opinion but recorded that 'some men believe and they include some very serious ones' that Plato had learnt through some 'interpres* the teachings of 'our prophet' and had thus acquired the knowledge of the true God. 71 He was presumably relying here on the authority of St. Augustine. Guarino follows closely De Civitate Dei in a later passage of Plato's biography. As has been mentioned before, Guarino believed that Plato had come near to apprehending the true God. This could be seen from his account of the creation of the world. Unlike St. Augustine, Guarino does not name here Plato's dialogue of 'Timaeus,' but merely refers to a 'book of Plato.' He goes on to quote, as does St. Augustine, the account of the creation in the Book of Genesis7 2 and proceeds to record that 69 G. Billanovich (ed.), Francesco Petrarca, Rerum Memorandarum Libri (Florence, 1943), pp. 30-31. (book 1, 25). He gives there all the necessary references to St. Augustine's writings. 70 Baron, Schriften (1928), p. 4: 'quod ... temporum supputatio non patitur'. 71 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 82V: 'Sunt qui credant, et ii quidem homines gravissimi, hoc tempore et hoc in loco Platonem ea quae a prophetis nostris predicta fuerant interprete aliquo deprehendisse'. 72 Ibid., fo. 94V. For the text of St. Augustine see De Civitate Dei, (eds. B. Dombart et A. Kalb), Corpus Christianorum, ser. lat., XLVII (Turnholti 1955), cap XI (228, 11. 50-52).

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

69

Plato is therefore highly honoured among Christians as a believer in the one, eternal God.7 3 Thirty years later, at Guarino's funeral, his disciple and friend, Ludovico Carbone, stressed Guarino's familiarity with the leading Christian writers of Antiquity, Cyprian, Lactantius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. He recalled that Guarino had always gone out of his way to condemn the stupid comments of the ancient pagan writer on the nature of the immortal gods.74 In Guarino's eyes Plato clearly formed the one exception. IV

In 1431 Guarino became a private tutor to Leonello d'Este, the son and designated successor of Marchese Niccolo III of Ferrara. Leonello was then aged about twenty four.75 Some of Guarino's editorial ventures during the next few years arose out of the need to provide good texts of important authors for this intelligent young prince. Guarino acted as Leonello's teacher until 1435. His material situation was much improved and he had more leisure. His improved texts of Pliny's 'Natural History', the 'Attic Nights' of A. Gellius and Caesar's 'Commentaries' were all completed in 1432-33.76 The new edition of Caesar has a special place in a study of Guarino's historical interests.77 A fair copy of a complete version of Caesar's 'Commentaries' was transcribed at the Ferrarese court for Guarino's use and he added two significant sets of notes about the authorship of these texts.78 Guarino's manuscript of the 'Gallic Wars' descended from a family of texts which attributed the authorship not to Caesar but lulius Celsus Constantinus.79 The first to doubt this attribution was a chancellor of Florence, Coluccio Salutati (c. 1392), and further progress in reestablishing the correct authorship of Caesar's works was made by Pier Candido Decembrio at Milan (1423).80 Guarino never mentions 73 Magdalen Coll. ms. 39, fo. 94V: 'apud nostros homines, id est unius et aeterni del cultores, Platonem tanto in honore esse'. 74 E. Garin, Prosatori Latini del Quattrocento (Milan-Naples, 1952), p. 401. 75 Sabbadini, Guarino I (1891), pp. 95-6, 100. 76 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), pp. 22-3, 115. 77 For the rest of this paragraph see especially ibid., pp. 119-22. 78 There is a recent description of this manuscript in D. Fava e M. Salmi, Manoscritti miniati della Biblioteca Estense diModena, II (Florence, 1973), no. 131 (p. 57). 79 The most recent account of the textual tradition of Caesar's writings is by V. Brown in F. E. Cranz and P. O. Kristeller, Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, III (Washington, 1976), pp. 88-94. 80 G. Martellotti, 'II 'De Gestis Cesaris 'del Petrarca nel Corpus Caesarianum', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 17 (1974), p. 286 and n. 2.

70

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

these two predecessors. He realized that Celsus had merely revised the corrupt text current in his time (fifth century A.D.) and he made this clear in his Ferrarese copy of Caesar.81 His other correction was based on a more careful reading of the 'Life of Caesar' written by Suetonius. It was not as far-reaching as Decembrio's suggestions, made in 1423, and this points to an independent discovery by Guarino. Decembrio had concluded that the eighth book of the 'Gallic Wars', left uncompleted by Caesar at the time of his death, had not been written by Suetonius but by some other author and that this was also the case with the last three books of the 'Civil Wars'.8 2 Guarino correctly noted in his Ferrarese copy of Caesar that the eighth book of the 'Gallic Wars' was the work of A. Hirtius,8 3 who is known to us as one of Caesar's closest collaborators. His corrections stopped here but two years later, in the course of a controversy with Poggio, Guarino incidentally revealed that he attributed the writing of Caesar's 'Alexandrian War' to either A. Hirtius or C. Oppius.84 This again anticipates modern views.85 In June 1435 Leonello returned from a visit to Florence bringing with him to Ferrara a letter of Poggio to a friend, written as recently as April 1435, comparing Caesar with the elder Scipio.86 Poggio extolled Scipio as a model of republican patriotism while Caesar was denounced as a war-mongering suppressor of republican liberties.87 Leonello was a great admirer of Caesar and Guarino was revising in 1435 for Leonello's use his earlier translation of Plutarch's biography of Caesar.8 8 It was Poggio's opinion that Leonello had demanded from Guarino that he 81 Guarino added emendavit after the name of lulius Celsus Constantinus. 82 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 121. Decembrio's correct identifications of the authorship of Caesar's different works are repeated in the preface to his Italian translation of the Commentaries on the Gallic Wars (completed by 1438), as, for example, in Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. Redi 158, fo. 2r. 83 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 120. 84 Edit, by E. Garin, Prosatori Latini del Quattrocento (1952, cit. supra), p. 356. 85 The best discussion of the authorship of the different books of Caesar's writings is in A. La Penna, "Tendenze e arte del 'Bellum Civile' del Cesare",Ma/Vz, ser., 5 (1952), pp. 225-26. The one recent dissentient is Lv Canfora, Tucidide Continuato (Padua, 1970), pp. 219-30, who argues that the authorship of the disputed books is still unknown. 86 The most recent study, giving full references to all the sources, is by J. W. Oppel, 'Peace versus liberty in the Quattrocento: Poggio, Guarino and the Scipio-Caesar Controversy', Journ. of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4 (1974), pp. 221-65. His views about the ideological origins and the great importance of the controversy are not supported by any contemporary sources. 87 Edited by R. Fubini in Poggius Bracciolini, Opera Omnia, I (Turin, 1964), pp. 357-65. 88 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 131. An undated letter of Leonello to Guarino mentions that he is reading Caesar's Commentaries. It is edited by L. Capra e C. Colombo, 'Nuove lettere di Guarino', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 10 (1967), p. 181.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

71

89

should write a refutation of Poggio's pamphlet. Guarino complied in June 1435 in a letter addressed to Leonello90 and this provoked in the autumn of 1435 a further rejoinder from Poggio. Sabbadini, unlike some other more recent historians, did not take this controversy very seriously and was probably right in not doing so. It certainly did not disturb for long the ancient friendship between Guarino and Poggio.91 Guarino's letter to Leonello throws welcome light on his historical erudition and this is the only aspect of the controversy that interests us here. He shows a good grasp of the general trends in the development of the Roman republic during the last century of its existence. He rightly observes that Caesar was following the general practice in procuring elections to offices through bribery and that the decline of republican liberty had begun under Marius and Sulla, long before Caesar's victory in the civil war. 92 Guarino's knowledge of this period was not, however, very profound. Among the symptoms of decline he notes the exiling in 58 B.C. of Cicero, through the odious violence of the tribune P. Clodius.9 3 A more careful rereading of Cicero's letters, on which he had himself lectured in 1419,94 would have made him realize that Clodius was acting here in conjunction with that very Caesar9 5 whom Guarino was trying to eulogize. It was one of the original features of Guarino's scholarship that he tried to combine the familiar Latin sources with the new Greek ones which were only just being introduced into Italy. Poggio, unlike Guarino, was not an accomplished Greek scholar. He complained that Guarino had cited several passages from Greek historians which Poggio regarded as irrelevant. For his account of Caesar's position during the conspiracy of Catiline in 63 B.C. Guarino used the 'History' of Dio Cassius96 and appears to have been the first Italian humanist to do so, as Bruni had not known this source in 1415-16 when he wrote his Cicero Novus.91 Poggio accused Guarino of preferring the evidence of Greek historians even in dealing with Roman history. Guarino clearly 89 Ed. Fubini, op. cit. (1964), vol. I, p. 366 (a letter to Francesco Barbaro). 90 Ed. Garin, op. cit. (1952), pp. 314-77. 91 Sabbadini, Guarino I (1891), pp. 113-17 and Guarino II (1896), p. 146. 92 Ed. Garin, op. cit. (1952), pp. 344-47, 366-67. 93 Ibid., 366-67. 94 Oxford, Balliol Coll. ms. 135 (cit. supra), fos, 8V - 9r. 95 D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero (London, 1971), chapter 8, especially pp. 61-2. 96 Ed. Garin, op. cit. (1952), pp. 350-51. 97 My study of the sources used by Bruni (Fryde, Bruni, 1980 , chapter 2 in this volume) has convinced me that Dio was not among them. Bruni's sources have been largely identified by B. L. Ullman, ed. Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum Illustrium Latinae Linguae Libri XVIII (Rome, 1928), pp. 265462 (a life of Cicero mainly derived from Bruni's Cicero Novus).

72

Humanism and Renaissance Historigraphy

stood here for progress, though Poggio had a valid point to make as far as the use of Dio Cassius was concerned. Poggio regarded it as misguided that Guarino should prefer to view Caesar through the eyes of Dio Cassius, a historian of the third century and a consul under the Severan dynasty of emperors, who could have had no understanding of the Roman republic. Poggio chose to prefer the judgements of Caesar's contemporary, Cicero.98 It was a natural culmination of Guarino's long career of promoting the knowledge of Greek writers that the translation of Strabo's 'Geography' should be his last major scholarly venture. He was trying to make available to the Latin West one of the largest surviving monuments of Hellenistic scholarship. V

Strabo's first major work was a History of which only a few fragments have been identified. It was intended to provide a continuation of the Histories of Polybius and covered the period from 144 B.C. to the time of its completion in 27 B.C. Its main theme, as befitted a continuator of Polybius, was the conquest by Rome of the lands bordering on the Eastern Mediterranean." Strabo's Geography was a work of his old age stemming out of his historical researches.100 It is primarily a work of historical geography, virtually the first surviving representative of this scholarly discipline.1 ° 1 The History and the Geography may have covered in some instances the same ground. Strabo was one of the very few ancient historians with pronounced philosophical interests. 102 He is apparently our only source for the strange but probably true story of the wanderings of the orginals of the non-literary works of Aristotle, or as Guthrie calls them, the 'school writings' of the Aristotelian school of Athens. These are virtually the only works of Aristotle that we possess to-day. According to Strabo's account in his Geography, Aristotle's successor, Theophrastus, gave them to his chief disciple who migrated with them 98 Ed. Fubini, op. cit. (1964), vol. I, pp. 374, 378, 389. 99 Strabo's own fullest reference is in the Geography, I, 1, 23 (Bude ed. I, pp. 84-5). The known fragments are collected in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, pt. II (1926), A, no. 91 (pp. 430-36) and C., pp. 291-95. Among the surviving ancient historians it is cited most often by Josephus. Cf. R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London, 1961), pp. 107-9. 100 See especially W. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad, Book XIII, Cap. 1 (Cambridge, 1923), p. XXX. 1 101 A. Momigliano, 'Storiografia greca', Rivista storica italiana, 87 (1975), pp. 30-31. 102 A. D. Nock, 'Posidonius', Journ. of Roman Studies, 49 (1959), p. 4 and H. Strasburger, 'Poseidonios on problems of the Roman Empire', ibid., 55 (1965), p. 42.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography' 73 to his home at Skepsis in the Troad (north-western Asia Minor). Some two hundred years later they were sold to an Athenian bibliophile. Sulla confiscated these manuscripts at Athens and transported them to Rome. Strabo was a pupil at Rome of Tyrannio, the Greek scholar who sorted them and made possible their wider dissemination. Apart from Strabo's account in the Geography there is a shorter notice in Plutarch's 'Life of Sulla.' This contains one additional detail about the part played in editing these works by Andronicus of Rhodes, who is known to us as the master of another of Strabo's teachers, Boethus. The wording of Plutarch's notice is otherwise very similar to Strabo's account in his Geography and it has been plausibly conjectured that Plutarch may have derived this passage from Strabo's earlier History.103 Strabo's Geography aimed at giving a detailed description of the known world, and, especially of its more civilized parts. 104 Strabo himself was a noble from Asia Minor, of mixed Greek and Pontic parentage. He had travelled widely and his accounts of the places that he had seen are marvellously accurate and clear. He wrote in a lively and amusing fashion. In the words of G. C. Richards 'he is still a Greek author whom it is agreeable to read.'1 ° 5 The sheer volume of the Geography made a Latin translation very useful even for accomplished Hellenists like Politian.106 For most educated contemporaries who knew little or no Greek Guarino's version constituted an inexaustible storehouse of facts about the lands of the Roman Empire and its neighbours. In spite of its imperfections, of which more will be said later, Guarino's translation did convey, in somewhat heavy but usually fairly clear Latin, most of the contents of this 'delightful encyclopedia of miscellaneous information.'107 Among the major writers of Antiquity only Ammianus Marcellinus appears to have used Strabo's Geography.108 It was apparently rediscovered in the sixth century and continued to be studied henceforth by a succession of leading Byzantine scholars.109 It is not 103 The most recent and best discussion is in W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, VI (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 59-65. 104 The most detailed study of Strabo is by E. Honigmann in Pauly's Real Encyclopadie, IV, A. 1 (1931), pp. 76-155. In addition I have found particularly useful W. Leaf cit. supra, 1923); J. G. C. Anderson (cit. supra, 1923, pp. 1-13): G. C. Richards, 'Strabo: the Anatolian who failed of Roman recognition', Greece and Rome, 10 (1941), pp. 79-90; G. W. Bowersock (cit. supra), 1965, pp. 123-34; Duler, Textual Tradition (cit. supra, 1975). 105 Loc. cit. (1941), p. 90. 106 See below. 107 Richards, loc. cit (1941), p. 88. 108 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), II, p. 13, n. 30 and Diller, Textual Tradition (1975, cit. supra). 109 J. M. Cook, 'On Stephanus Byzantius' text of Strabo', Journ. of Hellenic Studies, 79 (1959), pp. 19-26 increases our appreciation of the handling of Strabo's text by Byzantine scholars.

74

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

known who was responsible for the transliteration of Strabo's text into a minuscule version. Archbishop Arethas (d. 935), who helped to preserve in this way several other texts, certainly knew Strabo's Geography.110 One thing is certain. All the manuscripts available in Italy in the fifteenth century derived from the same transliterated copy. Though Guarino was presumably not aware of this, all the three manuscripts of Strabo used by him belonged to the same family of texts.111 Our modern versions are fuller and better, but this did not detract too seriously from the usefulness to his contemporaries of Guarino's translation. He was able to convey most of the things that we value in Strabo. Manuscripts of Strabo were very rare in Italy until the middle of the fifteenth century. Guarino had sought in vain for many years to acquire a text. At long last, by February 1451, he had a manuscript containing the first ten books, covering the description of Europe.112 This is our Eton ms. 141, copied in 1446-7 at Constantinople for Ciriaco of Ancona. Agallianus, who transcribed it, was a professional but careless copyist. Ciriaco tried subsequently to improve it by filling some gaps with the help of that great Byzantine scholar, Gemistus Pletho, with whom he was staying at Mistra in the winter of 1447-48. Pletho's additions came from a somewhat better Byzantine textual tradition. 113 By March 1453 Guarino was already translating this manuscript for Pope Nicholas V. Guarino's preface dedicating the first ten books to the Pope does not mention that the whole project was initiated by Nicholas. Such a claim appears only in a later preface, dating from 1458, in which Guarino dedicated his entire translation of all seventeen books to another patron, and the details there given seem at variance with the other known facts.114 It does look as if Guarino had started his translation independently, perhaps in the expectation that 110 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 80-81 and P. Lemerle, Z-e premier humanisme byzantin (Paris, 1971), pp. 214, 218, 233. 111 The most recent account of the descent of the manuscripts of Strabo is in Diller, Textual Tradition (1975) and he is particularly useful for the manuscripts used by Guarino. See also G. Aujac and F. Lasserre (eds), Strabon: Geographic, I, part 1 (Bude ed., Paris 1969), pp. XLVIII - LXXXI and W. Aly e F. Sbordone, De Strabonis Codice Rescripto cuius Reliquiae in Codicibus Vaticanis Vat. gr. 2306 et 2061 Aservatae sunt, Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi p. 188 (1956). 112 Sabbadini, Guarino I (1891), p. 164 and further references in other works of Sabbadini, cit. supra, especially Epistolario, III (1919), p. 455. 113 There is a description of this ms. (incorrectly dated) in M. R. James, Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Eton College (Cambridge, 1895), pp. 67-72. The best discussion is in Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 114-29. For Pletho's interest in Strabo see also Diller, 'The autographs of Georgius Gemistus Pletho', Scriptorium, 10 (1950), pp. 27-41. 114 The prefaces are discussed most fully in Sabbadini, La Traduzione (1909), pp. 5-16.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography' 75 ultimately he might be able to secure papal patronage. Nicholas V had commissioned several other translations of Greek historians and scientists and the Pope's main adviser on such matters, Giovanni Tortelli, was a friend of Guarino. Be that as it may, in a letter of 7 March 1.453 addressed to Tortelli Guarino was urging him to send quickly a second manuscript of Strabo which had been promised to him by Nicholas V. 115 Guarino needed the second manuscript in order to correct the errors and fill the gaps in Ciriaco's text. The second, 'pontifical manuscript,' as Guarino calls it, appears to have reached him by September 1453.x 16 It is almost certainly to be identified with our Vat. gr. 174, which had been deposited with the Pope by Cardinal Isidore Rutenus, an old friend of Guarino, and which contains all the seventeen books of Strabo.117 Before Nicholas V's death in March 1455 Guarino had received from him 1000 ducats for completing the translation of the ten books covering Europe. 118 He was eager to complete the translation of the remaining sections covering Asia and Africa (books 11-17). These last books had been recently translated by another humanist, Gregorio Tifernate. There is no proof that Gregorio had been commissioned to do this by Pope Nicholas V. This is probable but doubts arise from the absence of a preface dedicating his version to the Pope. Gregorio had only one manuscript at his disposal, our ms. Laur. 28, 15, the twin manuscript of Eton ms. 141, likewise copied for Ciriaco and corrected by him. 119 Guarino consistently ignored the existence of Gregorio's translation, neither using it in his own version, nor mentioning it in his dedicatory prefaces. In order to translate books 11-17 of Strabo he managed to procure yet another manuscript which, if Aubrey Diller's identification is correct (as it seems to be), is our ms. Moscoviensis gr. 204, containing the entire Geography.120 It is not known why Guarino used this text for books 11-17, instead of his first ms. belonging to Cardinal Rutenus. For this continuation Guarino found another patron in the distinguished Venetian statesman, Jacopo Antonio Marcello. The completed work was presented by Marcello in 1458 to Rene d'Anjou, 115 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), no. 871 (pp. 609-10). For the source of Guarino's letters to Tortelli see M. Regoliosi, 'Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 9 (1966). For no. 871 see p. 171. 116 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), no. 878 (pp. 618-19) and Regoliosi, loc. cit. (1966), pp. 171-72. 117 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 52, 107-9. 118 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), p. 126. 119 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 119-20, 130-31. 120 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 101-3, 128.

76

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Count of Provence and titular king of Naples.121 Guarino's generation of humanists had no compunction about inserting corrections or personal remarks into the original manuscripts of classical authors that they handled. This deplorable practice can, however, help us to identify the Greek texts from which they made their translations, as do the notes in the early drafts of their versions recording gaps in their Greek originals. Guarino appears to have been fairly systematic in recording his 'textual' problems. His notes in the three Greek manuscripts available to him are of decisive importance in confirming that he had used them. 122 Only once did he record the progress of his translation in ms. Canon. 301, noting that he had sent to the Pope the section up to the end of Strabo's book two. 123 But he frequently noted in it the gaps and the confusions irv the Greek manuscripts that he was translating.124 He confessed in a letter to Tortelli that the pontifical manuscript sent to him in order to supplement his first Greek text had not fulfilled his expectations. Subsequent letters mention that with its help Guarino had been able to fill some gaps, but by no means all. 125 His notes in ms. Canon. 301 twice expressly drew attention to substantial 'voids' in the pontifical manuscript. 126 A late letter to Tortelli, of February 1455, urged him to find yet another, more perfect, Greek text of Strabo.12 7 Guarino recorded his multiple attempts at a correct translation either in the margins of ms. Canon. 301 or at the bottom of its pages. The many deletions and alternative versions of sentences reveal Guarino's painstaking efforts to hit upon the right words. They bear out his statements to Tortelli about the immense amount of trouble he was taking to produce this gigantic work. 128 Guarino's translation of Strabo is inferior to the translations of Thucydides and Herodotus carried out for Pope Nicholas V by Lorenzo Valla. The latter's versions are more vigorous, though at times they are unduly free. Also Valla was too ready to make conjectural emendations, which are sometimes brilliant, but often wrong.129 By 121 The fullest account is in Sabbadini, La Traduzione (1909). It is possible that Andrea Mantegna was the illuminator of the copy presented to Rene d'Anjou [cf. M. Meiss, Andrea Mantegna as Illuminator (New York, 1957), pp. 30-51.] 122 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), pp. 116-17, 127-28. 123 On fo. 42V. 124 Some of these notes are cited by Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 127. 125 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), pp. 609, 618, 623, 627. 126 Quoted by Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 127. 127 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), p. 627. 128 See, especially, ibid., p. 626.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

77

contrast Guarino's version of Strabo is too literal to be smoothly readable. Sabbadini, a stern but fair critic, remarked that it might serve better as an aid to the reading of the Greek text of Strabo than as an independent translation.130 This was also evidently Politian's view. In his lectures on Statius delivered at Florence in 1480 Politian found it convenient to use Guarino's version, though he seldom admitted that he was doing so and only mentioned Guarino when corrections were required. He blamed on Guarino one of the errors of Domizio Calderini whom Politian never tired of criticising.131 Some of these corrections by the leading scholar of the generation that immediately succeeded Guarino's have serious implications. Politian corrects Guarino five times. Once he accuses Guarino of mistranslating only a single word, 132 but in another case an entire passage, consisting of three sentences, is shown to have been wholly misunderstood.133 In two cases Politian implies that Guarino could have avoided mistakes if he had known more about the ancient world. One of these errors was due to his inability to recognize an echo of a passage in Homer's 'Odyssey.'134 Politian also pointed out that Guarino's version had given misleading information about Tibur, near Rome, for when he wrote 'Tibur quidem Herculeum est.' Guarino had not realized that Strabo's mention of a Heracleion at Tibur was a reference to the presence there of a temple of Hercules.135 When in 1469 Andrea Bussi, Bishop of Aleria, published at Rome the first printed version of the entire Geography he used Guarino's translation of the first ten books, but in a revised form. Some of the gaps left by Guarino were supplied from other Greek manuscripts.136 Bussi preferred, however, to print Gregorio's version of books 11-17,13 7 so that Guarino's translation of the section covering Asia and Africa remains unpublished to this day. 138 We cannot quarrel with 129 The most recent discussion of Valla's translation of Thucydides is to be found in F. Ferlauto, // testo di Tucidide e la traduzione latino di Lorenzo Valla (Palermo, 1979), pp. 11-13, followed by a detailed analysis of all the readings that depart from the modern standard texts (pp. 15-55). I have used two particularly good copies of Valla's translations at Venice, Bibl. Marciana, ms. Marc. lat. X. 147a (3785) of Thucydides and ms. Marc. lat. X. 52 (3230) of Herodotus. See also, below, chapter 4. 130 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), pp. 129-30. 131 L. Cesarini Martinelli (ed.), Angela Poliziano, Commento inedito a le Selve di Stazio, Florence, 1978, pp. XXIII, 552. 132 Ibid., p. 510. 133 Ibid., p. 292, correcting Guarino's rendering of Strabo VIII. 17. 134 Cesarini Martinelli, op. cit., p. 133. 135 Ibid., p. 277, correcting Guarino's translation of Strabo V. 3. 11. 136 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 133. Not all the corrections seem to be justified. 137 Ibid., pp. 132-34. 138 Diller, in Catalogus, II (1971), p. 229.

78

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Bussi's choice of the Gregorio version.139 Xylander's edition of Strabo published in 1571, including a fresh Latin translation.140 is strikingly fair to Guarino and Gregorio. In his preface he recognized that they had tried to do their very best, dealing as they were with a difficult and often corrupt text. 140 While he criticizes some of their renderings he equally attributes to them correct or plausible conjectures.142 Xylander could build on a whole century of further scholarly progress. He had access to more manuscripts and he used skilfully the indirect tradition of citations of Strabo in other writers, especially the sixth-century Byzantine scholar, Stephanus Byzantius, whom Xylander had edited three years earlier.143 Xylander's translation of his superior Greek text of Strabo is much clearer and smoother than Guarino's version. VI

All that we know about Strabo derives from his own remarks in the Geography. Guarino was fully aware of their value and made a careful note of most of them,144 though he was less systematic about this than Xylander in his edition of 1571 or Isaac Casaubon in the brief life of Strabo appended to his edition of 1587.145 Guarino realized that Strabo's autobiographical comments were not only useful for reconstructing his life but that they also enhanced the value of those parts of the Geography which dealt with the events of Strabo's own lifetime or described places that he had personally visited. The title of Strabo's first book, as translated by Guarino, recorded that he came from Cappadocia in Asia Minor and from (the city of) Amaseia (within it) or from Cnossos (in Crete).146 Both these statements were correct, as Strabo's maternal ancestors had lived at Cnossos, a fact duly noted by Guarino in dealing with Strabo's description of Crete.147 Earlier on, 139 Sabbadini, Guarino II (1896), pp. 127-30. 140 Basle, Henricus Petri. I am using a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. 141 Ibid., fo. 5r., printed in Diller, Catalogus, II (1971), p. 231. 142 These comments are to be found in appendices of notes which follow the text of each separate book of Strabo. 143 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 168. 144 In citing Guarino's numerous marginal notes I follow them by references to the modern text of Strabo only when this seems to be essential. 145 Published at Geneva. I am using a reedition of it at Paris in 1620 in a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. Casaubon was extremely scathing about all the preceding editions. Cf. J. G. Graevius (ed.), Isaaci Casauboni Epistolae (Brunswick, 1656), no. 2 (pp. 1-2), of May 1586, to Theodore Canterus. 146 Ms. Canon, 301, fo. 8r. 147 Ibid., fo. 16R, referring to Strabo X. 4. 10.

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

79

Strabo's maternal ancestors had held leading positions under King Mithridates of Pontus and Guarino drew attention to one of them, Moaphernes, Strabo's great uncle. 148 Guarino noticed that Strabo was a contemporary of Pompey (d. 48 B.C.), but that he had lived long enough to witness the replacement of Augustus by Tiberius (A.D. 14).149 He also noted that Strabo was a pupil of the grammarian Tyrannic who is mentioned in Cicero's correspondence as a famous teacher at Rome in 46 B.C.15 ° As has been already pointed out, Strabo is a first rate source of information for countries which he knew personally, especially Asia Minor, Egypt and parts of Italy. That great authority on the historical geography of Asia Minor, Sir William Ramsay, testifies to the value of Strabo's account of his native province.15 1 Guarino clearly grasped the importance of noting the extent of Strabo's travels. He drew attention to the passage in which Strabo recorded that he had travelled from Armenia to the Tyrrhenian Sea opposite Sardinia and from the Black Sea to Ethiopia. He noted Strabo's journey through Syria on the way to Egypt, his residence at Alexandria, where he had indeed spent several years, and his voyage in Italy, north of Rome, as far as the Etruscan city of Populonia (near modern Grosseto).15 2 Strabo provides the bulk of our information about Eratosthenes, the greatest and the most original of the ancient geographers. He is one of the sources for the attempts of Eratosthenes and Posidonius, another of Strabo's great heroes, to make a scientific calculation of the size of the earth.15 3 Guarino draws attention to some of these scientific topics and, in particular, several times notes that the earth is round and that it can be circumnavigated. 154 In Strabo's eyes the only error of 148 Ms. Canon. 301, fo. 173r., referring to Strabo XI. 2. 19. 149 Guarino's marginalia referring to the chronology of Strabo's life are on fos. 90V (Pompey), 69V (Tiberius and Drusus), 97r and 205r (Tiberius as emperor). The chronology of Strabo's life is discussed most fully in Honigmann (loc. cit., 1931), coll. 76-8. 150 Tyrannic is mentioned in ms. Canon. 301, for 182V, referring to Strabo, XII, 3. 16. For Tyrannio's activities at Rome see Bowersock, op. cit., (1965), p. 126 and n. 4. 151 Cited in Richards, loc. cit. (1941), p. 84. 152 Ms. Canon, fos. 26V (journey through Syria to Alexandria); 40V (residence at Alexandria); 44r (extent of travels, referring to Strabo II. 5. 11); 75V (visit to Populonia, referring to Strabo V. 2.6.); 243r. (familiarity with Cappadocia, described at a great length in book XII). 153 For Eratosthenes, and for Strabo as our chief source about him, see P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972), I, pp. 525-29. For the value of Strabo as our source about learning at Alexandria and about Hellenistic scholarship in general, see also R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford 1968), pp. 165-66. 154 Ms. Canon. 301, fos. 12r, 27 V , 38V and, especially, 42 r : 'mundus rotundus', 'terra rotunda' and 42V: 'Circumnavigari terram ab ortu et ab occasu' (referrring to Strabo II. 5. 4-5.). For the important practical consequences of these passages in Strabo see below.

80

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Eratosthenes was his disbelief in the value of Homer's 'Odyssey' as a geographical source. We owe to Strabo the marvellous comment of Erathosthenes that 'you will find the scene of Odysseus' wanderings when you find the cobbler who sewed up the bag of the winds'. 155 Guarino's notes repeatedly drew attention to this controversy. Basically he shared the impatience of Eratosthenes and Polybius with the Homeric myths. 156 In a letter to Tortelli he admitted to rushing his translation where it dealt with some of Strabo's Homeric obsessions.157 This is a shocking admission in the eyes of a modern scholar but Guarino was anxious not to bore his readers with absurd pedantries. Diller has recently compiled a short list of other passages that Guarino had deliberately omitted to translate.15 8 Strabo is also one of our main sources for the geographical writings of Posidonius, the only major philosopher who was also an important historian. This fascinating scholar died when Strabo was a young man. 159 Strabo's enthusiastic tribute to Posidonius, as translated by Guarino, runs as follows: 'Posidonius stoicus aetate nostra cunctis scientia philosophis antecellens'.160 Strabo, too, was a stoic. It is not surprising that Guarino carefully noted all the references to Posidonius. They include mention of philosophical and geographical controversies and of his position as one of the ruling magistrates on the island of Rhodes.161 Guarino also drew attention to some of the other Greek philosophers and grammarians famous in Strabo's lifetime or slightly earlier.162 155 Cited in P. M. Fraser, 'Eratosthenes of Cyrene', Proc. of British Academy, 56 (1971), p. 18 and n. 2. 156 Ms. Canon. 301, fos. 9V, 10r, 13r, 13V. The views of Eratosthenes on Homer fill Strabo I. 2. For the attitude of Eratosthenes and Polybius to Homer see Fraser, loc. cit. (1971), 18-19 and F. W. Walbank,Polybius (1972), pp. 125-26. 157 Sabbadini, Epistolario, II (1916), no. 878, pp. 618-19. Cf. Regoliosi, loc. cit. (1966), pp. 171-72. The inadequacy of Guarino's translation of the passages about Homer was noted by Xylander, op. cit. (1571), p. 63: 'interpres (i.e. Guarino) sensum aliquot paginarum corrupit, quibus Strabo demonstrat Homerum fuisse geographiae principem'. 158 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 133. 159 For the importance of Posidonius as a thoughtful and original scholar see A. D. Nock, 'Posidonius', Journal of Roman Studies, 49 (1959), pp. 1-15; H. Strasburger, 'Poseidonius on problems of the Roman Empire', ibid., 55 (1965), pp. 40-53 and A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom : the Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge 1975), passim. The importance of Strabo as a source for the geographical writings of Posidonius is summarised in M. Laffranque, Poseidonios d'Apamee (Paris, 1964), pp. 154-6 and P. Pedech, 'L'analyse geographique chez Posidonius' in Litterature greco-romaine et geographic historique. Melanges offerts a Roger Dion (Paris 1975), pp. 31-43. 160 Ms. Canon. 301, 249r, referring to Strabo XVI. 2. 10. 161 Ibid., fos. 52V (Posidonius contra Aristotelem' referring to Strabo III, 3.3); 58r ('contra Posidonium'); 106V ('Possidonius Rhodi pretor' referring to Strabo VII. 5. 8.); 249r ('Posidonius stoicus' referring to Strabo XVI. 2. 10).

Guarino of Verona and Strabo's 'Geography'

81

A few of Guarino's marginal notes deal with the problem of handling historical sources. Against a discussion by Polybius of the reasons for conflicts of evidence, Guarino noted lveritas historiae\16* The Veronese humanist was particularly exercised by the importance of historical myths. He remarked on the great antiquity of some legends. He commented on Homer's deliberate mixing of inventions and facts and on the presenting of fictions as truths. 164 However, there is one wonderful story in Strabo which Guarino failed to appreciate. It may derive from Posidonius.165 It describes Moses as a rebel Egyptian priest who had instituted the cult of one sole God and had led his followers out of Egypt. 166 Guarino noted in the margin the name of Moses, followed by 'Judaica secta per Moysem monstrata\161 but he clearly did not appreciate the astonishing implications of this story. One wonders whether some of his ablest contemporaries, like Bruni or Lorenzo Valla, might not have reacted rather differently. Guarino frequently noted mentions of various ancient historians, especially of Herodotus, Thucydides and, above all, Polybius. But, in contrast to Valla, who inserted in the margins of his translations a variety of interesting historiographical observations,168 Guarino did so very sparingly. Only one such note deserves special mention. Against the passage of Strabo describing the foundation of Greek colonies in Spain, Guarino added that there was a mention of this in Sallust's Jugurtha.169 Guarino's only extensive original note in ms. Canon. 301 has already been described by Sabbadini. 170 Guarino was displeased with Strabo's perfunctory treatment of his native Verona. He inserted a brief comment about Verona in his first Greek manuscript (ms. Eton 141).171 In the margin of his draft translation he first drew attention to Strabo's statement that Mantua and Brescia in no way equalled 162 Ibid., fos. 222V [Atheneus et Xenarchus', referring to Strabo XIV. 5.4., where both are described as Peripatetic (Aristotelian) philosophers and Xenarchus is named as one of Strabo's teachers]; 224V ('Panetius', referring to Strabo XIV. 5. 16). He was the teacher of Posidonius. 163 Ibid., fo. 16V referring to Strabo, I. 2. 16. 164 Ms. Canon. 301, fos. 14V ('antiquitas fabulariorum', referring to Strabo I. 2. 2.), 15r Averts falsa miscet Moments* referring to Strabo 1. 2. 9), and 15r Cpoesis in historiam fingit') referring to Strabo I. 2. 9). 165 Joe. cit. (1959), pp. 5, 8. 166 Ibid.,pp.5-6. 167 Ms. Canon. 301, fo. 25l v , referring to Strabo XVI. 2. 35-6. 168 I have cited two of them in chapter 1, above, p. 29, n. 111. 169 Ms. Canon. 301, fo. 53V ('Vide Salustium in lugurthina'). 170 Ibid., fo. 72r and 72V, cited by Sabbadini in La Traduzione (1909), p. 9 and n. 1. 171 Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 128.

82

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 172

Verona. He then proceeded to insert a short description of Verona, stressing its glorious past and the flourishing state of its economy. Sadly he added a note that this eulogy of Verona was not to be copied into his final version of Strabo's Geography.17 3 One of the earliest readers of Guarino's version was Pope Pius II. He quoted it once in 1457 and again in his Cosmography of Asia in 1461.174 He owned at least four copies of Guarino's translation. One was a set of two volumes. A second was copied on his orders in 1462 and elaborately illuminated over the next two years.175 Lastly, Pius somehow acquired our ms. Burney 107 containing a copy of Guarino's first draft. It has been known for a long time that it bears the arms of the Piccolomini (Pius' family). 176 A more attentive scrutiny of some of its marginalia proves beyond any doubt that this manuscript had been personally annotated by the pope. The comment that the behaviour of the inhabitants of ancient Asia Minor in winter had its parallels in contemporary customs in Austria or that Guarino's 'palus lugeum' should be identified with modern 'Lubljana'could have only come from Pius.177 Guarino's Latin Strabo appears to have contributed to the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. It is widely accepted today that Columbus derived his belief in the probability of reaching Asia by sailing westwards partly from his reading of various early writers. According to the biography of Columbus written by his son, Fernando, his father had derived two convictions from Guarino's version of Strabo, both originating in the ancient Greek underestimation of the real size of the earth. He believed that the sea which he would have to cross would not be inordinately wide and that it was possible to reach the East by sailing due West. The crucial passages summarizing the views of Eratosthenes and Posidonius were in books one and two of Strabo. 178 172 Ms. Canon. 301, fo. 72r ('Brixia et Mantua nequaquam Verone pares'). 173 Cited by Diller, Textual Tradition (1975), p. 128. 174 C. Ugurgieri della Berardenga, Pio IIPiccolomini... (Florence, 1973), pp. 197-98. 175 For the copies of Guarino's Strabo owned by Pius II see A. A. Strnad, 'Studia Piccolominiana' in Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Papa Pio II, ed D. Maffei (Siena, 1968), pp. 319, 321. J. Ruysschaert discusses ibid., p. 268, the illumination of one of these manuscripts. 176 Br. Library, ms. Burney 107, now mutilated part of the way through book 9, but fuller previously. Many of the marginal notes are identical in both manuscripts. Burney i!07 was copied by a succession of scribes of varying degrees of carefulness. This and its general appearance, make improbable A. Diller's suggestion (in P. O. Kristeller, ed., Catalogus, II, 1971, p. 227) that it was 'written in instalments apparently sent to the pope as the work progressed'. 177 Ms. Burney 107, fos. 179', 184*. 178 M. V. Anastos, 'Pletho, Strabo and Columbus', Melanges Henri Gregoire, IV (Brussels, 1953), pp. 7, 14-17.

4

SOME FIFTEENTH CENTURY LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF ANCIENT GREEK HISTORIANS I

The vast majority of the early Italian humanists active in the fifteenth century were not, by our modern standards, precise textual scholars. But their shortcomings were largely unavoidable. They had to work with such manuscripts as they were lucky to possess. It was very difficult to discover what other manuscripts of the same text were available in Italy and, even if further copies could be located, it was often impossible to gain access to them.3 Hence, for example, several of the early Latin translations of Greek historians were based on only one manuscript.4 Our modern insistence on identification and comparison of the best manuscripts represented an unattainable ideal for most of these scholars but, perhaps, we have been too ready to assume that most of them were not troubled by this problem. If they did not, as a rule, speak about it, this was due, among other things, to their unfortunate habit, inherited from the writers of Antiquity, of not usually naming or discussing their sources. But silence need not necessarily imply a lack of intelligent interest in the quality of the materials that they were using. It will be argued here that Lorenzo Valla, at any rate, was proceeding in more sophisticated ways in preparing his Latin versions of Thucydides and Herodotus than can be deduced from his letters or from the preface to his translation of Thucydides. 1 I owe thanks for much help to my friends Dr. R. Elze of the German Institute at Rome, D. Huws, Keeper of Manuscripts and Llinos Davies in charge of the old printed books at the National Library at Aberystwyth. 2 E. J. Kenney. 'The character of humanist philology' in R. R. Bolgar Classical Influences on European Culture, A. D. 500-1500 (Cambridge, 1971) pp. 115-28 (cited henceforth as Kenney I, 1971) and E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text (Berkeley and London, 1974), cited henceforth as Kenney II, (1974). 3 Kenney II (1974), p 16. 4 Cf. below for the translations of Ambrogio Traversari, Leonardo Bruni and Jacopo Cremonini.

84

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

In preparing translations of Greek texts these scholars often expressed dismay at gaps and obvious corruptions in the Greek manuscripts that they were forced to use. They usually tried to secure more than one manuscript in order to remedy this, though they might not be concerned with carrying out systematic collations of the best manuscripts. It will be one of the objects of this article to document more fully this search for multiple texts. It remains true that most fifteenth century humanists do not deserve to be accepted as philologists if that term is to have any strict meaning. We have been forcibly reminded of this in two recent publications of Prof. E.J. Kenney,5 though he admits to a few exceptions, such as Lorenzo Valla, Ermolao Barbaro and, above all, Politian. More recently still, Prof. A.T. Grafton's lucid study of Politian's textual scholarship has brought out anew the contrast between Politian's methods and those of his immediate predecessors.6 One of the aims of this article will be to provide some fresh evidence about these exceptional scholars by discussing Valla's translations of Thucydides and Herodotus and Politian's version of Herodian. The most important collection of the early Latin versions of Greek authors was formed by the translations commissioned by Pope Nicholas V (1447-55). They still await a systematic study.7 A fairly extensive list is provided by Vespasiano da Bisticci in his 'Life of Nicholas V',8 but some of the details are incorrect.9 The translators commissioned by Nicholas V to provide Latin versions of Greek geographers and historians were, on the whole, a second-rate group.10 Poggio Bracciolini was the worst of them. He was a famous discoverer of classical manuscripts and an amusing writer but an incompetent Greek scholar. Despite the help that he had received from George of Trebizond,11 a good Byzantine humanist, Poggio 5 Kenney I and Kenney II, cit. supra. 6 A. Grafton, 'On the scholarship of Politian and its context', Journ. of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 40 (1979), pp. 150-88. One of the important problems that requires much further study is Politian's debt to some of his most distinguished Byzantine predecessors, especially Cardinal Bessarion. The most recent account of Bessarion is in L. Labovsky in Dizionario Biograflco degli Italiani, 9 (1967), pp. 686-96. There is an excellent study of his textual methods by the same author in 'Bessarion Studies II: Aristoteles de Plantis and Bessarion' in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies (Warburg Institute), 5 (1961), pp. 132-54. 7 Cf. the comments of S. Monfasani, George of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1976), p. 79. 8 A. Greco, Vespasiano da Bisticci, Le Vite, I (Florence, 1970), pp. 65-9. 9 E.g. Vespasiano was wrong in attributing the translation of Aristotle's 'Magna Moralia' and 'Eudemian Ethics' to George of Trebizond (p. 68). In fact, they were translated by Gregorio Tifernate (cf. P. O. Kristeller, Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, I (Washington, 1960), p. 280. 10 Kenney II (1974), p. 12. 11 Monfasani, op. cit. (1976), pp. 69-71.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

85

produced such a deplorable version of the early books of Diodorus Siculus that it had to be revised immediately by another member of the papal team of translators and there is no point in discussing it any further. 12 The one outstanding translator was Lorenzo Valla. The present state of information about his tranlations of the two greatest Greek historians is worth summarizing and some fresh evidence can now be added. Everything concerning this remarkable man is of abiding interest. But more average, and therefore more typical humanists, also call for further study. 13 I have already discussed in an earlier article the Latin versions of the 'Geography' of Strabo, completed at the request of Nicholas V, by Guarino of Verona and Gregorio Tifernate.14 More light can be thrown on some of the other translations of Greek historians by the team of scholars in the service of Nicholas V. With the exception of Valla's version of Thucydides, all the early humanist translations of the Greek historians appear to be based on manuscripts that we still possess and they seem, therefore, to have no independent textual value. This helps to explain their neglect by modern classical scholars. Furthermore, these translations have usually been studied in the early printed editions which, as a rule, are a poor reflection of the original versions. In the case of Valla scholars have found it easier to use the more easily accessible amended versions of sixteenth century editors.15 The first printed versions of the humanist translations in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries are often very careless and, at times, downright dishonest, as were many early editions of classical texts in general.16 The present study has deliberately concentrated on the earliest manuscript versions. Whenever possible, I have tried to use the working drafts of the humanist translators and their original fair copies, or else the earliest or the most careful transcripts of the latter. I do not propose to discuss in any detail the textual quality of these translations though I shall summarize what is already known about their value. I shall confine myself chiefly to inquiring into the Greek sources used by the translators and to assembling evidence about their historical and 12 Supra, chapter 1, pp. 27-8. Poggio's failure is not surprising as he prided himself on not adhering strictly to the words of the Greek original but on merely translating the general sense of each sentence. Cf. Oxford, Balliol ms. 124 (a manuscript of John Free and, subsequently, of William Worcester), fo. 153. 13 Cf. the remarks of Kenney I (1971), p. 128. 14 Supra, chapter 3, pp. 55-82. pu. 15 E.g. see A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I (Oxford, 1945). p. 439. 16 Kenney II (1974), pp. 12-16. See also section II, below, for one publisher's outrageous treatment of a passage in Bruni's 'Gothic Wars'.

86

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

historiographical interests, as revealed by their prefaces and their marginal notes in these translations. This inquiry might take us a little nearer to the minds of these humanists and reveal more fully their wide acquaintance with classical historians, though it will also bring out some of their limitations as critical scholars. II

The humanists of the fifteenth century cited their sources more frequently in informal working drafts than in finished works, though the latter might occasionally preserve the marginal comments of the earlier drafts. In translations of Greek texts such notes drew attention to gaps or corrupt passages in the original Greek manuscripts. They might indicate how many manuscripts a translator had at his disposal. Thus George of Trebizond noted in his translation of 'De animalibus' of Aristotle that all the three manuscripts at his disposal contained one particular gap.17 An early draft of Ambrogio Traversari's translation of the 'Lives of the Greek Philosophers' of Diogenes Laertius contains a 17 Monfasani, op. cit. (1976), p. 73, n. 18 (referring to Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. 84. 9, fo. 21v.) 18 Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. Rice. 143, fo. 113r. 19 My assumption that ms. Rice. 143 is an early draft of Traversari is based on a large number of corrections and changes in it and also on a comparison with a fuller version in Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. Strozzi 64, which according to G. Mercati is an autograph of Traversari Cf. Mercati's Ultimi contributi alia storia degli umanisti. Traversariana, Vatican, Studi e Testi, 90 (1939), p. 19, n. 1. 20 L. Menus (ed), Ambrosii Traversarii...Epistolae (Florence, 1759), II, nos. 232-333 (June-July, 1425), pp. 305-8. See also A. Sottili 'Autografi e traduzioni di Ambrogio Tisveisan',Rinascimento, 2nd ser., 6 (1966). 21 'Uber Prokophandschriften', Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Munchen (philos., philol. und hist. Classe), 1895, pp. 131-34. The gap begins in ms. Laur., gr. 69. 8 at the fourth line of fo. 267v. and ends at the penultimate line of fo. 268 r. It corresponds to the section from VIII 29. 1 to VIII 33. 5 of the text of Procopius (cf. B. Rubin, Prokopius von Kaisareia (Stuttgart, 1954), p. 1. Bruni's note is to be found, in an incomplete version, in London, Brit. Libr., Additional ms. 11701 (of 1443), fo. 84 v. and, more fully, ibid., Harl. ms. 3276 (of 1449), fo. 52 r. In the latter it runs: 'Verba lionardi. Hie deficit apparatus Totile contra Narsetem, pugnaque inter eos et mors Totile, quod cum clare reperire non potui, scribere supersedi alias investigaturus. Erunt forsan tres vel quattuor carte.' A shorter version is cited in A. M. Bandini, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Medicae-Laurentianae (Florence, 1775), II, col. 732. 22 Supra, chapter 2, appendix. 23 Fos. 2 r., 18r. 24 Paris, Jehan Petit, 1507, p. 46 r. and 46 v. I am using a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. 25 For the 'pontifical' manuscript of Strabo's 'Geography' supplied to Guarino by Nicholas V see in this volume, supra, chapter 4. See below, section IV for manuscripts of Appian procured by the Pope for Pier Candido Decembrio. 26 The fullest recent account of Jacopo's mathematical studies is in P. L. Rose, 'Humanist culture and Renaissance mathematics: the Italian libraries of the Quattrocento', Studies in the Renaissance, 20 (1973), pp. 82-87. He suggests (p. 85) that Jacopo may have

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

87

18

reference to a reading in 'the Greek exemplar' which proves that at this point Traversari was using only one manuscript. 19 We know from his correspondence that in 1425 he was seeking further texts and that he managed to secure ultimately three manuscripts.20 Leonardo Bruni based his adaptation of the 'Gothic Wars' of Procopius (1441) on a single manuscript. Bruni was very scrupulous in recording this. The whole story has been unravelled only gradually. In 1895 J. Haury pointed out that there is a gap in Bruni's translation of book 8 of Procopius and suggested that he may have been using ms. Laur. 69. 8, the only manuscript known to contain such a gap. He had no further proof and he was unaware that Bruni had himself drawn attention to this gap in a marginal note reproduced in some of the earliest manuscript copies of his 'Gothic Wars'. In it Bruni says that he will omit any account of the death of the Gothic king Totila, obviously occurring in the missing passage, until he finds a more complete manuscript of Procopius.21 This confirms that he had only one Greek manuscript at his disposal. By identifying Bruni's handwriting, 22 I have been able to confirm that he did, indeed, use ms. Laur. 69.8 as it contains his autograph marginal notes. 23 However, in 1507, a publisher of an edition of Bruni's 'Gothic Wars' concealed the gap in Bruni's text by inserting a connecting sentence, leaving his readers unaware that they are missing the narrative of several decisive events, including the death in battle of the Gothic king, Totila.24 Pope Nicholas V tried to assure that the translators commissioned by him had at least two Greek manuscripts at their disposal.25 The translation of books 11-13 of Diodorus by Jacopo da Santo Cassiano of Cremona forms one of the few exceptions. Jacopo is chiefly known for his translation of Archimedes. He appears to have been an exceptionally gifted scholar whose career was cut short by an early death, probably in 1453.26 In marginal notes to a copy of his translation of the three books of Diodorus, dealing with Greek history in the fifth century B.C., he refers several times to gaps in book 12 of his Greek source. Clearly he had only one Greek manuscript. 27 These books of Diodorus covered the same period as do the 'Histories' of Thucydides and Herodotus translated for Pope Nicholas V by Lorenzo Valla. He began to translate Thucydides soon after his died in 1452. However his translation of Diodorus in Brit. Libr., ms. Harleian 4916 bears the date of 1453 (fo. 2 r.). 27 Harl. ms. 4916 (copied in or after 1456), fos. 70 v. ('hie erat aliquis defectus in greco exemplari'), 95 r. ('hie deest in greco exemplari tota expedicio platensis ...' referring to Diodorus XII. 56. 1-6), 101 r. ('hie deest in exemplari greco', referring to Diodorus XII. 65. 9). Other similar marginalia are on fos. 108 r. (another gap) and 193 v. ('hoc loco menda est in greco exemplari'). On his translation see also Monfasani op. cit (1976), pp. 105-6.

88

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

return to Rome in 1448. His authoritative fair copy was completed on 13 July 1452 (ms. Vat. lat. 1801) and it contains a note to this effect in Valla's own hand. 28 He then undertook the translation of Herodotus but it was not yet finished when Nicholas V died in 1455. As examples of textual methods of the early humanists these two translations are in a class by themselves. Valla not only tried to consult in each case several manuscripts but he used texts of different textual traditions. He does not explain his choice of manuscripts because humanists of his generation were not accustomed to do so. However, in the case of a man as intelligent as Valla it is permissible to suppose that he had intended from the start to collate manuscripts that significantly differed from each other. He had undertaken his translations of the two Greek historians after many years of work on the different versions of the New Testament and he continued to pursue his study of the Bible side by side with his rendering of Thucydides and Herodotus. He was thoroughly familiar with the need to compare divergent texts. 29 The other main interest of Valla's translations lies in his marginal notes which have never been systematically studied. They differ from Valla's usual marginalia in his other studies of classical texts. Normally Valla's marginal notes concentrated almost entirely on textual emendations. The most famous example is provided by his annotations in Brit. Library ms. Harleian 2493 of Livy. As has been recently pointed out, it contains notes in three different hands, 30 one of which is certainly Petrarch, 31 and the second Valla's. The notes that can securely be attributed to Valla are confined to textual emendations and do not refer to matters of historical interest unlike some of the marginalia of the third annotator who might perhaps be identified with Antonio Panormita. 32 28 Fo. 184 r. : 'Ideoque huic meo chirographo subscripsi ut esset hie codex mee translationis archetypus, unde cetera possent exemplaria emendari'. This subscription was first published by B. Nogara, Codices Vaticani Latini, III (1912), pp. 275-6. 29 Valla used three Greek versions of the New Testament, and for some sections, disposed of four additional manuscripts. He also used three Latin versions. Cf. S. Garofalo, 'Gli umanisti Italiani del secolo XV e la Bibbia' in La Bibbia e il Concilio di Trento (Rome, 1947), pp. 48-9. The best study of Valla's work on the New Testament is in A. Perosa (ed),I. Valla. CollatioNovi Testament (Florence, 1970). 30 J. Briscoe, 'Notes on the manuscripts of Livy's Fourth Decade', Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 62 (1980), pp. 312-16. I owe this reference to the kindness of Mr. L. D. Reynolds. The proof that there are three hands, not two, in this manuscript, and that the marginalia about points of historical interest are not in Valla's hand, corrects my statement, supra, chapter 1, pp. 16-18. 31 Petrarch's annotations are admirably discussed in A. Petrucci, La Scrittura di Francesco Petrarca (Vatican, Studi e Testi no. 248, 1967), pp. 22-27. 32 This was suggested to me by Miss A. de la Mare. I intend to report on my detailed study of these marginalia in a future publication.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

89

In his Latin versions of Thucydides and Herodotus Valla wished to provide a different type of explanatory notes, some of which deal with historical information. Valla's only previous venture into classical historiography had been his short treatise, written in 1444, correcting an error of Livy.33 Valla argued, correctly, 'that on his own evidence Livy made a mistake in presenting Tarquinius Superbus (the last Roman king) as the son of Tarquinius Priscus'.34 It may be that in the last years of his life, because he had been entrusted with the translations of Thucydides and Herodotus, Valla was developing a stronger interest in ancient history. For Valla's Latin version of Thucydides we have his autograph notes in Vat. lat. 1801. Furthermore, some of the other copies of his translations contain additional marginalia, including notes that certainly must derive personally from Valla. 35 They come, presumably, from Valla's earlier working drafts. For Valla's 'Herodotus' we only have notes of this second type, not of absolutely assured authenticity but probably going back to his own comments. For his version of Thucydides Valla used at least two manuscripts. One of them was probably an ancestor of the present day Vat. gr. 126 (ms. B) and Paris, gr. 1734 (ms. H). The second manuscript apparently resembled Neapolitanus III. B. 10 (ms. Nf.) and Paris.gr. 1638 (ms.Pi).36 However, one of Valla's marginal notes in Vat. lat. 180137 raises a further possibility. It concerns an unusual digression of Thucydides in which he gave an account of the murder in 514 B.C. of Hipparchos, the younger son of Peisistratos, the tyrant of Athens. Valla is the first of a long line of modern commentators who have speculated 33 Ed. E. Garin, Laurentius Valla. Opera Omnia, I (Turin, 1962), pp. 43845. For its date see ibid., II, pp. 112-13. 34 A. Momigliano, 'An interim report on the origin of Rome', Terzo contribute alia storia degli studi dassici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1960), II, p. 550. The corrected passage is Livy, I. 46. 4. 35 One of these notes runs: 'Multa sunt similiter cadentia et imposita et talia apud Tucididem que in latino reddere laboravi' against a speech of Pericles, Thucydides, I. 140. 1.1 am citing Venice, Bibl. Marciana, ms. Marc. lat. X. 147 a (3785), a careful copy with beautiful illumination in an unusual combination of pale purple and green. The same note is found on fo. 31 r. of Cambridge Univ. Libr., ms. Kk 4. 2. which was brought to England from Rome in 1454 by Bishop William Gray of Ely and constitutes one of the earliest known copies. For further examples of marginalia not present in Vat. lat. 1801 but noted in other mss., see below. For the modern text of Thucydides I am using the Bude edition by J. de Romilly and R. Weil (6 vols.), Paris, 1968-72. 36 The most recent discussion of Valla's translation is to be found in F. Ferlauto, // testo di Tuddide e la traduzione latino di Lorenzo Valla (Palermo, 1979). The manuscripts are discussed on pp. 10-12. See also G. B. Alberti, 'Question! Tucididee',5o//. del Comitato per la Preparazione dell' Edizione Nazionale dei Classid Gred e Latini (cited henceforth as Boll, per Ediz. Naz.), new ser., 13 (1967), pp. 3-13 and O. Luschnat, Thukydides der Historiker (Stuttgart, 1971), col. 1310. 37 Fo. 130 r. referring to Thucydides, VI. 54. 1. For the historical problems raised by this note see below.

90

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

on the reasons for the insertion by Thucydides of this detailed story. His explanation was that Thucydides had been a descendant of Peisistratos. He could have derived this only from a Byzantine 'Life of Thucydides' by Marcellinus.38 The four extant manuscripts that most closely resemble the two texts used by Valla do not contain this 'Life'.39 This raises a possibility that Valla might have consulted some third, unidentified, manuscript of Thucydides that included this biography. The surviving manuscripts of Thucydides descend mostly from the same ancient edition of the text and at least one of Valla's Greek sources belonged to the same principal family of manuscripts. But Vat. gr. 126 and Paris, gr. 1734, both descended from a text used by Valla, contain from VI. 92. 5. onwards important textual variants which must derive from a different ancient edition of great interest.40 For this reason Valla's Latin translation has been assiduously studied by recent editors of the Greek text of Thucydides, as it constitutes an independent, indirect source. The value of Valla's translation is further enhanced by the fact that ms. Paris, gr. 1734, which in some respects seems to be superior to ms. Vat. gr. 126, now lacks the final section from VII. 50. 1. onwards, for which Valla's readings may be, therefore, particularly valuable.41 Unfortunately, Valla was too ready to make conjectural emendations, which are sometimes brilliant but often mistaken, and there is no sure way of distinguishing Valla's renderings 38 Cf. Gomme, op. cit., IV (1970), p. 323 and G. B. Alberti's edition of Marcellinus in Thucydidis Historiae, HI (Rome, 1972), p. 5. Marcellinus cites as his source Hermippos, an Alexandrian scholar of the third century B. C. For further references to these sources see below. 39 Alberti, ed. cit. (1972), p. CLXXXIX, gives a list of manuscripts of Thucydides that contain the 'Life of Thucydides' by Marcellinus. 40 G. Pasquali, Storia della Tradizione e Critica del Testo (2nd ed., Florence, 1971), pp. 318-19 and Ferlauto, op. cit. (1979), pp. 10-13. Readings of the second, divergent tradition have been found in fragments of ancient papyri. Cf. P. Focardi, 'II testo di Tucidide nei mss. Vatic. Gr. e Paris. Gr. 1734 in rapporto anche ai papiri Tucididei',Aegyptus, 35 (1955), and A Carlini, 'II papiro di Tucidide della Bibliotheca Bodmeriana (P. Bodmer XXVII)', Museum Helveticum, 32 (1975). I owe the last two references to the kindness of Dr. G. Cavallo. 41 Cf. the edition of G. B. Alberti, Thucydidis Historiae, I (Rome, 1972), pp. CIX-CXIX (ms. Par. gr. 1734) and pp. CXIX-CXXXIX (Valla's translation and its sources). See also Ferlauto, op. cit. (1979). 42 Ferlauto, op. cit. (1979), pp. 11-13, 55. He also attempts a detailed analysis of all the readings of Valla that depart from the modern standard texts (pp. 15-55). A. W. Gomme's commentary on Thucydides, op. cit., 5 vols. (1945-81) notes twenty passages where Valla's translation may help to suggest the better readings [cf. index under 'Valla's translation', V (1981), p. 488.] 43 Pasquali, op. cit., pp. 306-12. For the text of Herodotus I am using, for book I, the Teubner ed (by R. Dietsch, Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1906) and for the remaining books the Bude ed. by Ph. E. Legrand (Paris, 9 vols. 1963-66).

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

91

42

of superior textual variants from his personal conjectures. The textual tradition of Herodotus is even more complex. 43 G.B. Albert! has identified Valla's three Greek manuscripts (Vat. gr. 122, Vat. gr. 2669 and Laur. gr. 70. 6) and Valla's Latin version has, therefore, little independent textual value, except where he has made some fortunate conjectures.44 The most interesting thing to note is that Vat. gr. 122 and Laur. gr. 70.6 are representatives of the two main families of the text while Vat. gr. 2669 is a divergent manuscript which modern editors regard as particularly valuable. It is true that Valla did not consistently prefer it to the other two4 5 but we cannot expect him to share the modern reasons for appreciating its superior value. Thus, as with Valla's version of Thucydides, one has again an impression of a very thoughtful approach to the problem of selecting and combining good Greek sources. G.B. Alberti has identified notes by Valla in Vat. gr. 122, one of the three Greek manuscripts certainly used by him. Valla drew attention to gaps in the text and corrected passages which differed from readings found in Vat. gr. 2669. 46 Alberti does not seem to have scrutinized in the same way Laur. gr. 70. 6. But this manuscript does contain insertions of missing Greek passages in a hand that may be Valla's.47 Furthermore, inside the end cover, opposite the final page where the copyist has recorded the completion of his transcription (in year 6826 according to the Byzantine style),48 there is a note in a humanistic hand, that again may be Valla's, establishing the correct Western equivalent of 1318 A.D. 49 As with Valla's 'Thucydides', the marginal notes in several copies of his 'Herodotus' may tell us something more about his study of several manuscripts. No authoritative final copy of this translation appears to have been completed by the time of his premature death on 1 August 1457. According to a later statement of Giovanni Pontano, made in 44 'Erodoto nella traduzione latina di Lorenzo Valla', Boll, per Ediz. Naz. (cit. supra) new ser. 7 (1959), pp. 65-84; 'II codice Laurenziano greco 70. 6 e la traduzione latina di Erodoto di Lorenzo Valla', Maia, new ser. II (1959), pp. 315-19; 'Autografi greci di Lorenzo Valla nel codice Vaticano greco 122', Italia medioevale e umanistica, 3 (1960), pp. 287-90 [cited below as Alberti, Vat. gr. 122 (I960)]; L. Weber, 'Curae Herodoteae ad Laurentium Vallam pertinentes',7?/V. di Filologia e d'Istruzione Classica, 1935, pp. 356-64. 45 Alberti, Vat. Gr. 122 (1960), p. 289. 46 Ibid., pp. 287-9. 47 Florence, ms. Laur. gr. 70. 6., fos. 122v., 125r., 129r. The notes are not mentioned in the description of this manuscript (with a facsimile of one page) in A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy, (Urbana and London, 1972), I, pp. 132-33 and II, plate 104. 48 Ibid., II, plate 239 b. 49 In that note 1318 is obtained by subtracting 5508 from 6826.

92

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

1460, Valla never had time to revise his version of Herodotus.50 A brief life of Valla by Andrea Bussi, appended to one manuscript of the Latin 'Herodotus', also mentions that Valla had never completed the preface. Bussi refers to the 'archetypes' of Valla's translation. 51 From these informal, earlier drafts must derive the marginal notes, found in some copies of Valla's 'Herodotus', drawing attention to passages that he could not find in several Greek manuscripts ('hoc in plerisque codicibus non legitur').52 Valla presumably filled these gaps from Vat. gr. 122. The form of words that he uses suggests that he may have seen several other manuscripts in addition to Vat. gr. 2669 and Laur. gr. 70. 6. In embarking on his translation of Thucydides Valla was fully aware of the daunting nature of his task. By the time he had completed his version of book I and of a part of book II he was much in need of help from other scholars. He had found particularly difficult the speeches inserted by Thucydides into his 'History'.5 3 Valla had counted, above all, on the help of his friend and patron, Cardinal Bessarion, the most outstanding Greek scholar present at Rome. It was a bitter disappointment when Bessarion left Rome on 4 March 1450 to take up his new post as the papal legate at Bologna.5 4 Valla's recognition of his own inadequacy must be remembered when we read a long succession of critics of his two translations of Thucydides and Herodotus. The first printed edition of the Latin 'Thucydides', published in 1482, already contained alterations of Valla's original text.5 5 Further numerous and far-reaching changes were made in the successive editions of the Latin versions of both historians published during the sixteenth century. 56 Recently G.B. Alberti has spoken harshly of Valla's shortcomings as a translator and has stressed his inadequate knowledge of the Greek language.57 Against this must be balanced the fact that, while several other Latin versions commissioned by Nicholas V had to be replaced in the second half of the sixteenth century by entirely new translations,5 8 Valla's Latin Thucydides and Herodotus, though much amended, were not superseded by fresh versions. For several centuries most educated Europeans were acquainted with these two greatest Greek historians only through Valla's translations. 50 Albert! in Boll. per. Ediz. Naz. (1959), p. 65 citing E. Garin (ed.),Laurentius Valla, Opera Omnia, II (Turin, 1962), pp. 200-203. Pontano says (ibid., p. 200): 'morte preventus incepto operi ultimam nequiverit manum imponere'. 51 Alberti, ibid., (1959), p. 65. 52 Alberti, Boll. per. Ediz. Naz., 1959, p. 78, citing mss. Vat. lat. 1797 and Vat. Chigianus J. VIII. 275. I have found identical notes against passages in Venice, Bibl. Marciana, ms. Marc. lat. X. 52 (3230), fos. 8 v. (against I. 46), lOr. (against I. 56), 13 v. (against I. 71), 14 v. (against I. 77).

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

93

III

Speaking in 1974 of the translations of Greek historians commissioned by Pope Nicholas V Arnaldo Momigliano remarked that 'the whole series of translations was potentially the most revolutionary event in historiography since Fabius Pictor introduced Greek historiography into Rome at the end of the III century B.C. But nobody has yet discovered what happened as a consequence of all this. Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Strabo and Appian suddenly becoming available in the language of educated people'.5 8a I have already written in an earlier article about Strabo. The other four historians count among the most important or, at least, instructive, Greek historical writers of Antiquity. The translations of Herodotus and Thucydides by Lorenzo Valla must naturally come first. They have rightly received more attention from scholars than the other versions commissioned by Nicholas V but there is room for a new inquiry. Much of the modern literature on Valla suffers from an unduly narrow preoccupation with particular aspects of his thought and writings. A study of Valla's marginal notes in his translations of Thucydides and Herodotus reminds us of the diversity and wide range of his interests and of the original way in which he combined them. The notes reveal Valla's familiarity with numerous classical writers. They also reflect his deep involvement with the sources of Christian faith to which attention has already been drawn in another context. Valla's fascination with the changing meanings of words and 53 Cf. Valla's letter to Giovani Tortelli of 28 Oct. 1448 (L. Valla, Opera, 1962, cit. supra, II pp. 425-6). 54 Cf. Valla's preface in ms. Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 1 v. For the date of Bessarion's departure see L. Valla, Opera (1962), II, p. 198, n. 7. 55 Ibid., II, p. 196. 56 For the editions of the Latin Thucydides see especially: (I) Hen. Petri, Basle, March 1564, with a preface by Seb. Castellio, where attention is particularly drawn to his revision of Valla's translation of the various speeches and, above all, of the debate in book V between the Athenians and the men of the island of Melos. (II) Hen. Stephanus (2nd ed.), Geneva, 1588. For the editions of the Latin Herodotus see especially: (I) Maternus Cholinus, Cologne, 1562, edited by Seb. Castellio, with corrections by Conrad Heresbach. (II) Hen. Stephanus, Geneva, 1570. 57 Alberti in Boll, per Ediz. Naz. (1959), p. 80. 58 For a new translation by Xylander of Strabo's 'Geography', superseding the versions of Guarino of Verona and of Gregorio Tifernate see in this volume, supra, chapter 3. A new translation of Appian was made by Curio (Froben, Basle, 1554), superseding the much more incomplete version of Pier Candido Decembrio whose rendering of Appian for Pope Nicholas V is discussed below, section IV. 58a In Polybius between the English and the Turks. The Seventh J. L. Myres Memorial Lecture (Oxford, 1974), p. 7. (Now also in A. Momigliano, Sesto contribute alia storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, Rome 1980,1, p. 131).

94

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

concepts is brought out by one of his marginal comments in his version of Thucydides. Only a selection of Valla's more significant marginal notes will be discussed here. He was specially interested in the rare passages where Thucydides and Herodotus referred to themselves. He noted that Thucydides 'speaks about himself in the famous passage in book 4 where the Athenian historian had named himself as the commander of the Athenian forces near Amphipolis in Thrace, which the Spartans captured in 424. In the same passage Thucydides described himself as the author of 'this work'.59 Valla also noted a passage in which Herodotus had described his experiences in Egypt.60 Like other humanists of his generation Valla was concerned with the distinction between myths and real events and with the use of mythological materials by classical writers.61 He drew attention to the mention by Thucydides of a mythological incident in Thrace (the killing of Itys by the women of Thrace).6 2 I have already mentioned in another context Valla's interest in the account given by Thucydides of the true causes of the assassination in 514 B.C. of Hipparchos, son of the Athenian ruler, Peisistratos. In his marginal note to this passage of Thucydides Valla states as a fact, without naming any source, that this unusual digression of Thucydides was due to the Athenian historian's descent from Peisistratos.63 Valla had convinced himself of something that is doubted by most modern scholars. The most that can be said with certainty is that during some years in the sixth century the ancestors of Thucydides have had close political ties with Peisistratos and his sons. Besides, in the case of a writer as sophisticated as Thucydides, there is a real possibility that he may have had some other unknown reasons for writing at length about this incident. Valla's only source for his suggestion could have been the Byzantine 'Life of Thucydides' by Marcellinus who, in turn, had cited Hermippos, an Alexandrian writer of the third century B.C. Valla was guilty here of accepting uncritically an ancient authority who is most unlikely to have had any sources of information unknown to us.64 59 'Thucydides de se ipso narrat' (ms. Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 93 r. referring to Thucydides, IV, 104.4). Cf. Gomme's Commentary (op. cit., Ill, 1956), p. 577. 60 'Hactenus que vidit' [Venice, ms. Marc. lat. X. 52 (3230), fo. 46 r. referring to Herodotus, II. 99] 61 For Guarino's interest in this topic see this volume, chapter III. 62 'Hanc solam dicitur auctor fabulam tangere' (ms. Vat. Lat. 1801, fo. 35 r., referring to Thucydides, II. 29. 3). 63 'Ideo tot verbis de hac re loquatur Thucydides quia ipse a Pisistrato fuit oriundus' (ibid., fo. 130 r., referring to Thucydides, VI. 54. 1). 64 For modern discussions of the evidence see U. von Wilamowitz - Mollendorf, 'Lesefriichte', Hermes, 34 (1899), pp. 225-26; Kroll in Pauly, Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertum und Wisseschaft, VIII. 1 (Stuttgart, 1912), col. 848 (Hermippos); H. T. Wade-Gery,

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

95

Thucydides recorded the quarrel between King Agis II of Sparta and Alcibiades which ultimately compelled that wayward Athenian statesman to rejoin his compatriots, but he did not try to explain the causes of the conflict. Valla derived from Plutarch's 'Life of Alcibiades' the suggestion that the hostility between the two men had its origin in the seduction of the wife of King Agis by Alcibiades. Again Valla did not name his source but he worded his note more cautiously. He said that he was citing an explanation given by other writers.65 Valla was interested in passages where Herodotus and Thucydides were covering the same ground. At the end of Herodotus' account of the Spartan defence of Thermopylae, there is a note, that may be Valla's, recording that Thucydides speaks of the same subject in book I.66 Two important notes arose out of Valla's conviction that Thucydides was correcting mistakes of Herodotus and was criticising his general unreliability. The first, which rectifies two specific errors about details of Spartan institutions, may well be directed against Herodotus, though Thucydides may also have had other writers in mind.67 The second note, which I have found only in Francesco Sassetti's Florentine copy of Thucydides,68 raises more fundamental issues. It shows that Valla shared the general belief of his contemporaries that Herodotus was a graceful (dulcis) but unreliable (fabulosus} historian.69 Valla assumes that when Thucydides was contrasting the rigour of his own methods with the practice of other writers he must have been referring to Herodotus. Modern historians do not share his assurance.70 'Miltiades', Essays in Greek History, (Oxford, 1958), pp. 155-70; Gomme, op. cit., IV (1970), pp. 317-29. 65 'Ferunt Alcibiadem habuisse rem cum uxore Agidis regis'. This note does not occur in Vat. lat. 1801 but it is found in Cambridge, Univ. Libr., ms. Kk. 4. 2 (brought to England in 1454 by Bishop William Gray of Ely), fo. 186 v. and in Venice, Marc. Lat X. 147a (3785), fo. 200 r. It refers to Thucydides VIII. 12. 2. Cf. Gomme, op. cit., V (1981), pp. 26-7. 66 Venice, ms. Marc. lat. X. 52 (3230), fo. 77 v.: 'Huius rei meminit Teuchydides in primo'. (Herodotus, VII. 234 and Thucydides, I. 18. 2). 67 'Herodotum hie carpit qui hoc ait'. (Cambr. Univ. Libr., ms. Kk 4. 2. fo. 6 r. and Florence, Bibl. Laur., ms. Laur. 63. 32., fo. 8 r.), The note appears against Thucydides, I. 20.3. For a discussion of the evidence see Gomme, op. cit., I (1945), pp. 137-38. 68 Florence, Bibl. Laur., ms. Laur. 63. 32. fo. 8 r.: 'Hie notat Herodotum dulcem eundem que fabulosum', referring to Thucydides, I, 22. The notes are written in the same hand as the main text (of Niccolo Fonzio). Many of them certainly originated with Valla and I am assuming that this is also true of this particular note. For Laur. ms. 63. 32 see A. de la Mare, "The Library of Francesco Sassetti (1421-90) in C. H. Clough (ed), Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (1976), p. 182, no. 40. 69 Valla also describes Herodotus as dulcis in the preface to his translation of Thucydides (Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 2 r.). He derives this from Quintilian,/«s?zY«?/o Oratorio, X. 1. 73. Fabulosus derives from Cicero. Cf. A. Momigliano, 'The place of Herodotus in the history of historiography', Studies in Historiography, (London, 1960), p. 127. For Herodotus' doubtful reputation among Valla's contemporaries see ibid., p. 139. 70 Cf. Gomme, op. cit., I (1945), pp. 1-2, 139-42.

96

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Valla was also interested in comparing Thucydides with Roman historians. One of his notes suggests that Thucydides influenced the style of Sallust and many modern historians would agree with this. 71 The note appears at the start of the speech of Diodotus to the Athenian Assembly in which that Athenian statesman pleaded for the reversal of a previous decision to destroy the town of Mytilene on Lesbos. Valla remarked that this manner of speaking had been imitated by Sallust. 72 There is no mention of Thucydides in Valla's own undated commentary on Sallust.7 3 As Valla prided himself on preparing his annotation of an author by reading all the relevant earlier writers,74 this would suggest that this commentary preceded his translation of Thucydides. Many of Valla's notes were intended as aids to the understanding of his translations. Sometimes they only repeat more emphatically his version of Thucydides but, in one case, Valla ascribes to an Athenian orator, Pericles, an allusion that was, probably, not intended by Thucydides. It concerns the famous speech in honour of the Athenians killed in the first year of the war with Sparta. When Pericles stressed that the Athenians did not imitate the constitutions of other states, but, on the contrary, their regime provided an example that others might follow, Valla interprets this as a pointed criticism of the Spartan lawgiver, Lycurgus, who had allegedly copied the Spartan laws from Crete and Egypt. 75 One modern view is that 'this has no reference to the story that the Spartan constitution was borrowed from Crete'. 76 I have had already occasion to mention the oration of Diodotus which induced the Athenian Assembly to reverse its previous decree against Mytilene. 77 Valla was specially interested in this speech. His 71 A. D. Leeman, 'Le genre et le style historique a Rome : theorie et pratique', Revue des&udes Latines, 33 (1955), pp. 198-99; R. Syme, Sallust (1964), pp. 52, 56; A. LaPenna, Sallustio e la 'rivoluzione'romana (Milan, 3rd ed., 1973), passim. 72 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 59 r: 'Mos suus loquendi Thucydidis ut Salustius eo imitatus', referring to Thucydides, III, 42. 1. 73 I am using the Venice edition of Th. de Regazonibus (Venice, Bibl. Marciana, Incun. Ven. 423, of 8 July 1492). Though Valla's authorship has been denied by F. Adorno [Rinascimento, 5 (1954), p. 22, n. 2], its style and wording are quite typical of Valla. 74 Cf. Valla's letter to G. Tortelli of 1 January 1447, concerning his annotation of Quintilian : 'Nam ut scias quo studio glosas eas facturus sim, certum est mini omnes libros, qui supersunt legendi evolvere, eos presertim qui ante Quintilianum extiterunt'. This is published in R. Sabbadini, Storia e critica di testi latini, (Padua, 1971), p. 299. Valla's own annotated Quintilian is Paris, Bibl. Nationale, ms. Par. lat. 7723 bearing a note 'Laurentius Valla hunc codicem sibi emendavit ipse 1444' (Cf. M. W. Winterbottom's edition, Oxford, 1970,1, p. XIII). 75 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 36v.: 'Contra Lacedemonios quibus Lycurgus scripsit leges emulatus, Cretenses atque Egyptios', referring to Thucydides, II, 37. 1. 76 Gomme, op. cit., II (1956), p. 107. 77 Thucydides, III 42-48. For Diodotus see M. Ostwald, 'Diodotus son of Eucrates', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979), pp. 5-13.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

97

version of it incorporates one of his felicitous textual conjectures and is strikingly vigorous. He also adds one useful, explanatory note. Thucydides narrated that the votes cast for and against the destruction of Mytilene had been almost equal but that the recommendation of Diodotos that the town should be spared had been allowed to prevail. Valla explained.that in the case of an equal vote, a 'downward' proposal would prevail at Athens.78 He appears to be right.79 One of Valla's most instructive notes concerns a famous incident in 415 B.C. The mysterious mutilation of the Herms at Athens was used to discredit Alcibiades and his dismissal from his Sicilian command contributed to the subsequent destruction of the Athenian expedition against Syracuse. Valla clarifies the nature of these Herms and discusses the origin of their name.80 Later on, when Thucydides stated that the Athenian army captured outside Syracuse had been detained in the 'Lithomie', Valla explains that this was the proper name for these quarries, which were also known as 'Lapidicine'.8l In his version of the events that had led to the Spartan alliance with Persia, Valla explains that all the references of Thucydides to 'the King' should be understood as describing 'the King of the Medes and the Persians'.8 2 Several of Valla's marginalia were prompted by his special interests. Against the mention by Thucydides of the town of Stagira Valla noted that it was the native town of Aristotle.83 Valla's most significant philosophical work, the 'Dialectical Disputations' (1439) had been directed against the logical writings of Aristotle.84 Valla was particularly interested in studying the changing meanings of words and had a long comment about this in the first draft of his preface to the 'Life of King Ferdinand of Aragon', father of his patron, King Alfonso of Aragon.85 It was to be expected that his interest would be aroused by the passage in Thucydides describing how the civil war on the island of Corcyra led to a perversion of what men normally mean by words describing human conduct, so that 'the customary 78 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 60 v. : 'In pari numero scrutiniarum sive suffragiorum nutior vincebat sententia', referring to Thucydides III, 49. 1. 79 E. S. Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (London, 1972), p. 98. 80 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 124 v., referring to Thucydides VI, 26. 1. 81 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 161 r., referring to Thucydides VII, 86. 2. 82 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 164 v., referring to Thucydides VIII, 18.1. 83 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 81 v., referring to Thucydides IV, 88. 2. 84 Cf. a brief discussion in P. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (London, 1965), pp. 33-5. 85 Edited in O. Besomi, Laurentii Voile, 'Gesta Ferdinandi Regis Aragonum, (Padua, 1973), pp. 194-204. For a more detailed discussion see O. Besomi, "Dai 'Gesta Ferdinandi regis Aragonum' del Valla al 'De orthographia' del Tortelli", Italia medioevale e umanistica, 9 (1966), pp. 75-121.

98

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

meanings of words were changed as men claimed the right to use them as they would to suit their actions'.86 Valla draws attention to these sombre reflections of Thucydides and remarks that they have relevance for his own times.87 Valla's most famous work is his treatise on 'The Donation of Constantine'. In it he denied that Pope Eugenius IV could abrogate the title of Valla's patron, King Alfonso, to his kingdom of Sicily (1440).88 The union of Naples and Sicily as the 'kingdom of two Sicilies' was also the subject of an oration of Valla in 1442.89 It is not surprising that Valla should have inserted several marginal notes drawing attention to anything that Thucydides might have to say about the inhabitants of Sicily and their origins.90 Notes found in copies of Valla's Herodotus cannot be attributed to him with comparable certainty. Style and content are our only guides here. However, one group of marginal notes connected with the Bible and other Christian writings should most probably be attributed to him. In addition to Valla's passionate interest in the emending of the New Testament he appears here, also, as an attentive reader of the Old Testament and of ancient commentaries on it. Mentions by Herodotus of Ninos, the capital of Assyria, prompted the comment that this city was identical with Nineveh recorded by St. Jerome in his commentary on the Prophet Jonas.91 Herodotus' account of the deeds of the Egyptian King Nekos is followed by a note identifying him with the Biblical Necao who had killed King Josiah of Israel.92 An unexpected echo of the New Testament occurs also in one of Valla's notes to book IV of Thucydides. Valla remarks that there should be a short accent over the initial letter of the name of a Corinthian envoy, Eneas, as this was the spelling of an identical name occurring in the Acts of the Apostles.93 It is instructive to note that a similar interest in the Christian implications of ancient historians appears also in the notes inserted by Valla's friend, Cardinal Bessarion, in his copy of the 86 Thucydides III, 82-3, translated by Gomme, op. cit., I (1956) pp. 383-5. 87 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 66 v., referring to Thucydides III, 82. 4. 88 The most recent scholarly edition is in W. Setz, Lorenzo Valla. De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione (Weimar, 1976). 89 Edited from ms. Vat. Ottob. lat. 2075 by G. Romano, "L'origine della denominazione 'Due Sicilie' e un orazione inedita di Lorenzo Valla', Arch, storico per le provincie napoletane, 22 (1897), pp. 397-403. Valla entitled this speech: 'Oratio ad Alphonsum regem aliud Siculum aliud Napolitanum esse regnum'. 90 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 68 r. (Thucydides III, 88. 3.); fo. 84 r. (Thucydides, IV, 61. 2); fo. 119 r. (Thucydides VI, 3.2.). 91 Venice, ms. Marcianus lat. X. 52 (3230), fols. 23 v. (Herodotus I. 103) and 24 v. (Herodotus I. 106). 92 Ms. Marcianus lat. X. 52 (3230) fo. 46 r. (Herodotus, II. 159). 93 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 96 r. r'fineas penultima brevi semper inveni in prosa : et ita legitur in actibus apostolorum'. Refers to Thucydides IV, 119. 2.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

99

'Annals' and 'Histories' of Tacitus.94 The emendation of the New Testament was regarded by Valla as the most important task of his life. It was characteristic of him to invoke this experience in the preface to his version of Thucydides. He defends translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin by reminding his readers that without this they would lack all knowledge of the Holy Scripture.95 IV

The translation of the third most important Greek historian, Polybius, was entrusted by Pope Nicholas V to a precocious young man, Niccolo Perotti, who was then in the service of Cardinal Bessarion. He translated the first five books (all that was then readily available in Italy). His Latin version of the first book was ready by late August 1452, when Perotti was only twenty three. His task was completed by the summer of 1454.96 He is known to have used at least two Greek manuscripts. As his first manuscript was defective (mendosus), on 27 February 1452 he asked Giovanni Tortelli, the pope's librarian, for a loan of the papal Polybius.97 This was certainly the present Vat. gr. 1005, written probably at Constantinople in the fourteenth century.98 His original manuscript presumably came from his master, Cardinal Bessarion.99 It might be identified with the present Marc. gr. 371, copied in Italy at some date after c. 1435.10° But there is nothing in that manuscript to 94 Venice, ms. Marcianus, fondo antico 381 (1847), (Annals 11-16, Histories 1-5). Fo. 1 v. Bessarion's ownership note. Bessarion's notes to Jewish and, possibly, Christian topics, fols. 205 r. and v., 206 r., 207 v. Bessarion borrowed a Tacitus of Francesco Barbaro, in order to copy it, in the Spring of 1453. The relevant correspondence is edited in L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, III (Paderborn, 1967), pp. 471-74. 95 Vat. lat. 1801, fo. 1 r. : 'Adeo nullum cum deo nos Latini commercium haberemus nisi testamentum vetus ex hebraico et novum e greco fonte traductum'. 96 G. Mercati, Per la Cronologia della Vita e degli Scritti di Niccolo Perotti Arcivescovo di Siponto (Vatican, Studi e Testi no. 44, 1925, pp. 22-4, 36, n. 5). 97 Ibid., p. 144 and M. Regoliosi, 'Nuove ricerche intorno a Giovanni Tortelli', Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 9 (1966), p. 172. 98 G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro, il Cardinale Ruteno e codici a lui appartenuti... (Vatican, Studi e Testi no. 46, 1926), p. 110 and n. 2, p. 114 and M. Momigliano, 'Polybius' reappearance in Western Europe' (1979), now in Sesto Contribute (cit. supra, 1980), p. 112. For this manuscript see also A. Diaz Tejera in Emerita, 36 (1968), p. 122. For the manuscripts of Polybius see J. M. Moore, The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius (Cambridge, 1965), supplemented by his subsequent article 'Polybiana' in Greek, Roman and Byzan tine Studies ,12(1971). 99 Cf. Mercati, Perotti (1925), (cit. supra), p. 144. 100 E. Mioni, 'Bessarione scriba e alcuni sui collaboratori', Miscellanea Marciana di Studi Bessarionei (Padua, 1975), p. 304.

100

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

confirm that Perotti had actually used it for his translation. Most of the marginal notes in it are textual corrections in Greek. There is only one significant group of Latin marginalia elegantly written by a fifteenth century humanist1 ° 1 but they do not seem to be in Perotti's hand of c. 1452 as it is known from his correspondence with Tortelli.102 The note summarising the information in Polybius about the size of the Roman military forces at the start of the Second Punic War1 ° 3 does not read like an early draft version because it lacks the precision of Perotti's translation of this sentence. 104 Perotti's 'Polybius' is very uneven in quality. Contemporaries rightly praised its Latin style. 105 Subsequent editors of Polybius had harsh things to say about Perotti's omissions and mistakes. These criticisms are justified but it must also be stressed that parts of his version are quite correct and sensitively reproduce the nuances of the original. However, Perotti was unable to cope with some rare Greek words. For instance, where Polybius describes the Carthaginian mercenary army as including quite numerous mongrel-Greeks (mixhellenes), sons of mixed Greek and barbarian parents, Perotti merely speaks of 'Greeks', completely missing the whole point of the remark. 106 As was to be expected from Casaubon's much superior Greek scholarship, he renders this word quite correctly (ibridae Graeci} in his translation of 1609.107 Casaubon was particularly scathing about 101 Ms. Marcianus gr. 371 (302), fos. 53 v., 54 r. 102 This was the opinion of Professor E. Mioni in conversation with me in 1975. 103 It refers to Polybius II, 24. 15. B. Reynolds 'Bruni and Perotti present a Greek historian', Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance'1 16 (1954), p. 116 expresses puzzlement at this sentence of Perotti : 'he did not explain how this was derived'. She seems unaware that he was merely literally translating Polybius, though the passage may be an interpolated gloss. Cf. F. W. Walbank, Historical Commentary on Polybius, I (Oxford, 1957), p. 203. This is one of a number of instances of errors and misleading statements in Reynolds' unreliable article. 104 Ms. Marc. gr. 371, fo. 54 r. : 'Summa militum custodientium Italiam peditum videlicet centum quinquaginta milium. Equitum sex milia'. Perotti's translation: 'numerus fuit peditum supra centum et quinquaginta milia, equitum vero circiter sex milia' (Perotti's more precise additions, translating literally the Greek text, italicized by me). For the text of Perotti's translation I am using the edition of March 1530 (J. Secerius, Haguenau) in a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. The translation is added to editio princeps of Perotti's Greek text (first 5 books) by Vincent Opsopeus. 105 Comments on this translation from the fifteenth century to the present time are listed in R. P. Oliver, Niccolo Perotti's Version of the Enchiridion ofEpictetus (Urbana, 1954), pp. 15-16. 106 I am using Brit. Libr., Harleian ms. 3293, fo. 33r., one of Perotti's illuminated gift copies. Like ms. Vat. lat. 1810 (cf. B. Nogara, Codices Vaticani Latini, III, 1912, p. 280) it contains the text of a letter by Nicolas Vicentinus congratulating Perotti on his work and it is most unlikely to be the dedication copy presented to Pope Nicholas V (contrary to the suggestion of Reynolds, loc. cit., p. 144). Perotti is translating here Polybius I, 67.7. I am using the Bude edition of P. Pedech (Paris, vol. I, 1969). Cf. p. 109, n. 1, noting the rare usage of the term 'mixhellenes'.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

101

Perotti's inexpert rendering of the accounts of battles. Some years earlier one of Casaubon's contemporaries, Count Wilhelm Ludwig of Nassau, was so disgusted with Perotti's account of the Roman defeat at Cannae (216 B.C.) that he specially commissioned a translation of this section.108 The editor of the first Greek edition of Polybius (Haguenau, 1530) deplored the omissions in Perotti's text, especially in books 3 - 5 , though he charitably tried to ascribe them to gaps in Perotti's Greek original.109 The strangest case of combined omissions and distortions occurs in Perotti's rendering of a chronological passage in the introduction of Polybius to his Histories.110 Polybius wanted to indicate that he was beginning his introductory sketch of earlier Roman history with the capture of Rome (except for the Capitoline Hill) by the Gauls in 387-86 B.C. In translation this passage runs as follows 'It was then the nineteenth year after the battle of Aigospotami [406-5 B.C.] and the sixteenth before the battle of Leuctra [371-70], the year in which the Spartans made the peace known as that of Antalcidas with the King of Persia, that in which also Dionysius the Elder ... was besieging Rhegium and that in which the Gauls, after taking Rome itself by assault, occupied the whole of that city except the Capitol'.111 Somehow, Perotti confused the battle of Aigospotami at the end of the Peloponesian war with a different battle, fought in the same area in 470-69 B.C., in which the Athenians led by Cimon decisively defeated the Persians.112 In the next phrase Perotti omits the name of Antalcidas 113 but otherwise the rest of his translation of this passage is correct. The origin of Perotti's strange confusion remains inexplicable but it highlights his ignorance of ancient Greek history. To judge by ms. Harleian 3293, Perotti did not insert any significant marginal notes. But there are interesting comments about the subject matter of his translation in letters to Tortelli and in the lengthy introduction to his version written as a dedicatory preface 107 Ed. H. Drouardus, Paris, 1609, fo. iiii v. For Casaubon's edition see A. Martin, 'L'edition de Polybe d'Isaac Casaubon', Melanges d'Archeologie et d'Histoire, 10 (1890). 108 Casaubon, op. cit., preface, fos. ii r - iiii v; W. Hahlweg (ed), Die Heeresreform der Oranien : das Kriegbuch des Grafen Johann von Nassau-Siegen (1561-1623), Wiesbaden, 1973, nos. 34-35 (pp. 34047). 109 Op. cit., prefatory epistle, fo. A. iiii r. 110 This piece of mistranslation was mercilessly castigated by Casaubon, op. cit., preface, fo. iiii v. It is also mentioned by Reynolds, loc. cit. (1954), pp. 115-16. 111 Loeb ed. by W. R. Paton, I (London, 1922), p. 15, referring to Polybius I, 6. 1-2. 112 Harleian ms. 3293, fo. 7v. : 'annus erat post earn navalem pugnam qua Cimon atheniensis Xersen superaverat decimus nonus'. Reynolds, loc. cit., p. 115, wrongly gives the date of Cimon's victory as 466 B.C. 113 Reynolds, loc. cit., fails to note this.

102

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

addressed to Nicholas V.114 In a letter of 13 Nov. 1453 to Tortelli, sent from Bologna, where Perotti was staying with Bessarion, he comments % on his translation of the third book of Polybius. This covered Hannibal's invasion of Italy until the defeat of the Romans at Cannae. In Perotti's opinion there was no need to use henceforth Livy's account of these events as the narrative of Polybius was more serious and much clearer.115 The same note is struck in Perotti's preface to his translation. He notes that Polybius had been followed by almost all the subsequent Roman writers. As for book 21 of Livy, dealing with the Hannibalic invasion of Italy, this was an almost literal translation of Polybius, except that the Greek historian had written somewhat more fully. Perotti's preference for Polybius had still deeper roots. He prefers the Greek historian's philosophical seriousness and his avoidance of supernatural explanations in contrast to the incredible miracles, portents and dreams with which Livy filled his narrative without believing in them himself.116 Perhaps this distaste for miraculous matters had been strengthened in Perotti by his close contact with Bassarion who combined a deep religious faith with unrivalled mastery of Greek philosophy. One is reminded of the attitude of an earlier Byzantine historian, Xiphilinus, engaged in the second half of the eleventh century in epitomizing the 'History' of Dio Cassius, but preferring 'the more rationalistic Polybius who did not report portents so easily'.117 Livy was also the subject of adverse comments by Pier Candido Decembrio the translator of the 'Roman History' of Appian of Alexandria. In a letter of 28 April 1452, reporting on the progress of his translation to King Alfonso of Aragon, Decembrio claimed that Appian's account of the war between the Romans and King Antiochus of Syria was much superior to Livy's narrative of the same events.118 Comparisons of Appian with Livy also recur in some of the marginal notes to Decembrio's version which seem to have originated with him. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius, Appian is not a historian of any marked originality. Also he was unable to reconcile his 114 Printed in part by Reynolds, loc. cit., p. 115, n. 1.1 am using the full version in ms. Harl. 3293, fos. 2 r. -4r. 115 Cited in Momigliano, op. cit. (1980), p. 113. A facsimile of the entire letter is reproduced by Regoliosi, loc. cit. (1966), facing p. 180. 116 Ms. Harl. 3293, fo. 3r. : 'que res ne ab eo quidem sunt credite a quo scribentur' (omitted by Reynolds, loc.cit., p. 115, n. 1). 117 Cited in Momigliano, op. cit. (1980), p. 129. For Xiphilinus see F. Millar,/! Study of Dio Cassius (Oxford, 1964), p. 2. 118 V. Zaccaria, 'Sulle opere di Pier Candido Decembrio', Rinascimento, 7 (1956), p. 48.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

103

diverse sources with his own personal outlook and ideology, producing a work noted for its inconsistencies. This has led scholars in the past to concentrate too exclusively on Appian's probable sources to the neglect of him as a historian in his own right. Appian probably wrote in the middle of the second century A.D. He was an experienced Egyptian official and a lawyer. His 'Roman History' is interesting for the insights it gives into the attitude of a contemporary of Emperor Antoninus, writing at the height of the Roman Empire's prosperity, to the problems of the Roman Republic and especially to the civil wars that had destroyed it. 119 Appian wrote at least twenty four books. We have to-day only his introduction, explaining why he undertook this work, and eleven complete books, besides various Byzantine excerpts from the remainder, 120 The 'Roman History' is arranged not chronologically but by regions or topics, dealing in separate books with the different wars waged by the Romans. Decembrio lacked a manuscript of two of the complete books that we have to-day (Spanish and Hannibalic) and his rendering of the other nine is less complete in places than our modern texts. 121 Appian is an invaluable source for certain portions of Roman history because he preserves information from several earlier historical works that would otherwise be largely unknown. Decembrio's translations include the two parts of Appian's writings that are particularly important for this reason. The translation of the 'Libyan' book includes the unique account of the Third Punic War down to the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C., which may be based on a lost book of Polybius.122 Appian's five books of the 'Civil Wars', likewise translated by Decembrio, is the only sizable continuous narrative that we possess for the turbulent last century of the Roman republic from the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C. to the death of Sextus Pompeius in 35 B.C.123 The value of these five books is enhanced by their probable dependence on an unusually independent and well-informed narrative by a Roman statesman contemporary with a later part of these events, perhaps Asinius Pollio.124 Other books 119 The best discussion of Appian as a historian is by E. Gabba, Appiano e la Storia delle Guerre Civili (Florence, 1956). His conclusions are summarized (with further literature) in F. Gabba (ed.), Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Florence, 2nd ed. 1967), especially, pp. VII - XXXIII, 43545. Gabba also uses Appian frequently in his articles republished as Esercito e Societa nella tarda Repubblica Romano (Florence, 1973). 120 C/.. the list in P. Viereck et A. G. Roos (revised by E. Gabba) in Appiani 'Historia Romano', I (Leipzig, Teubner, new ed., 1962), pp. V - VIII. 121 Ibid., p. VIII. 122 Ed. Gabba (1967), cit. supra, p. XX. 123 iBID., P. XXI

124

Ibid., p. XXVI-VII.

104

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

translated by Decembrio are the 'Syrian', the 'Mithridatic' and the 'Illyrian' as well as a fragment of a summary of the 'Celtic'. Pier Candido Decembrio was one of the most distinguished humanist officials in the service of the last Visconti duke of Milan. 125 After the death of his master in 1447 he took an active part in the affairs of the short-lived Ambrosian Republic at Milan (1447-50) and went into voluntary exile after its destruction by Duke Francesco Sforza in 1450. Decembrio was already nearly sixty and was well-known for a long series of translations of Greek and Latin authors. 126 Pope Nicholas V invited him to Rome. The pope first entrusted Decembrio with the revision of Poggio's translation of the early books of Diodorus12 7 and then commissioned him to translate Appian. Decembrio completed his version of Appian between 1452 and the end of 1454.128 It is difficult to be certain about his choice of manuscripts. Candido's version of Appian is careless and erratic.129 All deductions based merely on his text are hazardous. Presumably, a manuscript readily available at the Vatican was put at his disposal at the start of his work. This would point to a manuscript copied by Cardinal Isidore Rutenus and belonging to him, the present Vat. gr. 134.130 Two families of Appian's manuscripts exist to-day and this manuscript belongs to the first, superior group. Decembrio's translation of Appian certainly shows an affinity with manuscripts of that family. 131 But there are puzzling features in his version and scholars are justifiably hesitant to accept Vat. gr. 134 as his main source.13 2 On 7 December 1450 Pope Nicholas V wrote to Cosimo de' Medici asking him to arrange for a loan of two further manuscripts of Appian which were reputed to be in the library of the Dominican convent of S. Marco at Florence. The letter explains that 'it is easier to understand a text and to render it faithfully if several manuscripts can be compared so that the deficiencies of each single one are made good by the 125 The most balanced short account of his career and writings is in P. 0. Kristeller, 'Pier Candido Decembrio and his Unpublished Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul', in L. Wallach (ed.), The Classical Tradition. Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Ithaca, 1966), especially pp. 536^4. 126 Ibid., p. 541 and notes 18 and 19. 127 Zaccaria, loc. cit. (1956), pp. 45, 53. 128 Ibid., pp. 47-51. 129 Cf. especially E. Ditt, 'Pier Candido Decembrio', Mem one del R. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere (Classe di Litt., Sc. Mor. e Stor.), XXIV (1931), p. 34. 130 Mercati, op. cit. (Studi e Testi, vol. 46, 1926), p. 63. 131 E. Gabba (cit. supra, 1967), pp. XXVIII-IX and sources cited there. 132 The difficulties are stressed in L. Mendelssohn, Appiani Historia Romana (Leipzig, Teubner, 1879), pp. XXI-XXV.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

105

others'.133 Two manuscripts, both written in the fifteenth century, which had once belonged to S. Marco, would answer the description in the pope's letter. 134 They both belong to the second, inferior, textual family. Decembrio certainly studied one of them, which is to-day at Wroclaw, 135 as he inserted a note that he had finished using it on 23 September 1453. He may have checked it for the first two books of the 'Civil Wars'. 135a The other manuscript may have been the present Laur. 70. 33, containing the last three books of the 'Civil Wars'. 136 Sixteenth-century scholars came to judge severely Decembrio's version because of his numerous mistranslations and omissions.137 A new Latin version by Sigismund Gelenius was published at Basle by Froben in June 1554. Only Candido's translation of the 'Illyrian wars' was included in it as no Greek manuscript of that book was accessible to Gelenius or to Curio, the editor of the Froben volume.138 At least one manuscript of Decembrio's translation, copied in April 1469, contains a number of interesting marginal notes. 139 A large blank space on fo. 18 v. and fo. 19 r. contains a note of a gap of about one folio in the manuscript from which it had been copied.140 The gap and the note may both go back to Decembrio's original version, in which case the other marginal notes may also have originated with Decembrio. These marginalia either draw attention to possible sources used by Appian or to passages where he differs from other historians. At least one of these notes seems to have been made from memory. A reference to the murder of C. Trebonius in Syria in 43 B.C. attributes mention of it to the letters of Asinius Pollio.141 This must be a reminiscence of 133 This is a fairly free rendering of the text printed ibid., p. XXII: 'Sed cum multo plura et verius intelligi et fidelius interpretari ex multorum lectione voluminum quam unius inspectione cognosci possint cum quod in uno deest suppleat aliud'. 134 Mendelssohn's suggestion, ibid., p. XXIII, that Laur. 70. 5 was one of the manuscripts sent from Florence to Decembrio is impossible as this was never a S. Marco ms. and was probably brought to Florence by J. Lascaris only in 1492. It is no. 1 in the Vatican inventory of Fabio Vigili (ms. Vat. Barb, lat 3185, fo. 260 r.). See my discussion of this inventory, infra, chapter 7 in this volume. 135 Ms. Rhedigeranus 14. 135a B. L. Ullman and P. A. Stadter, The Public Library of Renaissance Florence. Niccolo Niccoli, Cosimo de' Medici and the Library of San Marco (Padua, 1972), p. 262, no. 1193. 136 Ibid no. 1194 and Mendelssohn, op. cit., p. XXIII. 137 Cf. Ditt, loc. cit., p. 34 and the next note. 138 Cf., Curio's preface, fo. 4 r. and 4 v. I am using a copy at the National Library at Aberystwyth. For this edition see also Viereck and Roos, op. cit., (1962 edition), p. IX. 139 Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. 89, inf. 4, described in Bandini, op. cit., Ill (1776), coll. 353-54. 140 'Defectus unius folii in quo tumultus populi contineri videbatur. Deinde Romanorum consultacio de rebus Cartaginensibus, ut patet ex fragmento orationis insequentis'. 141 Fo 205 r. 'Trebonii mors de qua conqueritur Pollio in epistolis' referring to Appian, 'Civil Wars', III. 26.1 am using the Loeb ed. by H. White, III (1913).

106

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Cicero's correspondence but the only three letters in it that spoke of the death of Trebonius were written by two different men, C. Cassius and P. Lentulus.142 The marginal notes either draw attention to differences between Appian and other earlier writers in small details or cite accounts of the same subjects occurring in earlier sources. The references to ancient Greek and Latin authors coincide very closely with the list of writers certainly known to Decembrio that had been compiled by Ernst Ditt 143 and this increases the probability that these notes stem, indeed, from Decembrio. The Milanese humanist was familiar with Livy and two of the marginalia to Decembrio's translation of the 'Libyca' refer to Livy's account of the second Punic war. Attention is drawn to a different treatment of the story of the Numidian prince, Massinissa, by Livy.144 A son of another Numidian ruler, Syphax, is called Vernas by Decembrio but a note refers to Livy calling him Vermina.145 A list of important authors drawn up by Decembrio included both 'Catiline' and 'lugurtha' of Sallust.146 The only marginal note that explicitly names Appian's probable sources attributes to Sallust his general summary of the drifting of the Roman state into a deepening political crisis from 133 B.C. onwards. 147 Here comes also one note intended to clarify the real facts. Tiberius Gracchus, the plebeian tribune of 133, is said to have been killed not because he had promoted the Agrarian Law but because he had tried to retain the tribunate by violence.148 It is not a penetrating judgement. One marginal note refers to Valerius Maximus, another of Decembrio's favourite authors.149 Cicero's writings are mentioned twice. While Ditt had found only one explicit reference to Cicero's speeches (from 'de imperio Cn. Pompei'),150 one of the marginalia 142 'Familiares' XII. 12, XII. 14 and XII. 15.1 am using the edition of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, II (Cambridge, 1977). 143 Ditt.,/oc. cit. (1931), pp. 79-94. 144 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 7 r. : 'Massinisse historia a Livio discrepans'. 145 Ibid., fo. 12 v.; 'Filius Syphacis quern Livius Verminam dicit'. Refers to Appian 33. 141. I am using Gabba's revised ed. (1962) of Viereck and Roos (cit supra). The name appears there as 'Ouerminas' and the spelling in Decembrio's translation is wrong. 146 Ditt., loc. cit., p. 82. See also p. 87. 147 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 121 r. : 'Sallustiana traductio videtur' refers to Appian 'Civil Wars', I, 5 ff. I am using Gabba's second ed. of 1967 (cit. supra). 148 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 125 r. : 'Ex his licet agnoscere Gracchum interfectum esse non q[uia] legem agrariam ederet sed quod tribunatum per vim occupare vellet' refers to Appian, 'Civil Wars', 1,15. 149 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 37 v. 150 Ditt., loc. cit., p. 87.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

107

151

adds a mention of Cicero's 'Philippics'. A correct spelling of a personal name, 'Crasinius', one of the military commanders in the campaign of 48 B.C., is accompanied by a note citing a slightly different spelling of 'Crasinus' in Lucan's 'Pharsalia'.152 Two marginalia cite Plutarch, an author often used by Decembrio. While Appian believed that Cassius was responsible for the execution of Theodotus in Asia a note cites Plutarch for making Brutus responsible.153 Similarly, Appian's statement that the younger Cato was aged forty eight when he killed himself is corrected from Plutarch to fifty. 154 Decembrio was concerned with Appian's personality. In headings provided by Decembrio for the different books of his translation he added the description of Appian as an Alexandrian sophist.155 One of the marginal notes reveals an interest in the chronology of Appian's life. A mention of Hadrian prompts the correct remark that the Alexandrian historian lived in his reign.15 6 Taken together as a group, these notes are less penetrating and informative than Valla's marginalia. If they really derive from Decembrio, as has been conjectured here, they make a useful addition to what was already known about his wide reading of ancient authors. V

The best translation of a Greek historian by a fifteenth century Italian humanist is Politian's version of the 'Roman History' of Herodian, covering the years from 180 A.D. to 238 A.D.157 It was started in 1484 at the request of Pope Innocent VIII whom Politian had met in that year as a member of the Florentine embassy sent to Rome to congratulate him on his elevation to the papacy. Politian completed his task by July 1487, when a presentation copy was transmitted to Innocent by the Florentine envoy at Rome. 158 151 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 199r. The other reference to Cicero ('Familiares') has already been mentioned. 152 Ibid., fo. 178 r. referring to Appian 'Civil Wars', II, 11, 82.1 am using Loeb ed. (Ill, 1913). The Greek spelling in Appian is 'Crassinios'. 153 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 180 r. referring to Appian 'Civil Wars', II, 13, 90. 154 Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 182 v. Appian actually says 'about 50'. Cf. Appian 'Civil Wars', II, 14. 99. 155 E. g. Laur. ms. 89, inf. 4, fo. 121 r. (at the start of the 'Civil Wars'). 156 Ibid., fo. 132 r. : 'Hadrianus sub quo Appianus', referring to 'Civil Wars', I, 38. 172. 157 The best modern discussion is by R. P. Oliver, 'Era plagiario Poliziano nelle sue traduzioni di Epitteto e di Erodiano?' in // Poliziano e il suo tempo. Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 23-26 settembre 1954 (Florence, 1957), pp. 262-71. 158 The relevant documents are listed and discussed in A. Perosa (ed), Mostra del Poliziano nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Firenze 23 settembre - 30 novembre 1954),

108

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

The late Rudolf Pfeiffer loved to apply to Politian the words used by a Hellenistic writer about Philitas of Cos (active in the late fourth century B.C.), 'a poet as well as a critical scholar'.159 It was to be expected that his translation would be a masterpiece. Its excellence provides a useful standard of comparison for assessing the versions of other Greek historians executed some thirty years earlier for Pope Nicholas V. Politian's 'Herodian' is not an adequate version by the standards of modern textual scholarship, as Politian appears to have used only two manuscripts, both belonging to the same family of the text and containing the same gaps.160 But its literary quality is impressive. Politian brought to this task a mastery of Greek unrivalled among his Italian contemporaries16 x and the sensitive feeling of a poet for the handling of language and for exact nuances in the meaning of Greek and Latin words. 162 Except for some rare slips,163 it is a careful translation, faithful to the text, neither adding or omitting anything. In his preface addressed to Innocent VIII Politian explained that he had avoided all 'graecisms' unless they were already well-established in the Latin usage.164 One interesting feature of his language is the occasional appearance of phrases typical of humanistic Latin, rendering well the substance but not the exact wording of the Greek original. Thus a friendly letter of Emperor Severus to his rival Albinus is translated as a letter full of humanity^5 Politian's version is highly readable. It is also very lucid, even occasionally helping to clarify a bit better Herodian's original text. 166 Politian differed from his Italian predecessors, and from most of his contemporaries as well, in developing the habit of quoting precisely his nos. 90-95, 243, 248. 159 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 (Oxford, 1976), p. 42. His brief chapter on Politian (pp. 42-6) provides a graceful glimpse of Politian's eminence as a literary scholar. 160 C. Stavenhagen ed., Herodianus. (Teubner ed. 1922, republ. Stuttgart, 1967), pp. III-IV, VIII-IX. See below for more details. 161 Grafton, loc. cit. (1979), p. 174: 'What was new in Politian's work was the completeness of his mastery of Greek'. 162 C/. Pfeiffer, op. cit., pp. 43-4 163 See Oliver, loc. cit. (1957), p. 270, n. 2. for one odd example. 164 I am using the text in the Aldine edition at Venice, of September 1524, fo. 4 v. : 'ne graecule ... figure, nisi si quae iam pro receptis habentur'. 165 The italics are mine. The Greek word is 'philikotata' (Herodian II. 15. 4). I am using the text in Loeb edition (ed. C. R. Whittaker, London 1969), Herodian vol. I, pp. 244-5. For Politian's translation I am using the Aldine ed. of Sept. 1524, fo. 34 r. 166 My remarks on the quality of the translation combine Oliver's useful comments (loc. cit., 1957, pp. 269-71) with my study of it in which I had invaluable help from my friend Prof. B. P. Reardon.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

109

sources. He also gradually formulated for himself clear rules for reconstituting ancient texts. 167 The first was to collate as many manuscripts as possible and to study especially the oldest ones. Secondly, he tried to consult the indirect sources by seeking out citations in the texts of other authors and by studying their comments.168 Both these methods can be illustrated from Politian's rare translations of the Greek texts. His version of the Enchiridion of Epictetus was most probably executed in the spring of 1479. We know from Politian himself that he used two manuscripts, both of them corrupt and full of gaps, which nobody has been able to identify since.169He mentions them in his preface addressed to Lorenzo de' Medici and explains that, because of their deficiencies, he had consulted also the commentary of Simplicius on Epictetus. 170 All the textual details derived from Simplicius were marked by Politian with special signs ('obeli') and Politian's friend, Pico della Mirandola, jested later that his copy was riddled with these 'arrows'.171 Precise citation of sources and annotation of textual variants by Politian has made it possible to identify the Greek manuscripts of Herodian used by him. 172 His basic manuscript, probably owned by him, is the present Laur. Conv. Soppressi 164, containing his autograph notes. One of the marginalia identifies the second of his two manuscripts. The note draws attention to a missing word in ms. 164 and confirms that this is also lacking in an old manuscript in the 'Abbey'.17 3 This must refer to the oldest of our known manuscripts of Herodian, dating from the eleventh century, which was then kept in the Benedictine Badia of Florence.174 Politian's working draft of his translation has also been securely 167 There is a brief, very balanced summary of his methods and innovations in S. Timpanaro, La Genesi del Metodo del Lachmann (Florence, 1963), pp. 4-7. See also the works of Grafton and Kenney quoted at the start of this article. 168 Cf. V. Branca, "II metodo filologico del Poliziano in un capitolo della 'Centuria Secunda'.", in Fra latino e volgare. Per Carlo Dionisotti (Padua, 1972), p. 217: "La gerarchia delle testimonianze stabilita dal Poliziano e chiara : prima la 'veterum auctoritas codicum', poi i'testimonia scriptorum idoneorum', in fine il 'sensus' che pero non deve essere stabilito arbitrariamente, 'undecunque decerptus'". 169 R. P. Oliver, 'Politian's translation of the Enchiridion', Transactions of the American Philological Assocation, 89 (1958), pp. 197-203. 170 A. Politiani, Opera Omnia (Basle ed., 1553), p. 393. 171 Oliver, loc. cit. (1958), p. 200. 172 Oliver in II Poliziano e il suo tempo (cit. supra.), p. 268, n. 2. The text of Herodian is on fos. 18 r. - 100 v. This manuscript was later at the abbey of Camaldoli (cf. Bandini, op. cit. Ill, appendix to 1962 reprint, p. 24 of the additional list of E. Rostagno and N. Festa). 173 Oliver, ibid., p. 268, n. 2. 174 The presence of this manuscript in the Badia in the fifteenth century is mentioned in R. Blum, La Biblioteca della Badia florentina e i Codici di Antonio Corbinelli (Vatican, Studi eTesti,vol. 155, 1951), p. 24.

110

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

identified. It is the present Laur. Rinuccini 20. 175 It was written in the hands of Politian's secretaries at his dictation176 and was personally corrected by Politian. His autograph marginalia bring out the importance that he attached to annotating precisely the gaps in his manuscripts. He was fussy about this, changing the wording, 177 which in its final versions is terse and precise.178 These and other notes were inserted in all the fair copies drawn up under Politian's supervision.179 There is a playful variant in one manuscript, in which Politian jests that the gap in the Greek text made it more a matter of divining than translating.180 Politian was fond of this phrase and used it also in a note in a manuscript of Caesar's Civil Wars.181 When in 1493 Politian was arranging for the printing of his translation of Herodian he was particularly concerned that the gaps in his manuscripts should be carefully noted. He explained in the already cited letter to Andrea Magnani that there were three or four such places. The notes were duly printed, as requested.182 The care with which Politian tried to establish the correct text justifies the serious attention paid to his version by the modern editors of Herodian. While we still have the two manuscripts used by Politian, his conjectures about omissions and corruptions in them receive careful mention in modern editions of the Greek text.18 3 As has been recently noted by A. Momigliano, Herodian's 175 I. Maier, LesManuscrits d'Ange Politien (Geneva, 1965), pp. 101-3. 176 As explained in a letter of Politian of 6 May 1493 to Andrea Magnani. I am using the text in Politian's Opera Omnia, Aldine ed Venice, 1498, fo. 3 r. (a copy in the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth). 177 Ms. Laur. Rinuccini 20, fo. 53 v. The final version is entered in fair copies, e.g. fo. 62 v. of ms. Laur. 67.3. 178 Two of the notes are published in S. Rizzo, // Lessico filologico degli Umanisti (Rome, 1973), p. 99, n. 1. 179 There is a comprehensive list of the known copies in A. Campana, 'Osservazioni sui manoscritti della versione di Erodiano' in II Poliziano e il suo tempo (cit. supra.), p. 333.1 have used Bibl. Laur. Rinuccini 20 and Laur. lat. 67.3, Brit. Libr., ms. Add 23773 and Cambridge Univ. Libr., ms. Add. 4114. 180 Cambridge Univ. Libr., Add. 4114 fo. 84v.: 'Hie locus in grecis exemplaribus, quorum mihi copia interpretanti fuit, mutilatus erat atque intercisus a qua re cum venia legendus. Quippe ad divinandum potius fuit quam interpre tandum. The italicized words are missing in ms. Laur. 67. 3, fo. 102 r. The marginal note in ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 100 r. is now almost illegible. 181 This marginal has not been previously attributed to Politian but it is typical of his style and scholarly interests: 'Quicquid in textu additum, dispunctum immutatumve, lector, inveneris, id sumptum scias ex codice antiquissimo Longobardis litteris scripto, nee arbitrariam divinatoriamque hanc fuisse emendationem'. It is in ms. Laur., 68.9, fo. 2 v., cited in V. Brown, The Textual Tradition of Caesar's Civil War (Leiden, 1972), p. 55. 182 Rizzo, op. cit., p. 99 and n. 1.; Perosa, op. cit. (1954), no. 94 (pp. 91-2). 183 I have noted at least forty five mentions of Politian's version in the notes to the Teubner edition by S. Stavenhagen (cit. supra, 1922). See also ibid., the preface, pp. IX, XI.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

111

reputation stood high among the medieval Byzantine scholars who influenced the early Italian humanists.184 Politian was exceptionally familiar with Byzantine learning. As early as 1480-81, in his first university course on Statius, he was citing Herodian for evidence about the deification of the Roman emperors.185 Some years after the completion of his translation he also quoted Herodian once in his 'First Miscellanea' as a source for the Roman ludi saeculares.186 Politian appears to have believed Herodian's protestations that he had been writing truthfully and impartially. Politian mentions this in a letter to a nephew of Innocent VIII, while reporting on the progress of his translation. He amplifies this in the preface addressed to the Pope himself and reaffirms again his belief in Herodian's good faith in a marginal note to his translation.187 Modern scholars do not share Politian's confidence in Herodian,188 but have to rely on him more than they would wish for lack of other satisfactory narrative sources covering the same period from 180 A.D. to 238 A.D.189 Apart from Herodian we have only the Historia Augusta and the 'History' of Cassius Dio. One can sympathize with F. Millar's comment that 'the problem of Historia Augusta is one into which sane men refrain from entering.'190 As for Cassius Dio, for most of these years we have only the late Byzantine Epitome by Xiphilinus (dating from the second half of the eleventh century) and it is certain that he had omitted much of Dio's narrative. In spite of this, Herodian remains 'less reliable than Dio even in the present state of [Dio's] text'. 191 184 A. Momigliano, 'Storiografia greca' in Sesto Contribute (cit. supra., 1980), I, p. 52. The evidence about the Byzantine interest in Herodian is usefully brought together by Whittaker (ed. cit.), I (1969), pp. XXXVI-VII. 185 L. Cesarini-Martinelli, Commento inedito die Selve di Stazio (Florence, 1978), pp. 591, 600, 640. This corrects Oliver's suggestion (loc. cit., 1957, p. 268) that Politian did not know Herodian until Innocent VIII requested him to translate some Greek work. 186 Chapter 58. I am citing the Aldine Venice ed. of 1498, fo. F. VIII r. This chapter included an edition, for the first time, of a fragment of Zosimus 'de ludis saecularibus'. Cf. Perosa, op. cit., (1954), nos. 29-30, p. 42. 187 G. Pesenti, 'Lettere inedite di Polizano', Athenaeum, 3 (1915), p. 294 (a letter to Lorenzo Cibo, archbishop of Benevent); the Aldine edition of Herodian, Venice, Sept. 1524, fo. 4r. (dedicatory preface to Innocent VIII); ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 41v. and ms. Laur. 67.3, fo. 50 v. (marginal note), referring to Herodian II. 15.7. 188 Cf. A. Momigliano, loc. cit. (Sesto Contribute, 1980), p. 52. : 'sue professioni di veridicita che in seguito testi piu rigorosi avrebbero dimostrato essere quasi infondata'. 189 For more detailed discussions of the value of Herodian's 'Roman History' see especially F. Cassola, 'Sulla vita e sulla personalita dello storico Erodiano, Nuova Rivista Storica, 41 (1957), pp. 213-23; Whittaker, Herodian (ed. cit., 1969), I, pp. IX-LXXXII: G. W. Bowersock, 'Herodian and Elagabalus', Yale Classical Studies, 24 (1975), pp. 229-36. 190 F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), p. 124. 191 Ibid.,pp. 2, 1234.

112

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Politian was not concerned with this kind of critical historical inquiry. There are virtually no comparisons with other historians. Only one note refers to a similar piece of information in Plutarch 19 2 and the meaning of one particular word is illustrated from a passage in Cicero.193 Politian's preface consists largely of conventional remarks about the interest of this work, its literary excellence, the variety of its contents and the insights that one might derive from it into past human conduct. 194 He does, however, include, brief comments about the personality of the author. Politian deduced, quite correctly, that Herodian had written about the events of his own lifetime and that he had composed his history in his old age.195 One of the marginalia drew attention to a passage where Herodian had stated that his experience had extended over seventy years. 196 Politian also noted that Herodian had held some public offices. 197 This is, in fact, all that can be discovered with any certainty about Herodian. Most of Politian's marginalia are of no special historical interest and merely draw attention to facts or events that he regarded as particularly remarkable or curious. In the copy prepared as a gift for Lorenzo de' Medici a few additional explanatory notes were inserted that are not to be found in Politian's original draft. 198 Thus a reference to Emperor Septimius Severus led to a note that he is commemorated by a splendid triumphal arch which still stands in Rome. 199 Similarly, a mention of Emperor Caracalla has a note that the remains of his Baths can still be seen in Rome. 200 As a group, Politian's historical and explanatory 192 Ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 66 r. and ms. Laur. 67.3, fo. 74 r., referring to a detail of feminine dress. 193 Ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 66 v. and ms. Laur. 67. 3, fo. 74 v. : 'hoc esse puto quod a Cicerone fastigium vocatur' (a pediment). It was characteristic of Politian's antiquarian interests that he should go on to deduce its form from coins: 'cuius autem formam nomismatis agnoscimus'. 194 The Aldine ed. of Herodian (Sept. 1524, cit. supra), fo. 4 r. and 4 v. 195 Ibid., fo. 4 r. : 'affectaque iam aetatis historiam de suis temporibus componere aggressus'. Cf. the letter to Archbishop Lorenzo Cibo (Pesenti, loc. cit., p. 294) 'qui cum extremae esset aetatis suarum temporum res gestas copiose ... litteris mandavit'. See also the next note. 196 Ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 41 v. and ms. Laur. 67. 3, fo. 50 v. : 'annorum LXX res hoc est suorum temporum scribit Herodianus', referring to Herodian, II. 15. 7. Cf. Whittaker (ed. cit., 1969), I, p. 247, n. 3. 197 The Aldine ed. (cit. supra), fo. 4 r. : 'qui diu in palatina versatus aula', Cf, the letter to Archbishop Lorenzo Cibo (Pesenti, loc. cit., p. 294): 'homo aulicus et qui negotia quoque imperatorum Romae administraverat'. 198 Ms. Laur. 67. 3., fo. 5r.: 'Nota quod de se ait Herodianus', referring to Herodian I. 2. 5. and the passage cited in the next note. 199 Ms. Laur. 67.3. fo. 72 r. referring to Herodian III. 15. 1-2. 200 Ms. Rinuccini 20, fo. 70 v. and ms. Laur. 67. 3., fo. 78 v.

Some Translations of Ancient Greek Historians

113

notes are much less instructive than Valla's marginalia in his version of Thucydides. 201 But as a masterpiece of elegant humanist Latin Politian's Herodian has permanent literary value. 202 As one of its editors remarked in 1525,203 it reads like an original composition rather than like a translation. The history of Renaissance Latinity, one of the most important chapters in the intellectual history of Europe has yet to be written; it will be a chronicle of one of man's most arduous efforts to educate himself.'204 The best of the humanist versions of the Greek historians, especially Valla's Thucydides and Herodotus and, for purely literary merit, also Perotti's Polybius, had an influential place in this Renaissance of 'good letters'. Politian's translation of only a minor historian remained much less well-known but it was the most accomplished of them all. 201 Supra, section HI. 202 Oliver, he. cit. (1957), p. 270, n. 1.: 'una delle pochissime traduzioni umanistiche che non sono ne saranno antiquate, perche hanno un proprio valore letterario'. 203 Sebastiano Murrho, Jr. in the preface to the Louvain ed. of February 1525 (by Theodoricus Martinus Alostensis) fo. A.I. v. I am using a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. 204 E. Garin, citing R.P. Oliver, in Giomale storico delta letteratura italiana, 134 (1957), p. 108. See, however, A.T. Grafton and L. Jardine, 'Humanism and the school of Guarino: a problem of evaluation', Past and Present, 96 (August 1982) for a much more sceptical estimate of the value of humanist education for the bulk of its pupils as opposed to a minority of professional scholars.

This page intentionally left blank

5

LORENZO DE'MEDICI: A SURVEY OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY AND OF THE PRIMARY SOURCES* I

In Le Siecle de Louis XIV, published in 1752, Voltaire identified the Italian Renaissance as one of the four golden ages in the history of mankind. The Medici were firmly placed at the centre of that glorious myth. Voltaire described them as doing what the kings of Europe should have tried to do. The Medici had welcomed the Byzantine scholars driven out of their homeland after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453. The arts flourished henceforth in Italy and all things tended towards perfection.1 Voltaire elaborated the same theme in 1756, in his 'Essai sur le moeurs et I'esprit des nations ...'. He extolled Florence above all the Italian cities, especially when it came under 'the wise, just and beneficent rule of the Medici. Cosimo ... and the magnificent Lorenzo seemed to Voltaire to represent the ideal of the enlightened despots, governing by peaceful means and encouraging all the higher forms of culture'.2 This splendid image of the Medici was enthusiastically taken over by Edward Gibbon who even 'had at one time contemplated writing a history of Florence under the Medici.'3 He was much too well-informed to countenance the idea that the introduction of Greek learning into the West was delayed until the capture of Constantinople by the Turks and he knew that the greatness of the Medici did not have to depend on their cultural patronage after 1453. Cosimo is described by Gibbon as 'a Florentine merchant who governed the republic without arms and * I owe thanks to my friends Geraint Gruffyd and Jean Jones of the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth for much help. 1 This passage appears at the beginning of Voltaire's introduction. I am using the edition of Union Generate d'Editions (Paris, 1962), p. 5. 2 I am citing the summary of W. K. Ferguson, The Renaissance in Historical Thought (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), p. 91. 3 Ibid.,p. 106, n. 116.

116

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

without a title' and as 'the father of a line of princes whose name and age are almost synonymous with the restoration of learning'. Perhaps Gibbon was influenced by a remark of a highly reputed Italian historian of the sixteenth century, Paolo Giovio, that 'the arts' first assumed a distinguished place in Florence with the accession to power in 1434 of Cosimo de' Medici.4 Lorenzo, Cosimo's grandson, is Gibbon's greatest hero, 'whose genius and education ... rendered him not only a patron but a judge and candidate in the literary race. In his palace, distress was entitled to relief, and merit to reward; his leisure hours were delightfully spent in the Platonic academy; he encouraged the emulation of Demetrius Chalcondyles and Angelo Politian, and his active missionary, Janus Lascaris, returned from the East with a treasure of two hundred manuscripts, four score of which were as yet unknown in the libraries of Europe.'5 This is a shrewd choice of essentials: learning and literature, not art, are singled out as Lorenzo's chief interests. Jacob Burckhardt's Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, first published in 1860, has shaped, more than any other book, the modern image of the Renaissance. It singles out for praise the same qualities and interests of Lorenzo as had attracted Gibbon.6 Burckhardt knew too much not to be disturbed by the seamy side of Lorenzo's politics on which, as 'a foreigner', he declined to pronounce judgement. He also realized that Lorenzo's artistic patronage had its limitations. He considered it his duty to deny that it was through Lorenzo's fault that Leonardo da Vinci 'lived abroad'. The 'worship of antiquity' and the love of Italian poetry are represented as Lorenzo's two chief passions. Burckhardt allots most space to the revival of the Platonic philosophy by Marsilio Ficino, whom he depicts as the greatest figure in Lorenzo's intellectual circle. Here Burckhardt was greatly oversimplifying.7 It is symptomatic of Lorenzo's reputation as the most brilliant member of his family that the epithet of 'magnificent' should have become inseparable from his name. It was applied in the fifteenth century to all the Medici.8 Because they had no official title, something 4 In the 'Life of Pope Leo X', first published in 1548.1 am using the Italian translation, Le Vite di Dicenove HuominiIllustri (Venice, G. M. Bonelli, 1561), p. 89r. 5 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin, United States ed., n.d), II, p. 1302 (chapter 66). The information about the books brought from the East comes from a preface by J. Lascaris to his edition of Greek epigrams (Florence 1494). Gibbon could have readily found it in a citation by A. M. Bandini, Catalogus Codicum Mann scrip torum Graecorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae (Florence, 1764-76). The relevant passage is in vol. II, col. 107, of the modern reprinted edition (Leipzig, 1961). 6 I am citing the Phaidon edition (London, 1965), p. 131. 7 See below. 8 A. Warburg, La Rinascita del Paganesimo Antico. Contributi alia Storia della Cultura (ed. G. Bing, Florence, 1966), p. 129, n. 1.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

117

like that was indispensable. In perpetuating this title of 'magnificent' as part of Lorenzo's personal name, we are giving it a new, modern meaning that it was never intended to possess but which aptly conveys his enduring, distinguished reputation. Soon after Lorenzo's death on 8 April 1492 legends began to spring up about his aims and achievements. As is the case with most really enduring myths, they had some foundation, but the facts came to be distorted and exaggerated. The first posthumous biographers of Lorenzo, including Niccolo Valori as early as 1494, and Francesco Guicciardini in 1508, inaugurated some of the legends. Thereafter frequent repetition turned them into almost unquestioned truths. Already in the eighteenth century that great Italian scholar, L. A. Muratori, tried to correct some of the more exaggerated claims of Lorenzo's biographers.9 But a web of myths that made Lorenzo into one of the greatest Italian national heroes continues to have a tenacious life and only in fairly recent years has a more balanced and truthful picture begun to reemerge.10 Within two and a half years of Lorenzo's death King Charles VIII of France invaded Italy. The Medici regime at Florence was the first to fall and, during the next forty years, no part of Italy could escape the ravages of foreign and native armies. Looking back nostalgically to the years before 1494, not only Florentines but other Italian patriots came to believe that if only Lorenzo had survived longer he might have averted or mitigated these disasters. One of the first public expressions of this conviction is to be found in Aldo Manuzio's preface to his edition of Plato. He dedicated it in 1513 to Lorenzo's son, Pope Leo X. Aldo was an Italian patriot and a man of integrity and he really believed what he was saying about Lorenzo. He represented Lorenzo as 'assuring the peace not only of Florence but of entire Italy. The wars that from the time shortly after his death have been consuming Italy, in the opinion of many people, might either have been prevented by him altogether or brought soon to a close through his prudent policies'.11 In reality, it was an illusion to think that Lorenzo could have averted the foreign invasions, though he might have delayed the downfall of the Medici power in Florence. 9 Cf. G. Pillinini, // Sistema degli Stati italiani, 1454-94 (Venice, 1970), pp. 34-35 and the review of it by F. Cardini in Archivio Storico Italiano (cited hereafter as A. St. It. 130 (1972), p. 95. 10 Pillinini's book cited in the preceding note provides an excellent introduction to a study of the 'Laurentian myths'. See also the judicious remarks of F. Chabod, Scritti sul Rinascimento (Turin, 1967), pp. 209-13. 11 Published in C. Dionisotti e G. Orlandi,^Wo Manuzio Editore : Dediche, Prefazioni, Note e Testi (Milan, 1975), p. 120.

118

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

In the first decade of the sixteenth century Florentine writers were also beginning to exaggerate the blessings of Lorenzo's internal rule. Piero Parenti noted this as early as 1501.12 Members of the great aristocratic families, like Francesco Guicciardini, whose hopes of dominating the government of Florence had been disappointed, began to look with nostalgia at the oligarchic regime maintained by Lorenzo. After the restoration of the Medici predominance over Florence in 1513, the critics of the new generation of the Medici rulers began to draw unfavourable comparisons between these allegedly inferior men and Lorenzo's superior attainments. Only extreme republican enemies of the Medici, or independent patriots, like Machiavelli, continued to denounce Lorenzo. That last current of criticism was largely silenced at Florence after the permanent establishment of the Medicean rule over much of Tuscany from 1537 onwards. In the first decades of the sixteenth century Florence was losing its pre-eminence as a centre of humanistic scholarship and literary excellence.13 Here too, but with more justification, men were now looking back with envy to the time of Lorenzo. Aldo wrote in 1513 that, if Lorenzo had lived longer, he might have encouraged a larger number of scholarly works.14 But the real nature of Lorenzo's patronage of arts and learning began soon to be grotesquely misunderstood. Giorgio Vasari assumed by the middle of the sixteenth century that Lorenzo exercised the same official control over all artistic and literary activities at Florence as Cosimo I was endeavouring to impose after 1537. These imaginary Laurentian official policies were treated as sober facts by Vasari in his 'Lives of the Artists' and were used to justify Cosimo's snobbish creations of official academies. The myths originated by Vasari still haunt modern text-books and keep reappearing even in scholarly, specialized works.15 12 J. Schnitzer, Savonarola nach den Aufzeichnungen des Florentiners Piero Parenti (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 298-99. 13 C. Dionisotti in M. P. Gilmore (ed.), Studies on Machiavelli (Florence, 1972), pp. 117-20. 14 Op. cit. (1975), p. 122. 15 E.g. the legend of Lorenzo's 'palace school' for artists reappears in Ch. de Tolnay, The Youth of Michelangelo (Princeton, 1969). For the details of this myth see E. B. Fryde in A. G. Dickens (ed.) The Courts of Europe (London, 1977), pp. 834. 16 The fullest and best account is by N. Rubinstein, The Government of Florence under the Medici (1434 to 1494), Oxford, 1966. 17 A remark cited by Vespasiano da Bisticci in his life of Cosimo, quoted in A. Renaudet, 'Laurent le Magnifique' in Hommes d'Etat (Paris, D. de Brouwer, 1936), II, p. 426. 18 F. Saxl, 'The classical inscription in Renaissance art and polities', Jour, Warburg and Courtauld Inst., 4 (1940-41), p. 23 and A. M. Brown, 'The humanist portrait of Cosimo de' Medici, Pater Patriae, ibid., 24 (1961), pp. 190 ff.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

119

II

A survey of the sources for the study of Lorenzo's life must be prefaced by a brief summary of the history of the Medici regime in the fifteenth century. 16 The first period of the political ascendancy of the Medici over Florence lasted exactly sixty years, ten years longer than had been forecast by its founder, Cosimo.17 It began in October 1434 with his return to Florence from a year's exile. He, and other members of his family, only occasionally held the principal civic offices, and, then, only for limited periods. The highest Florentine office of the Gonfalonier of Justice, which was held for two months at a time, was filled by Cosimo only three times, in 1434, 1438 and 1445. The Medici remained private citizens, but wielded outstanding power and influence. After Cosimo's death on 1 August 1464, the government of Florence solemnly conferred on the deceased statesman the title of 'the father of his country', 18 and his only surviving legitimate son, Piero, succeeded to the same position of predominant influence. An attempt by some of the former Medici supporters to get rid of Piero completely miscarried in 1466 and only served to strengthen still further the position of the Medici. After Piero's unexpectedly early death, on 2 December 1469, his elder son, Lorenzo, who was not yet twenty one, was invited by the leaders of the Medicean faction, in Lorenzo's own words, 'to take upon myself the charge of the city and of the regime19 as my grandfather and father had already done. The proposal being contrary to the instincts of my age and entailing great labour and danger, I accepted against my will, and only for the sake of protecting my friends and our fortune'. He then added the crucial explanation that, 'a rich citizen cannot live well in Florence without participating in the ruling regime'.20 Lorenzo remained the most influential citizen of Florence until his death on 8 April 1492, at the prematurely early age of forty three, after several years of increasingly disabling illness. In the eyes of the shrewdest of Lorenzo's early biographers, Francesco Guicciardini, he was inferior to his grandfather Cosimo in wisdom and prudence. 21 19 'Delia citta e dello stato'. I am following the translation of N. Rubinstein, "Notes on the word 'stato' before Machiavelli", Florilegium Historiale. Essays presented to Wallace K. Ferguson (ed. J. G. Rowe and W. H. Stockdale), Toronto, 1971, pp. 318-19. The quotation comes from Lorenzo's own ricordi discussed below. 20 'Perche a Firenze si puo mal viver ricco senza lo stato', in Rubinstein, loc. cit. (1971). See also Prof. Rubinstein's more recent remarks in 'Lorenzo de' Medici : the formation of his statecraft', Proc. Brit. Acad., 63 (1977), pp. 75-6. 21 Guicciardini compares Cosimo and Lorenzo in Storie Florentine (written probably in 1508-9), ed. V. de Caprariis, Milan-Naples, 1953, pp. 197-8.

120

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Lorenzo displayed much more openly his power. From June 1478 onwards he held influential offices in the government of Florence, thus 'participating almost continuously in the official conduct of government business'.22 Guicciardini was particularly disturbed by Lorenzo's financial mismanagement. Cosimo had been the city's most successful banker and, during the years when he had dominated the politics of Florence, he became also its richest citizen. Lorenzo was not sufficiently interested in business and neglected unduly his bank, with embarrassing consequences for his political position. But in other respects Lorenzo was a more brilliant man than Cosimo, as Guicciardini himself suggests. Lorenzo was certainly more eloquent than Cosimo, who was not a good public speaker. Lorenzo was also more versatile and, at his best, could be most genial and charming. Cosimo had to create the ascendancy of the Medici. To Lorenzo fell the easier task of merely preserving and consolidating it. For this he was admirably equipped. He understood perfectly the essential interests of Florence and skilfully safeguarded them against other jealous and hostile Italian states. He was always well aware of the need to assure cheap food for the Florentine population: his appreciation of the importance of this crops up in his earliest autobiographical memoranda (ricordi).2* He was determined to secure abundant raw materials for the principal Florentine industries.24 All this was appreciated by Florentines of all classes. Many of his fellow citizens were also genuinely impressed by his patronage of scholars and artists, his skill as a poet and his capacity to throw himself wholeheartedly into popular festivities. We must imitate Lorenzo's contemporaries in giving due attention to every aspect of his many-sided personality. This has been true of the best modern biographers of Lorenzo, but they had been greatly outnumbered by students of particular aspects of his activities. Because of the huge size of this specialized literature general biographies of Lorenzo have tended to become quickly outdated. The fullest two lives written in the last century, by A. von Reumont and Edward Armstrong, need extensive revision, though Armstrong's book will always retain an independent value as one of the wisest studies of this period.25 A. Renaudet's elegant and acute essay, 22 N. Rubinstein in Proc. Brit. Acad. (cit. supra, , 1977), p. 87. See also pp. 89-90, 94. 23 Lorenzo expressly noted that at the time of Cosimo's death, on 1 August 1464, there was a plentiful store of corn at Florence. This autobiographical fragment is published in M. del Piazzo, 'Gli autografi di Lorenzo', Rinascimento (1957), p. 222. 24 The assuring of satisfactory supplies of English and Spanish wool for the Florentine cloth industry under Lorenzo's regime is well documented in M. E. Mallett, 'Anglo-Florentine Commercial Relations, 1465-1491', EC. Hist. Rev., 15 (1962). 25 A von Reumont, Lorenzo de' Medici, il Magnifico, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883). An English translation of the first edition was published in 1876. The author was for many

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

121

published in 1936,26 is chiefly concerned with Lorenzo's political achievements and is based too exclusively on narrative sources, especially Guicciardini. E. Bizzarri's shrewd and critical biography, published in 1950, and C. M. Ady's graceful little book, which appeared five years later, were both written too early to make use of the important, fresh post-war researches on Lorenzo's finances, artistic patronage and poetry. But Bizzarri, in particular, by carefully redefining some of the main problems, has greatly eased the task of all future writers on Lorenzo.27 Writing in 1964, Roberto Ridolfi, whose own discoveries have thrown so much new light on Medicean Florence, expressed his dissatisfaction with all the existing biographies. Very significantly he suggested that Mario Martelli, best known as a penetrating student of Lorenzo's poetry, should write this fresh 'biography of Magnifico Lorenzo, well-informed and well-written, penetrating and humane'. 28 He was pleading for a life of Lorenzo not too excessively preoccupied with politics and diplomacy. More recently still, Bruno Maier, in a preface to an edition of Lorenzo's own writings, has similarly deplored the tradition of writing about Lorenzo the statesman or Lorenzo the poet, as if these different aspects of his personality could be treated in isolation.29 Ill

The difficulties of Lorenzo's modern biographers spring largely from the deficiencies of the surviving narrative sources dating from Lorenzo's own lifetime. Nothing similar to Flavio Biondo's general history down to 1441 was being written anywhere in Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century. Only in the private chronicles kept by individual Florentines, like the secret diary of Alamanno Rinuccini, bitterly hostile to Lorenzo, or the more balanced jottings of Piero Parenti, can we find any strictly contemporary records of what well-informed men thought about the course of events in Laurentian Florence.30 years the Prussian envoy at Florence. E. Armstrong, Lorenzo de'Medici and Florence in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1896). 26 Cit. supra, inHommes d'Etat (1936), II, pp. 405-507. 27 E. Bizzarri, //Magnifico Lorenzo (Verona, 1950); C. M. Ady, Lorenzo de'Medici and Renaissance Italy (London, 1955). 28 R. Ridolfi, 'G. Benivieni e una revisione del suo Canzoniere', La Bibliofllia, 66 (1964), p. 214, n. 5. 29 B. Maier (ed.), Lorenzo de'Medici, Opere Scelte (Novara, 1969), p. 13. 30 For a fuller discussion of these two writers see below.

122

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Lorenzo was personally very interested in history: in one of his letters he refers to the 'pleasure and consolation that I derive from history', 31 After Lorenzo had died in April 1492 at his favourite villa at Careggi, an inventory was drawn up of a small collection of books that he had kept there for his personal use. It included Valla's Latin translation of the 'Histories' of Thucydides that may now be missing.32 But a reader particularly interested in the earlier activities of the Medici, perhaps Lorenzo, did annotate another manuscript at Careggi, a collection of excerpts from Giovanni Villani and other historians of Florence.3 3 As a very young man of about twenty Lorenzo wrote a short autobiographical account of contemporary events.34 Only two brief autograph fragments of it survive today. We have the initial section, starting with the death of his grandfather, Cosimo, and there is a second fragment covering some months in 1469. It confirms the precocity of the young Lorenzo, his avid interest in politics and his early capacity for acute observation of political changes. It is probable that Lorenzo wrote several more such ricordi, but only two other short pieces are known to-day. The important memorandum recording his accession to power has already been quoted. It gives invaluable information about the wealth of the Medici at various stages between the death of Cosimo's father in 1429 and Lorenzo's succession to his inheritance in 1469. It ends with Lorenzo's journey to Rome in the autumn of 1471 to congratulate the newly elected Pope, Sixtus IV, and it seems to have been written down shortly afterwards for the instruction of Lorenzo's family. 35 The most important event in the decade that followed was an attempt on the lives of Lorenzo and his younger brother, Giuliano, known as the Pazzi Conspiracy.36 The plot to assassinate the Medici 31 A letter of 5 February 1486 to Duke Ercole of Ferrara, published in E. Bigi, Scritti Scelti di Lorenzo de'Medici (Turin, 1955), p. 636. 32 It is unlikely to be identical with Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. Laur. 63. 32. For the Careggi inventory of 1492 see E. Piccolomini, 'Ricerche intorno alle condizioni e alle vicende della libreria medicea privata',/1. St. It., 3rd ser., 21 (1875), p. 294 33 Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, ms. Laur. 61. 30, and Piccolomini, loc. cit., p. 294. In ms. 61. 30, on fo. 84v, there is a note, in what may be Lorenzo's hand, against Matteo Villani's account of the defence of Scarperia in 1351 by a force commanded by a Medici. 34 Published by M. del Piazzo, 'Gli autografi di Lorenzo', Rinascimento (1957), pp. 222-24. 35 I am using the version printed by W. Roscoe, Lorenzo de' Medici (1875 ed.), pp. 423-27. 36 There is a brief but authoritative summary of its causes in N. Rubinstein, Proc. Br. Acad. (cit. supra, 1977), pp. 83-5. The most recent popular account is by H. Acton, The Pazzi Conspiracy: the Plot against the Medici (London, 1979).

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

123

was hatched apparently with the Pope's connivance. Giuliano was murdered on 26 April 1478 while Lorenzo escaped slightly wounded. Thereafter Sistus IV put Florence under an interdict and excommunicated the surviving Medici, 'for failing to be murdered', as Lorenzo put it in a letter to his ally, King Louis XI of France.3 7 A coalition of enemy states led by the Pope and the king of Naples launched invasions against the Florentine territory. The Medici Bank was nearly ruined, Lorenzo's hold over Florence was temporarily shaken and there were further conspiracies against his life. There are autobiographical echoes of these disasters in Lorenzo's subsequent commentary on his own poems, where he confesses that his miseries were so great that he would have been glad to die.38 In the margin of what appears to be Lorenzo's own draft copy of this 'Comento' a reader, who was probably Lorenzo himself, inserted a pointing hand to draw special attention to this passage.39 Lorenzo's secretary and friend, Politian, who was an eye-witness to the attack by the Pazzi on his Medici patrons and helped to save Lorenzo's life, wrote soon afterwards an account of the conspiracy.40 His narrative may have been completed by the middle of August 1478. This Conspiracy of the Pazzi contains some useful details, but nobody would expect a dispassionate account. It is an elegant Latin pamphlet, modelled chiefly on Sallust's 'Conspiracy of Catiline' and nobody would be able to gather from it that the Pazzi had acted under considerable provocation. If Lorenzo wrote any further factual memoranda between 1472 and 1480, which is probable, they have disappeared. There survives, however, one further brief piece that seems to date from the years 1483-85.41 It records the entry upon a clerical career of his second son Giovanni, the future Pope Leo X, and the attempts to secure as many lucrative benefices as possible for this youngster who was only nine years old in 1485. 37 Cited in F. Morandini, 'Conflitto tra Lorenzo e Sisto IV, A. St. It. (1949), p. 124 : 'nihil me commississe contra pontificem nisi quod vivam, quod interfici non sim passus' (a letter of 19 June 1478). 38 Cited from Bigi's ed., op. cit. (1955), p. 346. 39 Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. 2726, fo. 25r. M.M. Martelli, 'L'autografo laurenziano del Comento dei Sonetti (Riccardiano 2726)', La Bibliofilia, 68 (1966), has persuasively argued that this manuscript was prepared for Lorenzo and that it contains his autograph annotations. T. Zanato, 'Sul testo del Comento laurenziano', Studi di Filologia Italiana, 38 (1980), while making some valid criticisms of details, does not seem to me to disprove Martelli's main contentions and does not seem to affect the particular piece of evidence cited by me. 40 There is an excellent edition by A Perosa, Angela Poliziano. Delia congiura dei Pazzi (Coniurationis Commentarium) (Padua, 1958). 41 Translated in J. Ross, Lives of the Early Medici as told in their Correspondence (London, 1910), pp. 155-56.

124

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Some other Italian statesmen contemporary with Lorenzo kept similar factual memoranda. Of special value for the biographer of Lorenzo are the diaries kept in the fourteen-seventies by Cicco Simonetta, the chief adviser of the duke of Milan, Lorenzo's principal ally.42 Cicco jotted down all sorts of miscellaneous information. There are glimpses of various military and diplomatic ventures of Lorenzo. A list of Lorenzo's closest collaborators, dating from the summer of 1474, is particularly useful.43 The Pazzi conspiracy and its aftermath is described in great detail, summarising the continuous stream of eyewitness reports sent by the Milanese envoy at Florence.44 The earliest biographers of Lorenzo, near enough in time to be very well informed, are as interesting for what they omit to say as for what they stress. One is particularly struck by either silence or paucity of information about his artistic patronage, while we hear much more about his interest in scholarship, poetry and music. The first full-scale biography of Lorenzo was written probably between his death on 8 April 1492 and the expulsion of the Medici from Florence on 9 November 1494. Its author, Niccolo Valori, was an admirer of Lorenzo, knew him well, and was closely connected with the inner circle of Lorenzo's friends and advisers. In recent years, M. Martelli, by redating the successive versions of Valori's 'Life', has made it possible for the first time to use them properly and has restored our trust in the basic reliability of Valori's narrative.45 Valori's earliest surviving version, in Italian, repeatedly names the obviously reliable sources of his information, though these references are partly ommitted from his subsequent Latin version. Valori tells us many things that can be found nowhere else. For example, Paolantonio Soderini, Lorenzo's cousin and one of his companions on a difficult mission to Naples in December 1479, provided Valori with intimate glimpses of Lorenzo's personality in times of great stress. The voyage to Naples was undertaken in order to 42 A. R. Natale (ed.), I Diari di Cicco Simonetta (Milan, 1962). They cover the period from January 1473 to December 1476 and also apart of 1478. 43 Ibid., vol. I, p. 136. It has the heading 'Infrascripti sono quelli con chi se stringe piu in secrete Lorenzo de' Medici circa le cose de importantia'. 44 Ibid., pp. 235-39. The first report was written by him a few hours after the attack on the Medici brothers and reached Milan the next day. 45 M. Martelli, "Le due redazioni della 'Laurentii Medicei Vita' di Niccolo Valori", La Bibliofilia, 66 (1964). I am using the Italian verflon published in 1568 by B. Buonaccorsi (Florence : I. Giunti), recently reprinted (Florence, 1973), cited henceforth as Valori, Vita di Lorenzo (1568). The Latin version was published by L. Mehus (Florence, 1749). Martelli's article renders obsolete all the earlier discussions of the dating and value of Valori's biography, such as F. Gilbert, 'Guicciardini, Machiavelli, Valori on Lorenzo de' Medici', Renaissance News, 11 (1958), though Gilbert's article does contain some useful information .

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

125

detach the Neapolitan king, Ferrante, from the coalition against Florence which was threatening the ruin of the city. Ferrante had a sinister reputation for treachery, but Lorenzo's mission had been well-prepared and he was probably in no personal danger on this occasion. But he could have no assurance of success. Soderini told Valori that in daytime Lorenzo conducted himself superbly, impressing everybody by his self-control, eloquence and diplomatic skill. But at night, in his private quarters, he complained miserably about his fate. 46 Valori is reticent about things that might be damaging to his hero. In this negative way, through what he omits to say, he contributed to the formation of some of the myths about Lorenzo. But he tried to be an honest historian in what he actually does tell us. He distinguishes clearly between assured facts and things that had been merely reported to him, such as the story of an alleged conspiracy in 1466 to assassinate Lorenzo's father.4 7 Valori had no obvious historical models for discussing adequately a personality like Lorenzo, some of whose most interesting activities fell outside the customary subjects of politics and warfare. This may have contributed to the brevity and imprecision of Valori's statements on many matters where he could have given us priceless information. The same difficulty will face Valori's younger contemporaries, who will attempt in turn to write about Lorenzo's life, FrancescoGuicciardini48 and Niccolo Machiavelli.49 Valori's 'Life' may have been known to Guicciardini before he embarked on his earliest historical writings. Machiavelli was a close friend and political protege of Valori. It is virtually certain that he used Valori's biography of Lorenzo.5 ° All the three writers mention Lorenzo's artistic and literary interests, though only Valori satisfies to some limited extent our appetite for details. Their choices of what to omit may have, however, some significance. Only Guicciardini mentions once the patronage of painting, and then, merely as part of a long list of activities.5 * The 46 Valori, Vita di Lorenzo (1568), p. 28. 47 Martelli in La Bibliofilia (1964), p. 235, n. 1. The ricordi of Jacopo di Niccolo di Cocco Donati, son of the gonfaloniere of the Signoria that assured the return from exile of Cosimo de' Medici in 1434, and himself a member of the Signoria of July-August 1466, explicitly assert that the conspirators had intended to kill Piero on 27 August. Donati claims that Virgilio Malvezzi, one of his closest friends, warned Piero in time to avoid this (Florence, Bibl. Nazionale, ms. Magliab. VIII. 1439, fo. 127v.). 48 Storie Florentine (cit. supra, 1953 ed.)49 Istorie Florentine (ed. F. Gaeta, 1962). The section on Lorenzo was probably written around 1524. 50 Gilbert, toe. cit. (1958), pp. 110-11. 51 Storie Florentine (cit. supra., 1953 ed.), p. 193.

126

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

silence of Valori about this may be particularly important and may confirm that Lorenzo was less interested in painting than in other arts. We owe to Valori the most detailed of the known descriptions of Lorenzo's physical appearance. It is a very unflattering portrait, which makes it all the more convincing.5 2 In the earlier, Italian version, he noted that Lorenzo's eyesight was poor, but in the subsequent Latin version Valori strengthened this by adding that 'it was so bad that he hardly saw at all'. Unfortunately we do not know how early in Lorenzo's life this deterioration of his eyesight occurred. There are no contemporary statements of the possible effects of this on Lorenzo's enjoyment of works of art, but perhaps his defective eyesight may explain his predilection for small artistic objects which he could hold close to his eyes. Valori's life of Lorenzo provides the most detailed contemporary biography, but for the most penetrating account, mainly concentrating on political essentials, we must turn to the earliest writings of Francesco Guicciardini. He himself remarks that he was still a child at the time of Lorenzo's death but he had excellent sources of information. His grandfather, Jacopo, and his father, Piero, had both been prominent supporters of the Medici. Oral information from Piero clearly forms a major source of Francesco's knowledge about many confidential transactions in Lorenzo's time. For that period the immense family archives of the Guicciardini, which still survive, supplied Francesco's main written sources. These archives still provide modern historians with some of the most valuable evidence about the workings of the Medicean regime.5 3 Guicciardini's first venture into historical writing took the form of the Memorials of his own family. The more ambitious History of Florence from 1378 to 1509 followed soon after and the biography of Lorenzo forms part of it. The two works were based on the same materials and they complement each other. Where in the History of Florence Guicciardini speaks of members of his own family he is often

52 Martelli in La Bibliofllia (cit. supra, 1964), p. 244, n. 18, very conveniently confronts the somewhat different descriptions of Lorenzo in the Italian and the Latin versions. 53 The best biography of Guicciardini is by R. Ridolfi, Vita di Francesco Guicciardini (Rome, 1960). The contents of the surviving family archives are abundantly described in R. Ridolfi, L 'Archivio della Famiglia Guicciardini (Florence, 1931). The political activities of his family in the fifteenth century are conveniently summarized in R. A. Goldthwaite, Private Wealth in Renaissance Florence. A Study of Four Families (Princeton, 1968), chapter IV (the Guicciardini). The best discussion of the sources and of the date of his earliest historical writings is in N. Rubinstein, 'The Storie Florentine and theMemorie di Famiglia by Francesco Guicciardini', Rinascimento, 4 (1953), pp. 171-225.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

127

drawing on the fuller accounts in the Memorials. The History of Florence was the work of a young man of about twenty five, but it already shows clear traces of his future masterfulness as a historian. As he had to depend chiefly on what he could find in the archives of his family, he is sometimes misinformed, but he certainly strove to be accurate. For example, he is the only contemporary historian to give the correct date of Lorenzo's birth, as 1 January 1449.54 As Guicciardini himself tells us, his Florentine History became more detailed from 1455 onwards, as no other account of his native city existed after that date. His work was not a mere political pamphlet, as has been urged by some modern scholars,55 but was intended as a careful and truthful historical narrative. It could not avoid, of course, a certain polemical bias, of which we are perhaps more strongly aware than was Guicciardini himself. Guicciardini took it for granted that the rule of notables, such as his own family, constituted the only form of government really suited to the needs of Florence. It was natural that he should expose in equal measure the evils of the two other alternative regimes. He started his history with the revolution of 1378 in order to depict the misgovernment of Florence under a succession of popular regimes that ruled the city for a short period afterwards. Lorenzo provided an example of a tyrant, but it would be quite misleading to suggest that this diminishes the credibility of Guicciardini's account of the years 1469-92. He firmly believed that Lorenzo's rule represented a decline from a more balanced distribution of power that had prevailed under Cosimo. Guicciardini frankly recognises that Florence had no liberty under Lorenzo but he tries to be fair and adds that it would be impossible to find a better or a more amiable tyrant. 56 He closes his account of Lorenzo by contrasting the peace of Italy in his day with the disasters that followed. 57 This theme will reappear in a more emphatic form in Guicciardini's subsequent writings. The History of Florence had remained unpublished until 1859, but it is possible that it may have been seen by Machiavelli before he began to write his own Florentine Histories in 1521. The two men were on friendly terms and Machiavelli is known to have consulted Guicciardini

54 Bizzarri, Lorenzo (1950), p. 7. 55 V. de Caprariis, Francesco Guicciardini dalla Politico alia Storia (Bari, 1950), p. 104. 56 Stone Florentine (1953 ed.), p. 196 'Ed insomma bisogna conchiudere che sotto lui la citta non fussi in liberta, nondimeno che sarebbe impossible aversi avuto un tiranno migliore e piu piacevole'. 57 Ibid.,p. 198.

128

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

when he was composing this work.58 Machiavelli's Istorie Florentine have a bad reputation among professional historians.5 9 It is true that he imitated the ancient Roman writers by inventing imaginary speeches. Worse still, in each section of his work he tended to follow one particular work rather than to undertake elaborate researches of his own.60 He was a political pamphleteer of genius, always influenced by preoccupations of the time when he was writing, not a scrupulous scholar. Hence strict veracity was sacrificed to political passion and, at times, subordinated also to effective and dramatic writing, for Machiavelli was a superb literary artist. All generalizations about Machiavelli's unreliability as an historian are perilous. For one thing, his sense of irony often led him into comments that must not be taken literally. It is wisest to consider each separate statement on its individual merits, as we are dealing with a very intelligent and thoughtful man who had his reasons for everything that he wrote. His comments on particular personalities, even if at times over-dramatized, may often be substantially true and can give us unique insights into their reputation and real motives. Machiavelli was fundamentally hostile to the whole Medici regime during the years 1434-94, but he had to tread warily in writing about it. As he told his friend, Donate Giannotti, 'I cannot write this history from the time when Cosimo took over the government up to the death of Lorenzo just as I would write if I were free from all reasons for caution. The actions will be true and I shall not omit anything; merely I shall leave out discussing the universal causes of the events'.61 After all, he was writing under the patronage of Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, Lorenzo's nephew, who in November 1523 was elected to the Papacy as Clement VII and his 'Florentine History' was dedicated to this Medici pope. Machiavelli's modern readers have often been puzzled how, in these circumstances, Machiavelli could get away with so much criticism of the earlier Medici. Some explanations can be tentatively put forward. Clement VII appears to have become convinced that Machiavelli was 58 F. Gaeta (ed.), Istorie Florentine (1962), p. 55. 59 For Machiavelli's account of the Medici in the fifteenth century see especially M. Marietti, 'Machiavel historiographe des Medicis' in Les Ecrivains et le Pouvoir en Italie a I'Epoque de la Renaissance (ed. A. Rochon, 2nd ser., Paris, 1974), pp. 81-148. See also the penetrating comments of C. Dionisotti, 'Machiavellerie' (w),Riv. St. It. 85 (1973). 60 His main source for the years 1464-69 is discussed in R. Hatfield, 'Machiavelli on the Regime of Piero de' Medici' in Studies on Machiavelli, ed. M. P. Gilmore (Florence, 1972), pp. 319-33. 61 Translation by A. Gilbert, Machiavelli. The Chief Works and Others (Durham, N. C. 1965), III, p. 1028.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

129

personally loyal to him and his trust was apparently justified. More important still, Clement's own personal outlook as well as his political position made him view with detachment all the earlier Medicean regimes.62 When Machiavelli was writing the last parts of his history in 1523-24, Clement was anxious to show that he sincerely wished to maintain the republican government of Florence and that he condemned the malpractices of these earlier Medicean regimes. This may explain the daring inclusion by Machiavelli of a fictitious speech in which Piero, Lorenzo's father, is made to castigate the oppressions and frauds of his political associates. This is one of the most eloquent condemnations of the abuses perpetrated by the Medici faction.6 3 It was well known in Florence that Niccolo Machiavelli's father, the jurist Bernardo, had been particularly well acquainted with Cosimo.64 Niccolo was twenty two at the time of Lorenzo's death and must have heard at first hand a good deal about the later stages of the Medicean regime. On some matters he certainly constitutes a valuable, independent source. His close official connexion with Piero Soderini, the head of the Florentine government in the first decade of the sixteenth century, may account for important comments about Piero's father, Tommaso, and about other members of the Soderini family. Almost alone among contemporary historians, Machiavelli correctly conveys the exceptional importance of Tommaso's position in the years after 1469, as almost Lorenzo's equal in influence. 65 Machiavelli was temperamentally unsuited to understand a man like Lorenzo. It puzzled him how a grave statesman could show such a total lack of dignity in playing boisterously with his children. Hence his oft-quoted comment that two irreconcilable personalities were to be found together in Lorenzo. 66 . This tells us nothing new about Lorenzo but does bring out Machiavelli's limitations as his biographer. Only once does Machiavelli completely overcome his hostility to Lorenzo's tyranny when he praises the Medici statesman for preserving Italy from foreign invaders. He was clearly quite sincere in his belief that Lorenzo was alone capable of maintaining harmony in Italy and that his death had inevitably to be followed by the disaster of the Italian Wars.67 The publication of the 'Florentine History' in 1532 gave wide currency to these myths. 62 See the suggestive remarks of Dionisotti, loc. cit. (1973), pp. 285-87. 63 Op. cit., (1962 ed.), PP- 487-88. 64 This is recalled in a dialogue written in 1483 by Bartolomeo Scala, the chancellor of Florence, edited by L. Borghi in La Bibliofilia, 40 (1942), p. 273. 65 R. Fubini, 'Note Machiavelliane', in Studies on Machiavelli (cit. supra, 1972), p. 386 and n. 18; Dionisotti, loc. cit. (1973), pp. 287-89. 66 Op. cit. (1962 ed.), p. 576. 67 Pillinini, op. cit. (1970), pp. 22-24.

130

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

A number of Florentine private diaries, or 'domestic chronicles' written by Lorenzo's contemporaries still remain partly unpublished. One of the most valuable is the 'private chronicle' of Piero Parenti, though, unfortunately, we do not any more possess the section from late April 1478 to the death of Lorenzo on 8 April 1492.68 His reflections on Lorenzo's reputation are preserved only in Parenti's much corrected first draft and the state of this manuscript has discouraged hitherto all attempt at publication.69 Parenti was a prosperous Florentine notable whose family and personal connections encouraged a critical independence towards Lorenzo, though without any overt hostility. He was an impressionable observer and his 'chronicle' reflects, above all, the shifting attitudes to Lorenzo and, later on, to Lorenzo's much more unpopular son, Piero. According to Parenti, towards the end of his career Lorenzo could not trust anybody and lived in continuous anxiety, without peace of mind. 70 The secret writings of Alamanno Rinuccini provide the most eloquent expression of the hatreds that Lorenzo could arouse among eminent Florentine aristocrats. We have his diaries, and most outspoken of all, his 'Dialogue of Liberty' written in secret in 1478 in order to deplore the failure of the Pazzi Conspiracy.71 Rinuccini had been an admirer of Cosimo, but became outraged by Lorenzo's tactless and high-handed treatment of himself. Any account of Lorenzo must cite repeatedly this Procopius of Laurentian Florence, who publicly served the regime while privately writing the most dreadful things about it. Francesco Gaddi was a high official of the Florentine chancery. He too, became estranged from Lorenzo and provides another example of the ease with which that irascible and self-centred statesman alienated valuable collaborators.7 2 One is not surprised to discover subsequently 68 The sections of the chronicle concerning Lorenzo and his son Piero are preserved in Bibl. Nazionale, Florence, ms. IV, IV, 169 and there is an eighteenth century copy (more legible), ibid. ms. II, II, 129. Parenti's account of the Pazzi conspiracy has been edited by A. Perosa (cit. supra, 1958), pp. 69-79. Numerous extracts, chiefly concerned with events after 1494, are printed by Schnitzer, op. cit. (1910). The only recent account of Parenti is by G. Pampaloni 'Piero di Marco Parenti e la sua Historia Fiorentina', A. St. It. 117 (1959). 69 Bibl. Nazionale, Florence, ms, IV, IV, 169, fos. 128-29. 70 Ibid., fo. 129 r: 'Ultimo non potersi d'alcun fidare et sempre in continua timore vivere private di ogni quiete di mente e consolazione di corpo'. 71 The diaries are edited by G. Aiazzi in Ricordi Storici di Filippo di Cino Rinuccini dal 1282 al 1460, colla continuazione di Alamanno e Neri suoi figli flno al 1506 (Florence, 1840). The ricordi of Alamanno from 1461 to 1499 are on pp. LXXXIX-CLVII. The 'Dialogue of Liberty' is edited by F. Adorno in Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia La Columbaria, 22 (1957), pp. 270-303. 72 See D. Marzi, La Cancellaria della Republica Fiorentina (Rocca S. Casciano, 1910), p. 226 and L. Sozzi, 'Lettere inedite di Philippe de Commynes a Francesco Gaddi', Studi di Bibliografia e di Storia in Onore di Tammaro de Marinis (Roma, Citta di Vaticano, 1964), IV, p. 214 and n. 3.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

131

that during the night after the expulsion of Lorenzo's son Piero, from Florence (9 November 1494), Gaddi was regarded by the new government as the only former chancery official suitable for appointment as chancellor in charge both of the foreign and the internal correspondence. He notes in his diary that he declined the offer of a higher salary, as if to stress his dedication to the new regime.73 Gaddi's 'diary' and his other intimate records, covering the whole period of Lorenzo's preeminence in Florence, provide much detailed information, especially about Florentine diplomatic negotiations. Gaddi writes with exemplary precision as befits a highly trained lawyer.74 Raffaele Maffei of Volterra wrote as an open enemy of Lorenzo. He was a papal official of considerable position and wealth. His vast survey of Italian towns, written at Rome in the early years of the sixteenth century, mentions that his brother, Antonio, had been executed by the Florentines for his share in the Pazzi conspiracy. Antonio had been personally assigned to kill Lorenzo. He had accepted this task, as his brother explains, in order to avenge the sacking of Volterra in 1472 by a Florentine army, during a war attributed by Volterran patriots to Lorenzo's machinations. Yet Raffaele's portrait of Lorenzo is surprisingly balanced. He depicts Lorenzo as a restless individual, solaced only by music and as an inveterate political intriguer. Lorenzo's exceptional ugliness is stressed and the sadness of his face. But on the positive side Lorenzo is depicted as a generous man, ready to forgive past injuries. Raffaele had experienced this personally some years after his brother's execution. Raffaele praised Lorenzo as a lover of learning, who had created a university at Pisa and, above all, as eager to appreciate men of ability. He thus put his finger on one of Lorenzo's most attractive qualities.75 A large proportion of literary and scholarly works published in Florence between 1469 and 1492 contains praises of the Medici. Some

73 Gaddi's diary, Bibl. Laurenziana, Florence, Acquisti e Doni, ms. 213, fo. 94v. There also survive two copies of Gaddi's 'Priorista', one of which, Brit. Library, Egerton ms. 3764, has been used by me. 74 For example he carefully defines the position of Lorenzo's son, Piero, as being maintained after his father's death 'in tutti i gradi delli privilegi et immunita di Lorenzo suo padre non ostante aliguno difetto della eta di giovanezza' (Brit. Libr., Egerton ms. 3764, fo. 223 v.). 75 Commentariorum Urbanorum Raphaelis Volaterrani octo et triginta libri (ed. at Basle by Froben, 1530). The passage about the sack of Volterra is on p. 51v. and Florentine history between 1434 and 1494 is covered on pp. 56-58. A. Fabroni (see below) repeatedly cited this source. There is a brief account of Maffei and his family by J. Ruysshaert in La Bibliofllia, 60 (1958), p. 311.

132

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

of these eulogies go to absurd lengths. An anonymous poem on the Florentine capture of Sarzana in 1487 is of value only as an example of the exorbitant things said about Lorenzo. He is likened to Jupiter and Mars, but in the very next line is described as radiating angelic and divine light.76 While Cosimo had always avoided the limelight and had discouraged excessive eulogies,7 7 Lorenzo seems to have accepted them as a part of his position. Occasionally a literary work eulogizing Lorenzo does add to our store of useful evidence. Cristoforo Landino, who may have been one of Lorenzo's tutors, includes an interesting summary of his patron's main accomplishments in the preface to his commentary on Virgil, published in May 1492, a few weeks after Lorenzo's death. He singles out among the things at which Lorenzo excelled literary pursuits, music, architecture and farming. 78 It is a very well-informed list, which confirms the comments of Valori and Guicciardini. A biographer of Lorenzo is faced with the existence of several histories of fifteenth century Florence written after 1537, under the new regime of Cosimo I and of his ducal successors. They mostly elaborate earlier narratives that we possess anyhow. It is conceivable that this later generation of historians might have occasionally preserved some additional genuine traditions about Lorenzo, but it is safest to use these works as little as possible. Whether eulogizing the Medici or hating them, these writers were too remote from Lorenzo's age to understand it and yet near enough to delude themselves that it was very similar to their own. This is particularly true of Giorgio Vasari's 'Lives of the Artists', first published in 1550 and reissued in a much expanded version in 1568. This work contains much unique information, but as has been already pointed out, it has also given rise to grave misconceptions about the nature of Lorenzo's artistic patronage. Only a fuller use of Lorenzo's correspondence and of other original documents can dissipate the myths that have gathered around him. This modern approach to the study of Lorenzo was inaugurated by A. Fabroni. His biographies of the early Medici, starting with a life of Lorenzo, published in 1784, for the first time drew extensively on their family archives and on other Florentine collections.79 Fabroni did not 76 R. Ridolfi, La Stampa in Firenze nel Secolo XV (Florence, 1958), p. 77, fig. 7. 77 See especially A. M. Brown, 'Humanist portrait of Cosimo', cit. supra. (1961). 78 Venice ed. (23 May 1492) cited from a copy at the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, p. lllv.; 'Multae, ut in homine civili, sunt in eo litterae; bonus est musicus, bonus architectus, bonus agricola'. 79 Laurentii Medicis Magnifici Vita, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1784);Magni Cosmi Vita, 2 vols. (Pisa, 1789); Zoom's X, Pontificis Maximi Vita (Pisa, 1797).

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

133

always use critically the vast documentation at his disposal but in his appendices of notes he has left to later historians a solid mass of invaluable texts. Writing in 1952, Roberto Palmarocchi, one of the most indefatigable students of Lorenzo's career, referred to the 'immense sea' of the Medici archives.80 This is no exaggeration. We still have some 21,000 letters addressed to Lorenzo. A recent survey has enumerated 1896 known letters of Lorenzo, and even this is not an exhaustive tally.81 As a private citizen of paramount influence, but without an offical position, Lorenzo had to operate through his own secretariat.82 Its surviving records are not quite so elaborate and standarized as the official archives of the Florentine state chancery, though they gain in informality and intimacy. In the opinion of Guicciardini, Lorenzo's own letters were 'full of such intelligence that we could not desire more'.83 Nowhere else can one follow so closely the workings of his mind, particularly in informal letters to his closest collaborators. In corresponding with them Lorenzo was in the habit of thinking aloud on paper and of expressing himself very bluntly. Professor Nicolai Rubinstein is in the process of editing Lorenzo's correspondence and has already brought out four volumes covering the period from 1460 to March 1480.84 Most of the letters are concerned with diplomacy or politics. A good deal can be learnt about Lorenzo's private bank. References to artistic topics are rare. Francesco Guicciardini thought that suspiciousness was Lorenzo's worst fault. As he acutely observes, this did not spring from Lorenzo's real character but from the circumstances of his position.85 Lorenzo never dared to forget that he was controlling a city free by nature and where many things had to be done ostensibly through the official organs and under the semblance of continued liberty. This situation made Lorenzo obsessively secretive. He felt compelled to write in his own hand numerous confidential letters, because, as he himself explains in one such missive, of 25 July 1478, 'I do not trust others'.86 This makes such letters all the more valuable for us. 80 R. Palmarocchi, 'Lorenzo de' Medici e la nomina cardinalizia,di Giovanni', ,4. St. It. 110 (1952), p. 38, n. 3. 81 P. G. Ricci and N. Rubinstein, Checklist of the Letters of Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici (Florence, 1964). 82 Cf. N. Rubinstein in the preface to Lorenzo de' Medici, Lettere, I (1460-74) ed. R. Fubini, Florence, 1977, pp. V-VI. 83 Cited in Bizzarri, Lorenzo (1950, cit. supra), p. 305. 84 Cited in Rubinstein, Proc. Br. Ac. (1977, cit. supra), p. 94. 85 Op. cit. (1953 ed.), pp. 195-96. 86 R. Palmarocchi, 'Studi e ricerche sulla vita di Lorenzo de' Medici. II problema dell' autografia',/1. St. It., 88 (1930), p. 283.

134

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Some of Lorenzo's correspondence is written wholly, or partly, in a cipher. Sometimes the recipients have decoded the message and have inserted it above the ciphered portions. When this had not been done, intriguing puzzles face modern scholars. By breaking Lorenzo's code in his correspondence with the Florentine envoys at Rome, Palamarocchi was able in 1952 to make one startling discovery. It emerged that in August 1488, a few weeks afte the death of Lorenzo's wife, he was offered a cardinalate by Pope Innocent VIII. Lorenzo was tempted by this proposal, but finally declined, preferring to further instead the promotion of his son Giovanni, the future Pope Leo X.8 7 In addition to Lorenzo's letters, or copies of them, we have also summary registers of the letters issued by his main secretarial office, giving the names of the addressees and dates. Except for one gap in 1475-6, the extant registers are complete from October 1473 to March 1492.88 A large proportion of Lorenzo's surviving letters is not, however, mentioned in the registers, for the simple reason that they did not originate in his main secretarial office but, on the contrary, were sent by Lorenzo to his secretariat when he himself was away from Florence. These exceptionally chatty, private letters survive in particularly large numbers from 1485 onwards, when frequent attacks of illness began to detain Lorenzo for increasingly long periods at various distant health resorts, where natural springs of curative waters helped to relieve his gout. 89 The records of the Medici bank have been preserved very unevenly For the first half-century of its operations, from 1397 to 1450, we have a very informative series of bank registers, but very few business letters survive for the period before 1450. 'After 1450 the reverse is true: the correspondence becomes more abundant, but account books, with the exception of a few rather unimportant fragments, are missing. As a result, there are no quantitative data that would portray ... the waning fortunes of the Medici Bank'.90 The late Federigo Melis rediscovered the secret books of the bank's Florentine headquarters for the years of its most rapid growth between 1397 and 1450.91 His discovery assured the success of the late 87 Palmarocchi, ibid., 110 (1952), cit. supra. 88 Published by M. del Piazzo, Protocolli del Carteggio di Lorenzo il Magniflco per gli anni 1477-92 (Florence, 1950). 89 Cf. M. Martelli, Studi Laurenziani (1965), pp. 190 ff. 90 R. de Roover, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank 1397-1494 (Cambridge (Mass.), (1963), p. 4. 91 R. de Roover, 'I libri segreti del Banco de' Medici', A. St. It., 107, (1949), pp. 236-37.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

135

Raymond de Roover's epoch-making studies of the Medici finances. The secret books give exact information about the capital invested in the different Medici enterprises and about profits or losses from each of them. 92 For the years when Lorenzo was in charge of the bank we have to depend chiefly on the evidence of the Medici correspondence. 'The letters, however, unfold the tragedy in even more eloquent, if less precise, language'.93 Some additional information has come to light since the publication of De Roover's book. An important monograph dealt more fully with the involvement of the Medici in the marketing of alum derived from mines in the Papal state.94 Disputes about this were one of the reasons for the hostility of Pope Sixtus IV to the Medici that triggered off the Pazzi conspiracy. The most recent find consists of a list of assets and liabilities of the Roman branch of the Medici bank after the expulsion of the Medici from Florence in November 1494. It brings out the perilous decline of the entire Medicean business in Lorenzo's last years.95 The loss of the registers of the Medici bank for the period of Lorenzo's control over it has deprived us of one important source of information about his artistic patronage. A glance at the fuller records dating from Cosimo's time shows how much we may have lost later on in the fifteenth century. For example, in 1427 the Medici tavola at Florence, dealing with the local banking business in the city itself, handled payments for the rebuilding of the church of S. Lorenzo, the parish church of the Medici.96 Furthermore, as the executors of the deceased Cardinal Rinaldo Brancacci, the Medici were at the same time also making payments through the Florentine tavola to Donatello and Michelozzo, two of the city's most distinguished sculptors, entrusted with the erection of the cardinal's tomb at Naples.9 7 The local business managers of the Medici, in charge of the branch offices in the main Italian business centres, handled some of the ancient manuscripts, antiques and works of art acquired by members of the 92 R. de Roover first used them in his remarkable 'New interpretations of the history of banking', Cahiers d' Histoire Mondiale, 1 (1954) and, much more fully, in The Medici Bank, 1397-1494 (1963). 93 Ibid. (1963), p. 4. 94 J. Delumeau, L'Alun de Rome, XVs - XIXs Siecle (Paris, S. E. V. P. E. N., 1962). A. Sapori, "II 'Bilancio' della filiale di Roma del Banco Medici del 1495",4. St. It., 95 131 (1973). 96 A special ledger of the Medici bank at Florence concerned with the financing of the rebuilding of the church at S. Lorenzo has survived among the archives of that church. It contains also much information about the construction of the Medici palace. Sections of it are published in I. Hyman, Fifteenth Century Florentine Studies : the Palazzo Medici and a ledger for the Church of S. Lorenzo (New York, 1977), pp. 429-523. 97 R. de Roover, The Medici Bank, 1397-1494 (1963), pp. 229-30.

136

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Medici family. The managers were sometimes responsible for initially securing these treasures for their Medici 'masters', paid for them, stored them in their banks and arranged for their despatch to Florence. Each branch once possessed a separate collection of correspondence, but these archives seem to have disappeared. We only have now some of the reports about artistic matters sent by the branch managers to Lorenzo, preserved in his personal archives, tantalizing fragments of what was once a much vaster body of correspondence. For example, in August 1488, the bank at Rome was sending to Lorenzo an antique head of a boy, apparently found at Ostia.98 The antiques and artistic objects which had been accumulated in the course of the fifteenth century by several generations of the Medici are listed in a series of inventories. One of them was drawn up after the death of Lorenzo. Only a selection of entries from it has been published, but a student of Lorenzo's artistic interests has at his disposal all that matters." The identification of particular objects needs to be pursued more rigorously. Much still remains to be done to determine what precisely was inherited by Lorenzo from his ancestors and to discover the dates of his own acquisitions. As E. H. Gombrich was the first to stress in 1960, Lorenzo's financial difficulties may have often curtailed his capacity for lavish artistic patronage.100 This may help to explain the surprising paucity of his known commissions to architects and artists and the reticence of his earliest biographers about this side of his activities. A generation later, a historian as well informed as Paolo Giovio maintained complete silence about them.1 ° l This is a useful corrective to the traditional myths about Lorenzo's artistic patronage, but one must not push it too far. We must not forget the obvious gaps in our documentation. Furthermore, Gombrich did 98 E. Miintz, Les Collections des Medicis au quinzieme siecle (Paris, 1888), referred to henceforth as Miintz, Collections (1888), p. 57. For an earlier example of classical manuscripts sent in 1458 by the Medici Bank at Milan to Lorenzo's uncle, Giovanni, see V. Rossi, 'L'indole e gli studi di Giovanni di Cosimo de' Medici', R. Ac. Lincei, Rendiconti, ser. 5, vol. 2 (1893), p. 57. 99 A full transcript of the inventory is available at the Library of the Warburg Institute (University of London). Entries that are printed in Miintz, Collections (1888), pp. 58-95, are underlined and this makes it clear that the selection made by Miintz is reasonably adequate. There is a full well-annotated edition of the sections concerned with cameos and intaglios and with precious vessels in the two volumes of catalogues of the exhibition of Lorenzo's treasures at Florence in 1972 [cited as Tesoro di Lorenzo, I, Le Gemme (1973) and II, / Vast, (1974)]. 100 In 'The early Medici as patrons of art : a survey of primary sources', Italian Renaissance Studies (ed. E. F. Jacob, London, 1960), pp. 304-5. 101 In his account of Lorenzo in the introductory section of the Life of Lorenzo's son, Pope Leo X. Cf. Le Vite di Dicenove Huomini Illustri (Venice, 1561), pp. 90r. - 96v.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

137

not discuss in any detail the public side of Lorenzo's artistic patronage, whereby he was using state funds or money of semi-public corporations to help his favourite artists. Lorenzo exerted enormous influence on the selection of artists for public projects both at Florence and in its subject cities. After 1479 he was permanently a member of the committee supervising the rebuilding and redecorating of the palace of the Signoria at Florence, the official headquarters of the Florentine government. Churches and other semi-public bodies were usually eager to follow his wishes about the architects, sculptors and painters that they should employ. There is plentiful documentation about all this, though only a part of it is published.1 °2 V

The view that Marsilio Ficino was the most influential figure in Lorenzo's intellectual circle still colours much of the writing on Laurentian Florence. Several myths need dispelling here, including the belief in the existence of an organized 'Platonic Academy'. Furthermore it is essential to redefine the extent of Ficino's influence on Lorenzo. In doing so one must stress that Ficino's philosophical and theological teachings and our appreciation of the quality of his scholarship have been greatly advanced during the last forty years by publications of a distinguished group of scholars, and, above all, of P. O. Kristeller.103 But Kristeller has deliberately avoided all comparisons between Ficino and other leading scholars and poets of Laurentian Florence.104 He has likewise avoided any pronouncements on Ficino's shifting political alignments, though he has published crucial new documents which throw very disturbing light on this side of Ficino's unreliable personality.1 °5 I wish to suggest that Ficino's intellectual and religious influence on Lorenzo was paramount only during the young Medici's earlier years, though it continued to influence Lorenzo's poetry for the rest of his life. From about 1477 onwards their personal relations became less intimate. Lorenzo became increasingly displeased with Ficino's 102 Mainly in G. Gaye, Carteggio inedito d'artisti, I (Florence, 1839). 103 See especially Supplementum Ficinianum, 2 vols. (Florence, 1937); The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino (New York, 1943) and the important Review of it by E. Cassirer in Journal of History of Ideas, 6 (1945), pp. 483-501; various detailed studies republished in Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (Rome, 1956). 104 See especially 'L'etat present de etudes sur Marcel Ficin' in XVIs Colloque International de Tours : Platon et Aristote a la Renaissance (Paris, 1976), p. 70. 105 In Supplementum Ficinianum (1937), cit. supra.

138

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

incorrigible sycophancy and there were also doubts about that opportunist philosopher's political reliability. In the months preceding the Pazzi conspiracy to assassinate Lorenzo and his brother we find Ficino on terms of closest friendship with some of the conspirators. Some of his correspondence from this period reads very equivocally.106 It is noticeable that, for four months after the assassination of Giuliano, Ficino abstained from writing to Lorenzo.107 Luigi Pulci, a friend of Lorenzo's mother and a poet very dear to Lorenzo, was always an outspoken enemy of Ficino. Later on, Politian, the most distinguished of Lorenzo's scholarly proteges became critical of some features of Ficino's scholarship. Lorenzo himself appears to have become increasingly impressed by these doubts. For reasons that are nowhere explained, he refused to finance in 1484 the publication of Ficino's Platonic translations, although they were partly based on manuscripts originally supplied by the Medici.108 One of Lorenzo's most enduring achievements lay in the assembling of an exceptionally valuable collection of manuscripts of ancient Greek and Latin authors. Lorenzo's library can be reconstructed from an inventory drawn up in 1495,109 supplemented by two much more detailed lists of Greek and Latin manuscripts recovered by his son, Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici, in 1510.110 The whole collection must have amounted to over 1250 manuscripts and printed books.111 The most valuable group was formed by the Greek manuscripts, of which 420 were returned to Cardinal Giovanni. This Greek part of the library had been acquired entirely in Lorenzo's time. By 1494 it was one of the biggest and most valuable collections of classical manuscripts in Italy and he encouraged scholars to use it.112 An incidental remark by Piero Vettori, the most distinguished 106 Ibid., I, pp. 32, 48-50. Ficino subsequently omitted the most incriminating letters from the edition of his correspondence prepared by himself. They were first published by Kristeller. 107 This is noted by R. Marcel, Marsile Ficin, (Paris, 1958), p. 445. 108 I am citing the Venice edition of 22 April 1517, published by Ph. Pincius of Mantua, using a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. 109 Published by E. Piccolomini in A. St. It., 3rd ser., 20 (1874), pp. 51-94. 110 Vatican Libr., ms. Barberini Lat. 3185 (Greek mss.) and ms. Vat. Lat. 7134 (Latin mss.). I am preparing a digest of these inventories as part of a book on Lorenzo's library. The vast majority of the manuscripts can be identified. 111 This will be discussed in my forthcoming work on Lorenzo's library mentioned in the preceding note. 112 This is amply documented in the surviving registers of the books borrowed from the Medici library. The best edition is in M. del Piazzo, Protocolli del carteggio di Lorenzo il Magniflco per gli anni 1473-4, 1477-92 (Florence, 1956), pp. 226-29 (1480-83), pp. 444-49 (1483-91), pp. 490-93 (1491-94).

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

139

classical scholar at Florence in the first half of the sixteenth century, shows that Lorenzo, besides rebuilding the Augustinian monastery outside the Porta S. Gallo at Florence, also endowed its library with some valuable old books. The monastery was destroyed during the siege of Florence by the Imperial army in 1530, but the books were preserved and Vettori used one of them for his edition of ancient Roman writers on agriculture.113 The Medicean private library was supervised in Lorenzo's later years by Angelo Politian, the ablest and most scholarly of all the Italian humanists of his time, who owed his career largely to Lorenzo's discriminating help. He was an extremely ambitious, restless and frustrated man 114 and Lorenzo's personal relations with him were quite stormy at times. However, Lorenzo's appreciation of Politian's great abilities never wavered. A large number of specialized publications has been devoted to Politian in recent years. His last major scholarly work, the unfinished Second Miscellanea, was rediscovered in 1961 and has been well edited.115 It is now possible to assess much more adequately Politian's scholarly achievements and to add thereby an important new chapter to the story of Lorenzo's cultural patronage.116 Lorenzo's artistic and literary activities were not mere distractions or hobbies. They sustained his will and capacity to attend to the daily routine of politics. His letters suddenly brighten up when he passes from intractable political imbroglios to congenial things like the redecoration of his private study or instructions to his favourite architect, Giuliano da Sangallo, about his new country villa at Poggio a Caiano.117 Lorenzo thought of himself as a distinguished and an original poet. While we may not rate his verses as highly as he did himself,118 his poems have an assured place in any anthology of early Italian poetry. His literary achievements made him more assured in his dealings with other writers and scholars. They strengthened his predilection for 113 Petri Victorii Explicationes Suarum in Catonem, Varronem, Columellam Castigationum (Paris, Rob. Stephanus, 1543), pp. 65v, - 66r. I am using a copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. 114 Cf. the remarks of C. Dionisotti, 'Leonardo, uomo di letter', It Med.Urn., 5 (1962) p. 202. 115 By V. Branca e M. P. Stocchi, 4 vols. (Florence, 1972). 116 Politian's scholarly activities are best approached through A. Perosa (ed.), Mostra del Poliziano nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Florence, 1954) and I. Maier, Les Manuscrits d'Ange Politien (Geneva, 1965). 117 See especially M. Martelli, Studi Laurenziani (Florence, 1965), chapter V ('Ragioni umane') and, in particular, p. 204. 118 Cf. C. Dionisotti, Machiavellerie (Turin, 1980), p. 237, who speaks of Lorenzo as 'mediocre poeta, ma di una argentea mediocrita'.

140

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

surrounding himself with men of ability and of most diverse talents, which even an open enemy, like Raffaele Maffei of Volterra, singled out as one of Lorenzo's most attractive traits.119 The controversies about the works of poetry that can be safely attributed to Lorenzo seem to be coming to an end. 120 No satisfactory critical edition of his poems exists as yet 121 but, at least, they have all been published. The chronology of Lorenzo's writings is never likely to be convincingly settled at all points. He wrote poetry for his own pleasure, was something of a perfectionist about it and kept revising some of his poems over a period of many years. 122 All attempts at a neat reconstruction of his evolution as a poet are bound to remain very hypothetical and unconvincing.123 His poems are a major source for our understanding of Lorenzo 124 provided that they are used with common sense, a feature conspicuously lacking in some of the past controversies. He was very proud of his poetry and praise of it gave him great pleasure, especially if it came from distinguished friends. He arranged for the copying into one of his own manuscripts of a letter of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola of 15 July 1484 extolling his poems and encouraging him to write a commentary on some of them. 125 The rest of the manuscript contains Lorenzo's working draft of this commentary. It is a mixture of pedantic scholarly disquisitions and of autobiographical comments of poignant directness constituting one of the most curious documents for our understanding of Lorenzo's self-centred and complex mind. He worked on it over many years and some of the corrections and marginal comments in his own hand may date from the last period of his life when he was already a very sick man. 126 119 Cited supra (Basle, 1530), fo. 58r. 120 See especially the prefaces to M. Martelli, Scrittori Classici Italiani. Lorenzo de' Medici; Opere, I (Turin, 1965) and to B. Maier, Lorenzo de' Medici, Opere Scelte (Novara, 1969). 121 Martelli, Lorenzo de Medici: Opere (1965), p. IX. 122 Ibid., introduction and Martelli, Studi Laurenziani (1965). 123 See especially the judicious comments of E. Cecchi, Lorenzo il Magniflco, Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, quaderno no. 12 (1949), p. 3. 124 Lorenzo's great skill in using with subtlety and delicacy of touch the Tuscan language of his day makes it particularly difficult to translate his poetry into any other language. See especially the remarks of C. Angeleri, 'Magnifico Lorenzo'. La Rinascita, no. 24 (1942), p. 225, in reviewing the translation into German by C. Stange of some of Lorenzo's poems (Lorenzo il Magniflco, 2 vols., Bremen, 1940). 125 Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. Riccard, 2726 (cited supra), fos. Ir - 4v. Pico's letter is discussed by Martelli, La Bibliofllia (1966, cited supra), pp. 234-5. 126 See Martelli in La Bibliofllia, 1966 (cited supra) and M. Fubini, Studi sulla letteratura del Rinascimento, 2nd ed (Florence, 1971), especially pp. 118-25.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Primary Sources

141

Lorenzo himself assumed that his literary and scholarly activities might best perpetuate his memory. In a prefatory letter to an anthology of Italian poetry, compiled in 1476, and destined for a friendly Neapolitan prince, Lorenzo's learned secretary, Politian, who composed this elegant Latin epistle, makes Lorenzo's patronage his chief title to future fame. As Politian reminds us, 'Achilles would be nobody without Homer, and Peisistratos, the wise prince of Athens, nobody if he had not preserved Homer's poem for mankind'.12 7 127 Cited in R. S. Lopez, The Three Ages of the Italian Renaissance (Charlotesville, 1970), p. 23.

This page intentionally left blank

6

LORENZO DE' MEDICI'S FINANCES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON HIS PATRONAGE OF ART Writing in 1964, Roberto Ridolfi, whose own discoveries have thrown so much fresh light on Medicean Florence, voiced the need for « quella biografia del Magnifico Lorenzo bene informata e bene scritta, acuta ed umana » l . Two of the best studies written in the last century, the biographies of A. von Reumont and E. Armstrong, though admirable in their own day, need extensive revision2. In our own time specialized studies have multiplied, but the ideal biographer of Lorenzo would need to combine them all. We need a scholar who can appraise both Lorenzo's statesmanship and his management of the Medici bank and of the other private affairs of his family, who can achieve a balanced judgement on Lorenzo's patronage of art and learning and who can respond sympathetically to Lorenzo's poetry 3 . The difficulties of Lorenzo's future historians partly spring from the failure of his own contemporaries to leave us adequate biographies. Vespasiano da Bisticci would have been particularly well-suited to provide valuable information on Lorenzo's patronage of learning and on his love of beautifully illuminated manuscripts. Unfortunately, when Vespasiano in his old age was writing « The Lives of the Illustrious Men », he was estranged from Lorenzo4. While he wrote a biography of Cosimo, his most 1 R. RIDOLFI, ' G. Benivieni e una revisione del suo Canzoniere', La Bibliofilia, 66 (1964), p. 214, n. 5. 2 A. VON REUMONT, Lorenzo de' Medici il Magnifico, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883); E. ARMSTRONG, Lorenzo de' Medici (London and New York, 1897). 3 Cf. the remarks of E. ALLODOLI, in La Rinascita, 1-2 (1938), p. 176. 4 Vespasiano dedicated his ' Lives' to Antonio degli Albizzi who was a bitter enemy of the Medici at the time of their expulsion from Flo-

144

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

important Medici patron, he made apparently no attempt to compose the lives of Cosimo's sons or grandsons and incidental references to Lorenzo in his biographies of other people are of scant interest5. Niccolo Valori, Lorenzo's earliest biographer, knew him personally and is well-informed, but this biography is too partial to Lorenzo to give us a balanced picture 6 . Pietro Parenti, another strict contemporary, was not unfriendly to Lorenzo, but his « private » chronicle was not intended as Lorenzo's biography and it is still unpublished7. The best early account of Lorenzo is contained in Francesco Guicciardini's Storie Florentine written in 1508-98. Guicciardini himself remarks that he was still a child at the time of Lorenzo's death but he had excellent sources of information. His narrative forms our best starting point for a balanced appraisal of Lorenzo, and the only thing we can regret is its brevity. Modern scholarship has fully vindicated Guicciardini's statements about Lorenzo's financial misfortunes and their causes, which will form one of the main subjects of this article. Lorenzo's finances and hi§ artistic patronage have given rise to particularly enduring misconceptions and scholars have begun to dispel them only very recently. The two subjects are closely connected, for Lorenzo's financial difficulties may go some way to explain the paucity of his commissions to architects and artists. This was noted by E. H. Gombrich 9 who, together with A. Chastel10, has inaugurated a more realistic approach to Lorenzo's artistic patronage. Lorenzo's finances and his love of art combined two of the main interests of the late Federigo Melis. He was the first to rediscover the secret books of the Medici

rence in 1494. Cf. A. GRECO (ed.), Vespasiano da Bisticci. Le Vite, I, (Firenze, 1970), p. vi. 5 G. M. CAGNI, Vespasiano da Bisticci e il suo Epistolario (Roma, 1969), p. 59. 6 Cf. M. MARTELLI, « Le due redazioni della ' Laurentii Medicei Vita' di Niccolo Valori », La Bibliofilia, 66 (1964). 7 ' Storia fiorentina, 1476-1518', Biblioteca Nazionale, Firenze, Magi. II, IV, 169 (for 1476-96). 8 ED. V. DE CAPRARIIS, Opere (Milano-Napoli, 1953), pp. 157-238. For the sources used and the date of composition see N. RUBINSTEIN, « The 'Storie Florentine' and the 'Memorie di Famiglia' by Francesco Guicciardini », Rinascimento, 4 (1953). 9 E. H. GOMBRICH, 'The Early Medici as Patrons of Art' in E. F. JACOB (ed.), Italian Renaissance Studies (London, 1960), p. 305 [citing from10 2nd ed., 1966]. A. CHASTEL, 'Vasari et la legende mediceenne: 1'ecole du jardin de St. Marc', Studi Vasariani. Atti del Convegno Internazionale per il IV centenario della prima edizione delle ' Vite' del Vasari (Firenze, 1952), pp. 159-67; A. CHASTEL, Art et Humanisme a Florence au temps de Laurent le Magnifique (Paris, 1961).

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

145

bank for the years 1397-1450 " which formed the starting point for the late Raymond de Roover's epoch-making studies of the Medici finances 12. A brief survey of the surviving documentary sources is necessary at this point. None of the secret books of the Medici bank for the period after 1450 have come to light hitherto and its archives for the years after 1469 have largely vanished. Hence Raymond de Roover's account of the period when Lorenzo controlled the bank is much more incomplete than his treatment of the earlier years of its activity. Several additional bits of evidence overlooked by him or published subsequently will be noted in their proper places. They supply some further illustrations of Lorenzo's financial difficulties, but do not alter the overall picture. No comprehensive edition of Lorenzo's correspondence exists at present, though Professor N. Rubinstein and his collaborators will soon fill this gap. The letters that they are about to publish deal, however, predominantly with politics 13. They might throw some fresh light on finance, but cannot add much to our knowledge of Lorenzo's artistic and scholarly interests. The various branches of the Medici bank once possessed in their archives separate collections of correspondence14. The surviving fragments show that they handled some of the antiques and works of art acquired for Lorenzo. In August 1488 the bank at Rome was sending an antique head of a boy apparently found at Ostia15. But most of the correspondence about such matters appears irretrievably lost and this may help to explain the surprising scarcity of evidence about Lorenzo's activities as a collector of precious objects 16. General accounts of the Florentine civilization in the age of Lorenzo usually ascribe to him an important share in most of the notable artistic achievements of that period. This popular image greatly exaggerates the extent of his artistic patronage. As Gombrich has pointed out, « it comes as a shock of surprise to realize how few works of art are in existence which can be 11 R. DE ROOVER, 'I libri segreti del Banco de' Medici', Archivio Storico Italiano, 107 (1949), pp. 236-37. 12 R. DE ROOVER, ibid., pp. 23640 and 'Lorenzo il Magnifico e il tramonto del Banco del Medici', ibid., pp. 172-85; R. DE ROOVER, The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, 1397-1494 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963). 13 I owe this information to the kindness of Professor Rubinstein. 14 M. DEL PIAZZO, Protocolli del Carteggio di Lorenzo il Magnifico per gli anni 14734, 1477-92 (Firenze, 1950), p. XXVIII. 15 E. MUNTZ, Les Collections des Medicis au quinzieme siecle (Paris, 1888), p. 57. 16 Cf. A. GROTE, in D. HEIKAMP e A. GROTE, II Tesoro di Lorenzo il Magnifico, vol. II, / Vasi (Firenze, 1974), p. 7, n. 19; ' Sorprendente lo scarso numero di documenti relativi alia sua attivita da collezionista'.

146

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

proved to have been commissioned by Lorenzo »17. A reasonably precise and well-informed account of Florence's artistic treasures, written in 1510 by Francesco Albertini, manages to name Lorenzo only twice, once to mention an antique statue that he had admired and the second time in connexion with projects for completing the facade of Florence cathedral18. Specialised modern studies have reacted to the traditional vague generalizations about Lorenzo's role by sticking rigorously to the sources, especially the documentary ones. But this reaction can go too far. It is impossible to assent to Kenneth Clark's remark that Lorenzo « although an enlightened patron of literature ... took small interest in art »19. Clark is nearer the mark when he observes that Lorenzo « cannot be given credit for commissioning any of the great paintings of the day », though even this is not entirely true. Bad luck has played its part here. Some of the paintings that may have been executed for Lorenzo are lost or, at least, cannot be securely identified. One particularly regrets the destruction of Lorenzo's villa at Spedaletto near Arezzo, where Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio and Filippino Lippi are reported to have executed frescoes for him after 1482M. Some other important points must be borne in mind. Because Lorenzo was hampered by a shortage of funds, some of his patronage must be sought in works financed by the Florentine state. A few examples will be cited later on. For the same reason Lorenzo may have avoided costly building operations. Guicciardini remarked that, compared with his grandfather Cosimo's numerous edifices, Lorenzo's building activities were nil21. Here again fate had been unkind to Lorenzo. The only major ecclesiastical building which he partly financed was the Florentine monastery of S. Gallo. It was placed north of Porta S. Gallo and destroyed with much else that lay outside the city walls during the siege by the imperial army in 1530. While the progressive deterioration of his finances meant that his architectural and artistic patronage had to become increasingly selective, one must not exaggerate unduly the influence of this factor on his artistic preferences. Lorenzo could always find money for things which he regarded as essential or specially desirable. If he was less interested in some more traditional and ostentatious types of artistic patronage this was largely the out17 18

GOMBRICH, loc. cit., p. 304.

Memoriale di molte statue e pitture delta citta di Firenze fatto da Francesco Albertini, Prete (ed. Milanesi-Guasti, Firenze, 1863). 19 K. CLARK, Leonardo da Vinci (Pelican ed., 1967), p. 44. 20 GOMBRICH, loc. cit., p. 304, citing a letter in H. P. HORNE, Alessandro Filipepi (1908), p. 353. 21 Ed. cit., p. 198: 'rispetto alle tante e tali muraglie di Cosimo, si puo dire murassi nulla ».

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

147

come of a genuine preference for other, more unusual fields of artistic activity. His fastidious taste made him delight in classical antiques, in exquisitely carved precious stones, cameos and intaglios, ancient vases, Byzantine mosaics, medals and beautifully illuminated manuscripts. His choice of acquisitions was often highly selective. When in 1471 he could pick and choose among the collections that had once belonged to Pope Paul II, he showed a special preference for classical, mythological subjects similar to the delightful myths that enliven his own poems. While portraits of emperors and emblems of state are prominently represented in the extant inventories of Paul's treasures, Lorenzo was clearly not interested in acquiring that part of the deceased pope's collections22. Lastly, it is worth noting that Lorenzo's eyesight was poor 23 though there are no contemporary statements of the possible effects of this on his enjoyment of works of art. By the time of Comiso de' Medici's death in 1464 the best days of the Medici firm were already over24. His son, Piero, was an invalid and overmuch control was abandoned to mediocre and quarrelsome business managers. Piero also committed the Medici to dangerously speculative commercial ventures which brought disaster to his sons. When he died on 2 December 1469 he left to those two young men, of whom the elder, Lorenzo, was not yet twenty one, a bank which rested more on its past credit and on its connexion with the ruler of Florence than on adequate capital sssets. Lorenzo estimated that his father left a fortune worth some 230.000 florins 2S. It was considerably smaller than Cosimo's fortune at its peak. Much of it was tied up in assets that could not be readily realised and one has the impression that under Lorenzo the Medici bank operated without adequate cash reserves. This became patently obvious in moments of emergency, as for example in the spring and summer of 1478, after the failure of the Pazzi conspiracy to assassinate Lorenzo. Throughout his career Lorenzo will suffer from recurrent crises of liquidity. As has been already observed, in some instances it is possible to relate his expenditure on buildings and artistic objects 22 23

N. VALORI, cited by MARTELLI, loc. cit., p. 244, n. 18. N. DACOS, in N. DACOS, A. GIULIANO, U. PANNUTI, // Tesoro di Lorenzo il Magnifico, vol. I, Le Gemme (Firenze, 1972), pp. 13940. 24 The account of the declining fortunes of the Medici Bank that follows is based chiefly on R. DE ROOVER'S book cited above (1963). 25 Lorenzo's own statement in his ' ricordi' which he started to write in March 1472. I am using the text published in W. ROSCOE, The Life of Lorenzo de' Medici called the Magnificent, 10th ed. (London, 1875), p. 426 where the exact figures is 237.989 florins. But it is cited as 230.989 florins in G. PASSAVANT, Verrocchio. Sculpture, Paintings and Drawings (London, 1969), p. 172.

148 Humanism and Renaissance Historiography to the state of his finances, but there are limits to this. One has the impression that Lorenzo did many things only by choosing to forget for a while his real situation. He was never so desperate that he could not indulge a particular fancy. While Lorenzo soon learnt to discharge masterfully his heavy share of state affairs, he felt unable to spare much time for the Medici bank. He had not been prepared for a business career and his tastes did not lie that way. In December 1469 Lorenzo certainly did not realise that only drastic changes could avert the decline of the Medici bank. At that stage he knew very little about his family's firm and was not prepared to intervene very actively in its affairs. When shortly afterwards Angelo Tani, one of the most experienced retired Medici senior executives, appealed to him to deal with disputes at Bruges, Lorenzo replied that « he did not understand such matters » 26 . He took over complacently a group of second-rate managers. Cosimo had never fully trusted these mediocrities and they owed their prominence chiefly to recent promotion under Piero. Lorenzo's most misguided decision was the retention, as the general manager, of Francesco Sassetti, to whom for nearly twenty years he virtually abandoned the control over the bank. This vain and weak man closed his eyes for far too long to the frauds perpetrated by some of the branch managers. Ultimately Sassetti lost most of his own fortune, invested in the branch at Lyons. The fraudulent manager of the latter, Lionetto de' Rossi, was belatedly dealt with in 1485 when he was enticed to visit Florence and was there arrested for debt27. Sassetti also made no serious effort to resolve the conflicts between the different branches of the Medici enterprise. Cosimo had always imposed uniform policies and he would not have tolerated for a moment any attempt by particular managers to go their own way. Under Lorenzo a virtual war developed between his maternal uncle, Giovanni Tornabuoni, who was the manager of the Rome branch, and the Bruges office, run by Tommaso Portinari, a special protege of Sassetti. This feud revolved chiefly round Piero's new commercial ventures. Cosimo had always tried to restrict the business of the Medici as far as possible to purely banking operations and to specialise in making short term loans to reputable merchants. Piero was tempted into aiming at a monopoly of the European trade in alum, a mineral indispensable for the dyeing of textiles 28. 26

R. DE ROOVER, op. cit., p. 365 and p. 483, n. 49: 'die lui non se intendeva'. 27 Ibid., pp. 301-4. 28 In addition to R. DE ROOVER'S account, op. cit., much supplementary information is available in J. DELUMEAU, L'Alun de Rome, XV'-XIX' siecle (Paris, 1962), especially, pp. 82-95.

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

149

After 1463 the Medici branch at Rome added to its traditional business of acting as the papal bankers the novel enterprise of exporting huge quantities of alum. Lasting success could be achieved in this business only if stringent precautions were taken against the over-saturation of the market. But, in order to satisfy the Papacy, the Medici soon began to take over excessive amounts of alum. Its successful marketing required a careful synchronization of operations between all the branches of the Medici bank which was not possible under Lorenzo. The biggest consignments were naturally destined for the textile industries of the Netherlands, but harmonious co-operation was quite impossible between Tornabuoni at Rome and Portinari at Bruges. Under Lorenzo the alum venture came near to destroying the Medici altogether. In the Netherlands it made them excessively dependent on the good will of the local territorial ruler, Duke Charles the Rash. The Duke demanded huge loans which Tommaso Portinari was most eager to advance and Sassetti was weak enough to condone. Only belatedly did Lorenzo grasp that Portinari was doing this « in order to court the Duke's favour and make himself important » and that he « did not care whether it was at our expense ». These comments occur in a memorandum of Lorenzo written in 1479, a year after the London and the Bruges branches had to be abandoned altogether having involved the Medici in staggering losses estimated at some 70.000 ducats 29. Even worse things happened at Rome, though in 1469 Lorenzo had no inkling of danger from that quarter. In addition to expanding advances on the security of the papal alum, Lorenzo also agreed to free Pope Paul II from the embarrassing demands of the creditors of Paul's predecessor, Pope Pius II. In return for repaying these debts, which the Venetian ambassador at Naples estimated at 35.000 ducats, Lorenzo received as a security some of Paul's cameos and medals30. Lorenzo delighted in these precious objects and wanted to retain them permanently. His chance came when Paul II suddenly died on 26 July 1471. Lorenzo may have helped to finance the election of his successor, Sixtus IV, on 10 August 147131. Lorenzo's « riccordi » written in March 1472, mention his visit to Rome to congratulate the new pontiff. It is a very brief record, mentioning chiefly Lorenzo's pleasure at acquiring on this occasion some antiques and a quantity of cameos, intaglios and medals32. He specifically mentions

29 30 31 32

R. DE ROOVER, op. cit., pp. 348-9. N. DACOS, op. cit., p. 153, n. 15. Ibid. W. ROSCOE, op. cit., p. 427.

150

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

a gift by Sixtus of two antique heads of Augustus and Agrippa33. It is far from clear how many other objects he acquired and on what terms he came to possess them34, but parts of Paul's collections certainly passed into his hands, including the splendid « tazza Farnese », a beautiful, engraved Hellenistic agate, probably of Egyptian origin. It is the most precious object in the inventory of the Medici treasures drawn up in 1492, where it is valued at 10.000 florins35. The friendship between Lorenzo and Sixtus IV did not endure for long. Lorenzo's obstruction of the papal scheme for creating a principality for one of the pope's nephews, Girolamo Riario, was apparently the main reason for enmity, but financial disagreements also helped to stir trouble. Between 1470 and 1474 advances from the Medici on the security of alum formed an important part of the papal budgets and Sixtus may have privately resented his financial dependence on Lorenzo. By 1474 he was openly disappointed by the failure of the Medici to market papal alum successfully. The Medici had allowed the market for alum to become glutted and they were actually losing money36. Sixtus showed his resentment in July 1474 by depriving the Medici branch at Rome of its traditional function as the Depositary General of the Papal See and he withdrew the papal funds deposited there. In December 1474 the Medici retorted by forcing the pope to accept a fifty per cent cut in the royalties on alum37. Commercially this was probably a justified adjustment and when in June 1476 Sixtus transferred the alum monopoly to the rival Florentine firm of the Pazzi he had to do so on terms that were not much better38. Sixtus was acquainted with the plans of Girolamo Riario and the Pazzi to destroy the Medici altogether by an armed attack on them. In the early months of 1478 the financial reputation of the Medici bank was already so shaken that Renato, the cleverest of the Pazzi, counselled the abandonment of the plot, as the Medici might soon become bankrupt in any case. Renato thought that the Pazzi might be able to engineer the downfall of the Medici bank by ordinary financial manipulations39. But violent counsels prevailed. On 26 33

The head of Agrippa has been preserved and in 1939 was kept in the Uffizi Gallery. Cf. Mostra Medicea, Palazzo Medici (Firenze, 1939), p. 80. 34 N. DACOS, op. cit., p. 136: 'Non sono state ancora fin qui chiarite le circostanze in cui le gemme di Paolo II passarono ai Medici'. 35 MUNTZ, op. cit., p. 66; no. 43 (pp. 69-72), in // Tesoro di Lorenzo il Magnifico, I, Le Gemme (1973). 36 R. DE ROOVER, op. cit., p. 163. 37 DELUMEAU, op. cit., p. 87. 38 Ibid., pp. 88-9. 39 FRANCESCO GUICCIARDINI, 'Storie Florentine', ed. cit. (1953), p. 187

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

151

April 1478 the two Medici brothers were attacked at High Mass in Florence cathedral and only Lorenzo escaped alive. Sixtus declared war on the Medicean Florence and was supported by the king of Naples and other allies. By the time the war was over in the early months of 1480, the Medici bank had suffered, in the words of Niccolo Valori, Lorenzo's well-informed earliest biographer, « almost irreparable losses » 40 . According to the second, revised version of Valori's biography, the various branches of the Medici bank incurred liabilities surpassing 200.000 florins41. From the start of the emergency Lorenzo tried to call in as many of the debts due to him as could conceivably be recovered. He was even putting pressure on indispensable allies like the rulers of Milan and Mantua 42 . On 18 June 1478 Marchese Federico of Mantua, who had just succeeded his father, asked Lorenzo to postpone for some months the demands for the repayment of nearly 12.000 ducats, but in vain. Faced with Lorenzo's refusal, Marchese Federico reported a month later that he was sending 2.000 ducats raised from the sale of his « piu belle et migliori possessione » 43 . Lorenzo, while thanking him for this, reiterated demands for the autstanding balance and was even pressing for the repayment of sums that were not normally due until the following year. He tried to temper these requests by reiterated accounts of his acute embarrassment and profuse apologies. Lorenzo's letters to his ambassador at Milan confirm his regret at having to harass these valued allies for money44. According to Guicciardini Lorenzo saved his bank only by appropriating the money of his friends and public funds. He gives two specific examples 45. Lorenzo allegedly kept for himself some of the money deposited by the Florentine government for the wages of the troops. This charge has not been corroborated so far from other records, but his other example can be fully confirmed. According to Guicciardini, in the course of 1478 Lorenzo appropriated 60.000 ducats which belonged to Lorenzo's young cousins, the sons of Pierfrancesco de' Medici. A document

40

Cited in M. MARTELLI, loc. cit. (1964), p .247: 'I governatori delle ragioni de' Medici in diverse parti si scopersero... essere in grandissimo e quasi irreparabile disdrdine'. 41 Ibid., p. 247. In the first version the figure was left blank. 42 FRANCESCA MORANDINI, ' II conflitto tra Lorenzo il Magnifico e Sisto IV dopo la congiura de' Pazzi', Archivio Storico Italiano, 107 (1949), pp. 113-54 and G. PRATicb, 'Lorenzo il Magnifico e i Gonzaga', ibid., pp. 155-71. 43 PRATICO, loc .cit., pp. 160-61. 44 MORANDINI, loc. cit., pp. 122-3 (letter of 6 August 1478): 'e per questa cagione essendo cresciuto il bisogno m'e necessario importunari oltre 1'usanza mia'. 45 Ed. cit. (1953), pp. 193-94.

152

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

from the private Medici archives shows that between 1 May and 27 September he did in fact take over in six separate instalments 53.643 florins 46. This « loan » was still not repaid in 1485 when the victims came of age and were in a position to demand restitution47. The disaster of the « Pazzi war » led to the liquidation of several Medici branches48. The abandonment in 1478 of the Bruges bank has already been noted. The branch at Venice disappeared between 1479 and 1481, though subordinate Medici factors continued to be maintained there. The Milan branch was given up in the later months of 1478 when its former manager was induced to take it over as an independent firm. The Avignon and Montpellier branches were wound up by 1480. In his tax return of 1481 Lorenzo had to make some very embarrassing admissions. « In making out this report I shall not follow the same procedures as my father in 1469, because there is a great difference between that time and the present, with the consequence that I have suffered many losses in several of my undertakings » 49 . On this occasion Lorenzo was freed from the new taxes imposed in that year by a decision of a special commission appointed to administer them. The commission considered that he was in no position to pay and that to expose the bad state of his finances would be to inflict grave injury to the city and government50. Guicciardini implies that thereafter the Medici Bank was only kept going by further help from the state51. As soon as the nightmare of the « Pazzi war » was over, Lorenzo tried to resume his favourite private pursuits. In July 1479 he had become the owner of a villa at Poggio a Caiano, some 11 km. north of Florence, which had previously belonged to the father-in-law of one of Lorenzo's sisters. It was reconstructed between 1480 and 1485 52 by Lorenzo's favourite architect, Giuliano da Sangallo, as a purely civilian residence, without any warlike features. One of the most striking things in it, dating from Lorenzo's time, is the long frieze over the entrance in coloured glazed terracotta, executed by the Delia Robbia workshop

46

R. DE ROOVER, Archivio Storico Italiano, 107 (1949), cit. supra, p. 181 and n. 15. 47 See below. 48 See R. DE ROOVER, op. cit. (1963), passim. 49 Ibid., p. 373. 50 C. M. ADY, Lorenzo de' Medici and Renaissance Italy (London, 1955), p. 41. 51 Ed. cit. (1953), p. 194: ' Cosi di poi in altro tempo si valse del publico per soccorrere a' bisogni e necessita sua, che furone piu volte si grandi che nello 84 per non fallire...'. 52 For some discussion of the dates see C. VON FABRICZY, Giuliano da Sangallo (Berlin, 1902), p. 16.

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

153

and possibly designed by Sangallo himself53. The frieze consists of a number of classical reliefs, the central scene being clearly copied from a Roman sarcophagus 54 which probably belonged to the Medici and which stands to-day outside the Museo del Duomo at Florence. Reference has already been made to the frescoes executed in 1482 on Lorenzo's orders in his villa at Spedaletto and now unfortunately lost. When Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga died on 20 October 1483 Lorenzo hastened to acquire his- collection of cameos and other precious objects. Some of them were among the few things that ten years later Lorenzo's incompetent son, Piero, was able to carry off on his sudden expulsion from Florence in November 149455. Lorenzo's acquisition of the villa at Poggio a Caiano provided some consolation for the necessity of abandoning in 1485 the ancestral villa of Caffagiolo, the oldest of the Medici country properties, in the heart of the uplands of the Mugello from which the Medici had originally migrated to Florence. Lorenzo's grandfather, Cosimo, had acquired it in 1443 from an impoverished cousin56. Now, in 1485, Lorenzo had to relinquish it again because he could not repay the 53.643 florins of cash which he had appropriated to himself in 1478 from the sons of Pierfrancesco de' Medici. On reaching adult age they claimed, with interest, 105.880 florins. Lorenzo managed to scale this down to 61.400 florins 57 , thereby perpetuating the enmity of his two cousins. Caffagiolo had to be abandoned to them in repayment of this debt. With it went the farms and other properties in the Mugello which had been carefully developed by Cosimo. It was a very painful loss for Lorenzo. He loved that countryside with its splendid hunting grounds. He had described it in several of his poems and showed the mastery of its dialect in his youthful little novel of « Nencia da Barberino ». In the following year (1486) Lorenzo had also to sell the Medici palace in Milan which had been given in 1455 to his grandfather Cosimo by Duke Fran53

This suggestion has been recently revived by P. SANPAOLESI, ' La casa fiorentina di Bartolomeo Scala', in Studien zur Toskanischen Kunst. Festschrift jur Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich (Miinchen, 1964), p. 286. His arguments form part of a wider reconsideration of Sangallo's designs. 54 A. CHASTEL, op. cit. (1961), pp. 221-22. 55 E. MUNTZ, Precursori e Propugnatori del Rinascimento (Firenze, 1920), p. 142; GROTE, op. cit. (1974), p. 7, n. 19. This collection does not appear to have been included in the Medici inventory of 1492 (ibid., p. 14, n. 19). 56 D. KENT, ' I Medici in esilio. Una vittoria di famiglia ed una disfatta personale', Archivio Storico Italiano, 132 (1974), pp. 7,63. 57 R. DE ROOVER, Archivio Storico Italiano, 107 (1949), cit. supra, pp. 181-82.

154

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

cesco Sforza to provide the headquarters for the Milanese branch of the Medici bank58. According to Guicciardini the sale represented one of the measures taken to avoid the threatening bankruptcy of the Medici firm59. Lorenzo managed to drive a hard bargain, for in addition to raising in this way 4.000 ducats, he received also another palace at Milan60. Guicciardini notes that in orde.r to compensate for the decline of income from his bank, Lorenzo deliberately developed his country properties61. This was much nearer to Lorenzo's real tastes as well as much more under his complete control. His poems reveal an acute observation of the countryside and his descriptions of nature are among the most vivid and beautiful things in them. The principal group of Lorenzo's estates,lay near the sea in the territory of Pisa where he possessed in 1492 a summer palace at Agnano in the hills east of the city and properties in eleven other localities. The interest of the Medici in this district went back to Cosimo's time, but Lorenzo had expanded this group of estates. Land was plentiful in the region of Pisa and relatively cheap. This complex of estates, which included extensive pastures, much arable land and a cheese factory at Vico Pisano, was valued at some 40.000 florins62. Here and at Poggio a Caiano, where Lorenzo possessed another profitable farm, he kept highly reputed herds of cattle, a specially fine breed of pigs imported from Calabria and sheep with particularly long tails immortalised in one of Piero di Cosimo's pictures. Poggio boasted of its plantations of mulberry trees on which were reared large numbers of silkworms and the place was overrun with golden pheasants specially imported from Sicily63. Raymond de Roover discusses the possibility that Florentine banking and commerce were less profitable in the last quarter of the fifteenth century than they had been earlier on. Lorenzo's preference for expanding his estates could be interpreted as a conscious reaction to this. But one must not exaggerate the

58

CASATI, «Document! sul Palazzo chiamato ' II Banco Mediceo'», Archivio Storico Lombardo, anno 12 (ser. 2, vol. 2), 1885, p. 582. 59 Ed. cit. (1953), p. 194. Guicciardini mistakenly places the sale in 1484. 60 R. RIDOLFI, L'Archivio della Famiglia Guicciardini (Firenze, 1931), p. 35 and n. 2. 61 Ed. cit. (1953), p. 194. 62 M. MALLET, 'Pisa and Florence in the fifteenth century', in N. RUBINSTEIN (ed.), Florentine Studies. Politics and Society in Renaissance Florence (London, 1968), pp. 433-35. 63 E. L. S. HORSBURGH, Lorenzo the Magnificent (London, 1908), p. 462 and E. ARMSTRONG, in the Proceedings of the British Academy, 10 (1923), p. 198.

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

155

extent of the general Florentine business crisis and De Roover rightly recognizes that the decline of the Medici bank was due above all to the lack of efficient management under Lorenzo64. Sassetti was drawing attention to persistant weaknesses when he wrote to Lorenzo in May 1489: « I should not omit to tell you that, if your managerial staff is not ruled with more discipline and greater firmness than in times past, trouble will recur » 65 . Really competent Florentine bankers were still able to secure high profits in the years 1470-90, notably Filippo Strozzi. A salient feature of Strozzi's business was the progressing accumulation of large cash reserves as a precaution against unexpected emergencies66. This was something that Lorenzo was seemingly unable to do. He himself had to turn to Strozzi for help. When in 1487 Lorenzo was serving as one of the officials in charge of Florentine public debt, ha and his colleagues were unable to raise their shares of an emergency loan that they were expected to advance as one of the duties of their office. They all had to borrow from Strozzi who provided altogether 21.100 florins. Lorenzo's share was the largest of all, 9.000 florins borrowed at between 12 1/2 % and 13 % of interest. This was a slightly lower rate than the 14 % charged by Strozzi to all the others67. Strozzi was anxious to humour the effective ruler of Florence whom in 1491 he named as one of the overseers of the execution of his testament68. Well-informed bankers were becoming openly distrustful of the Medici bank. In January 1490 the Medici branch at Naples redeemed from the Genoese firm of the Centurioni the papal tiara of Pope Innocent VIII 69 . This formed part of Lorenzo's policy of friendship with Innocent which had yielded high political dividends already in the previous year, when in March 1489 Lorenzo had secured the secret promotion to the cardinalate of his second son Giovanni, the future Pope Leo X, at the ripe age of thirteen70. But Lorenzo's high political standing could

64 65

Op. cit. (1963), pp. 372-75. Ibid., p. 362. 66 Ibid., p. 374 and R. A. GOLDTHWAITE, Private Wealth in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1968), pp. 56-64. 67 GOLDTHWAITE, op. cit., p. 66. 68 G. BINI e P. BIGAZZI, Vita di Filippo Strozzi il Vecchio scritto da Lorenzo suo Figlio (Firenze, 1851), p. 65. 69 MUNTZ, op. cit. (1888), p. 96. 70 R. PALMAROCCHI, 'Lorenzo de' Medici e la nomina cardinalizia di Giovanni', Archivio Storico Italiano, 110 (1952), pp. 38-54. Lorenzo was determined that he must not let slip the opportunity of such a friendly pontificate without achieving a cardinalate for his nominee (ibid., p. 46). See also W. WELLIVER, L'Impero Fiorentino (Firenze, 1957), pp. 177-197.

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography not suffice to impress careful bankers. A balance of 4.360 ducats still remained due to the Centurioni, who refused to accept a promissory note of the Medici, but insisted instead on receiving a guarantee of Filippo Strozzi71. The Medici had, of course, to pay interest on this to the Strozzi. Historians are familiar with statements of Francesco Guicciardini, Pietro Parenti and other Florentine writers that Lorenzo had been misappropriating public funds. Reference has already been made to allegations of this during the war of 1478-80. At least one archive document seems to corroborate that these malpractices persisted during the last years of Lorenzo's life. In 1495 the government of Florence claimed from the administrators of the sequestrated Medici properties the large sum of 74.948 florins, which at various times had been illegally paid to Lorenzo by the city steward in charge of the public debt funds 72 . Lorenzo's favourite sculptor, Andrea Verrocchio, left Florence for Venice between 1483 and 1486, and died there in 1488. After the fall of the Medici regime in 1494 Andrea's brother, Tommaso, presented a detailed claim for the debts allegedly due from Lorenzo. It provides a very complete list of the works executed by Andrea for the Medici between c. 1466 and 1483. Tommaso may have been simply trying this on, but his claim must have had at least some plausibility. If he was telling the truth, Lorenzo had been chronically neglecting to pay his debts to one of the principal artists employed by him and not even bothered to pay for the tombs of his grandfather Cosimo, and his father and uncle, Piero and Lorenzo. Furthermore, one of the works on Tommaso's list, the statue of David, had been promptly resold by the Medici to the city of Florence for the considerable sum of 150 florins73. Verrocchio certainly profited, however, from artistic commissions procurred through the favour of the Medici. For example, in 1478 the city authorities of Pistoia cancelled a commission to Piero del Pollaiolo for a monument commemorating a deceased Pistoiese cardinal because Lorenzo had recommended the choice of Verrocchio. The men of Pistoia would have pre71

MUNTZ, op. cit., p. 96: 'Preterea vogliamo che intendiate che e stato necessario sicurare a Centurioni di 4360 ducati... et per questa somma non hanno i Centurioni voluta la promessa qui del Bancho ma la promessa delli Strozzi' (letter of the Medici branch at Naples to Lorenzo). 72 R. DE ROOVER, op. cit. (1963), p. 367. " GOMBRICH, loc. cit. (1960), p. 306. The full list of Tommaso's claims was first printed by C. VON FABRICZY, 'Andrea del Verrocchio ai servizi de' Medici', Archivio storico dell'arte, I (1895), pp. 167-76 (including an attempt to identify all these works).

Lorenzo de' Medici's Finances and Patronage

157

ferred Pollaiolo's design, partly because it was cheaper. Lorenzo's preference for Verrocchio outran their funds but his suggestion was law74. From 1479 to his death in 1492 Lorenzo was continuously one of the Operai del Palagio in charge of all the works in the palace of the Florentine Signoria75. He was clearly the most important man on that committee and great deference was paid to his judgement. On 27 September 1485 the Operai agreed that the fixing of the price of an altarpiece by Filippino Lippi in the council chamber of the palace was to be left to Lorenzo76. The same thing happened with commissions for various Florentine churches. Thus, when the commune of Florence assigned an altar panel to Domenico Ghirlandaio, it was stipulated in 1483 that it should be done « according to the standards, manner and form as it will seem to and please ... Lorenzo » 77 . Discussions about the new sacristy at S. Spirito were ended with a resolution on 14 August 1489 that it was to be made according to a model executed by Giuliano da Sangallo on instructions of Lorenzo78. Raymond de Roover is almost certainly correct in remarking that « if Medici rule had not been overthrown in 1494 because of Piero's political ineptitude and the French invasion, it might have ended even more disgracefully in a financial crash of the first order. The Medici bank was at this time on the brink of bankruptcy » 79 . Lorenzo's excessive neglect of his bank in his last years is vividly illustrated by an incident after Piero's flight from Florence in November 1494. When Piero had to escape from Florence at a few hours, notice the only things that he could snatch away were some of the precious small objects from Lorenzo's collections. Piero counted on being able to receive help from such Medici agents as still existed in other parts of Italy. On his arrival at Venice he asked the local Medici factor to supply him and two companions with cloth worth a mere 100 ducats, but met with a refusal. This upset Piero terribly, as he confessed to the French ambassador, Philippe de Commynes. Obviously Lorenzo had failed to maintain loyal and dependable collaborators 80. 74

GOMBRICH, loc. cit., p. 306; W. R. VALENTINER, Studies of Italian Renaissance Sculpture, p. 153. 75 N. RUBINSTEIN, The Government of Florence under the Medici (1434 to 1494), Oxford, 1966, p. 220, n. 1. 76 G. POGGI, 'Note su Filippino Lipi', Rivista d'Arte, 6 (1909), pp. 306-7. 77 GOMBRICH, loc. cit., p. 306. 78 C. VON FABRICZY, op. cit. (Sangallo, 1902) pp. 5, 30. 79 Op. cit., p. 370. 80 J. CALMETTE (ed.), Philippe de Commynes: Memoires, III (Paris, 1925), pp. 65-66.

This page intentionally left blank

7

THE LIBRARY OF LORENZO DE' MEDICI*

I In 1954 R. Devreesse, in his invaluable introduction to the study of the ancient Greek manuscripts, urged the need for a history of the formation and growth of Greek collections in the libraries of western Europe. Such a book would make an important contribution to the history of western culture and learning.1 The library of Lorenzo de' Medici and his sons was one of the earliest of these collections. Only the holdings of the papal library surpassed it in size.2 In scholarly quality of its Greek texts it was surpassed, or at least rivalled, only by the papal collection, the manuscripts of the Dominican convent of S. Marco at Florence and of the dukes of Urbino and by the bequest made to Venice in 1468 by Cardinal Bessarion, though this last did not become easily accessible to scholars until the second quarter of the sixteenth century.3 * Many friends have given me help over several years. I particularly wish to thank Dr. R. Elze, the Director of the German Institute at Rome, for helping to procure the micro-films of the inventories of the Medici library from the Vatican library. Several friends on the staff of the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth have aided me in many different ways, especially D. Huws and Philip Davies from the Department of Manuscripts and Non Jenkins and Jean Jones from the Department of Printed Books as did Dr. Chr. Ligota of the Warburg Institute in London. I have had constant help and encouragement over many years from Professor N. Rubinstein and I particularly wish to thank him for persuading the authorities of the Laurenziana library at Florence to allow me to see some of their most precious manuscripts. Meredydd Evans has read and helped me to correct the text of the article. Isobel Harvey and Anita Rees have aided me in checking parts of it. 1 R. Devreesse, Introduction a I'dtude des Manuscrits Grecs (Paris, 1954), p. 98. 2 There were 880 Greek manuscripts in the papal library in Sept. 1481. Cf. R. Devreese, Collectanea Vaticana in Honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi no. 219, 1962), p. 325 compared with fewer than 500 Greek volumes in the Medici collection in 1494. 3 For the Vatican collection see R. Devreesse, Le fonds grec de la bibliotheque vaticane des origines a Paul V (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi 244, 1955). For the Urbino library see the inventory of C. Stornajolo Codices Urbinates Graeci (Citta del Vaticano, 1895). For Bessarion's library see especially L. Labovsky, 'II Cardinale Bessarione e gli inizi della Biblioteca

160

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

I am preparing for publication a list of the contents of the private library of the Medici c. 1510, in so far as it can be reconstructed, and I am using for this purpose an important new source, the two inventories of the Greek and Latin manuscripts returned in 1508 to Lorenzo's second son, Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici (the future Pope Leo X).4 The present article tries to illustrate some of the new evidence that can be derived from this fresh source. There has been no detailed attempt to trace the history of the Medici private library under Lorenzo and his sons since E. Piccolomini's remarkable publications in 1874-55 and there is a need for combining various piecemeal studies during the succeeding hundred years with the fresh evidence provided by the inventories of Cardinal Giovanni's collection. Such an article can also throw some light on the intellectual patronage of Lorenzo and especially on the use made of his library by Politian, the ablest scholar of Lorenzo's entourage. Hitherto the only fairly full list of the contents of Lorenzo's library available to scholars has consisted of an inventory drawn up in 1495, nearly a year after the expulsion from Florence of his son, Piero de' Medici, on 9 November 1494.6 It is an excessively summary list, often imprecise and even downright careless. Unlike the Latin and Italian manuscripts of the Medici, which were often specially copied for them and include evidence of this, the bulk of the Greek manuscripts possessed by the Medici in 1494 were acquired by purchase and they seldom contain any indications of having belonged to that family in the fifteenth century. Yet they comprised a considerable number of older Byzantine manuscripts and there are some very precious texts among them. Fuller identification of this part of the collection is most desirable and fresh progress can be made with the aid of the inventory of the Greek manuscripts of Cardinal Giovanni. The compiler of these two Greek and Latin

Maiciana' in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e I'Oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento (Florence, 1966) and Concetta Bianca, 'La formazione della biblioteca latina del Bessarione', in Scrittura, Biblioteche e Stampa a Roma nel Quattrocento (Citta del Vaticano, 1980), with a full bibliography of previous publications (especially p. 104, n. 6). I owe thanks to the author for a copy of her article. See also T. Gasparrini-Leporace e E. Mioni, Cento Codici Bessarionei (Venice, 1968). For San Marco of Florence see below, section 2. 4 The Greek inventory is in ms. Vat. Barb. Lat. 3185, fos. 2r.-76v. and the Latin inventory in ms. Vat. Lat. 7134, fos. 209v.-255r. 5 E. Piccolomini, 'Intorno alle condizioni ed alle vicende della Libreria Medicea privata', Archivio Storico Italiano, 3rd ser., 19 and 20 (1874), 21 (1875). There is a very brief but useful, recent account published by the Biblioteca Laurenziana at Florence, La Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Cenni Storici (Florence, 1981), pp. 15. 6 Piccolomini,loc. cit., 20 (1874), pp. 52-94.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

161

inventories, Fabio Vigili, was an accomplished humanist and an important papal official. He appears to have been particularly interested in the Greek manuscripts and his list of them is careful and often detailed. With its aid it is possible to identify over four-fifths of the Greek collection. A number of old and valuable Greek manuscripts can now be shown to have been present in Italy already by 1494 at the latest.6 a The proportion of the Medicean Latin manuscripts that can be securely identified is somewhat smaller. Vigili's inventory is less helpful here. Fortunately, more varied types of evidence can be used. The Latin part of the collection consisted for the most part of recent fifteenth century copies which have little or no independent textual value. But their provenance and date can often be satisfactorily established, especially as many of them were commissioned by the Medici themselves. These special commissions entailed the insertions of the Medicean emblems and mottoes which make it easier to identify and date them. The two inventories compiled by Fabio Vigili have been known for a long time to a few specialists7 but they have not been used systematically in any published account of the Medici library.8 Their compilation marks the last point in time at which Lorenzo's collection can be distinguished from later additions to it made by Pope Leo X and by the other Medici in the sixteenth century. 9 The Medicean library 6a See below, section 5 and appendices 2 and 3. 7 P. Fabre, 'La Vaticane de Sixte IV, Melanges d' Archeologie et d'Histoire, 15 (1895), pp. 475-9 (only the Latin inventory); R. Sabbadini, 'Cataloghi di Biblioteche nel Codice Vaticano Barberiniano lat. 3185', R. Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Letters, Rendiconti, ser. II, 38 (1905), pp. 911-15; G. Mercati, 'Scritti ecclesiastici greci copiati da Giovanni Fabri nella Vaticana', Bessarione, 37 (1921), p. 115 (both the Greek and Latin inventories); G. Levi della Vida, Ricerche sulla formazione del piu antico fondo del manoscritti orientali della Biblioteca Vaticana (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, no. 92, 1939), pp. 33-41 (both Greek and Latin inventories and a discussion of their date and author); M. Bertola, I due primi registri di prestito della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Codici Vaticani Latini 3964, 3966 (Citta del Vaticano, 1942), pp. XII-XIII; M. H. Laurent, Fabio Vigili et les bibliotheques de Bologne au debut du XVIe siecle d'apres le ms. Barb. Lat. 3185 (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, no. 105, 1943), dating the Greek inventory between 1508 and the battle of Ravenna on 11 April 1512 (destruction of one of the libraries listed in it), p. XXII; A. Pertusi, 'La scoperta di Euripide nel primo umanesimo', Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 3 (1960), pp. 118-20 (the only published detailed example of the usefulness of the Greek inventory); R. Devreese, Le fond grec de la Bibliotheque Vaticane des origines d Paul V (op. cit., 1965), pp. 152-84 (ed. of Vigili's inventory of mss. of Pope Julius II, c. 1510); A. Diller, 'Notes on the history of somemss. of Aristotle', in K. Treu (ed.), Studio Codicologica (Berlin, 1977), pp. 147-51 (includes some valuable suggestions but also several hasty guesses and errors). 8 The late Dr. Teresa Lodi, the former direttrice of the Biblioteca Laurenziana at Florence, did draw up a very valuable, provisional list of identifications of the Greek inventory with the known original manuscripts. I wish to thank the present direttrice, Dr. A. Morandini, for allowing me in August 1982 to compare Dr. Lodi's typescript list with my own identifications. 9 For the history of the collection in the sixteenth century two recent publications of

162

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

was brought back to Florence by Leo's cousin, Pope Clement VII, soon after 1523. Its first keeper at Florence was Pier Francesco Giambullari and he may have been responsible for a new continuous numeration.10 His successor, Baccio Baldini, appointed in 1555, unfortunately rebound all the manuscripts, thus obliterating much evidence about earlier owners and previous cataloguing schemes, including most of the serial numbers that Vigili inserted into the Greek manuscripts listed by him between 1508 and 1510.n The core of the collection kept to-day at the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence is formed by manuscripts that existed there already at the public opening of the library on 11 June 1571. The volumes in it had uniform serial numbers. As far as the Greek and Latin manuscripts are concerned, all the ones that had been acquired by 1571 are to be found in the main series of manuscritti Laurenziani distributed through plutei 1-87. Some further acquisitions during the next two hundred years were also included within the same system of classification. In reconstructing the contents of the library of Lorenzo and his sons down to 1510 we have the problem of separating this earliest collection from the acquisitions made subsequently but still included within the same cataloguing scheme. This requires an understanding of the history of the Medici library for a long period after 1510. II

A history of the private library of the Medici must start with the first known inventory of the books kept in the Casa Medici, drawn up in March 1418.12 In the camera of Giovanni the head of the family, there were only three religious works. That astute banker and founder of the family's fortunes was obviously not a scholar. But in the study (scritoio) of his eldest son, Cosimo (born in 1389), there are listed sixty three books and two more were apparently away on loan. Latin classical authors formed about a third of the collection and there were also numerous religious works. Lastly there were several copies of the Biblioteca Laurenziana at Florence are very useful: La Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (op. cit., 1981) and, for the sixteenth century, La Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana nel secolo della sua apertura al pubblico (11 Giugno 1571), Florence, 1971 (cited hereafter as Laurenziana, 16c., 1971). 10 A. Hobson, "The iter italicum of Jean MataT, Studies in the Book Trade in Honour of Graham Pollard (Oxford, 1975), p. 41. I owe this reference to the kindness of Prof. Philip A. Stadter. 11 For a further discussion of the probable date see below, section 6. 12 First published by F. Pintor in 1902 and republished as 'La libreria di Cosimo' de Medici nel 1418', in Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 3 (1960), pp. 190-99. The text of the inventory is on pp. 197-9.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

163

Dante, Petrarch and other vernacular writers. Cosimo would continue to acquire these three categories of books for the rest of his life. A considerable proportion of Cosimo's books in 1418, and of his later acquisitions, did not remain in the Medicean collection in 1495 because Cosimo had given them away in bequests to favoured monasteries. The assembling of books was not a matter of priority for Cosimo but was merely one among his many activities. He treated books as part of his ostentatious patronage of religious houses. Above all, he endowed the library of the newly founded Dominican convent of San Marco giving it many of his Latin acquisitions and all the Greek manuscripts that had come into his possession.13 He also commissioned the copying of numerous books intended for the Benedictine abbey of Fiesole.14 Cosimo had the wealth to acquire any valuable manuscripts that became available at Florence and sufficient learning to appreciate the worth of novel classical texts. As has been noted before, the Latin section of the Medici library in 1495 was not of outstanding scholarly value, taken as a group, but a fair proportion of its more precious texts originated in Cosimo's acquisitions. Some rare and venerable manuscripts appear already in the inventory of 1418. Of the books that descended to Lorenzo, ms. Laur. 66. 21 deserves special notice. It contains the epitome of the history of Trogus by Justinus, was writeen in the second half of the eleventh century at Monte Cassino and is a valuable witness to one early tradition of the text. 15 The recent discoveries of Poggio and his companions in France, Germany and Switzerland were also well-represented. Among the manuscripts that passed to Lorenzo should be noted a more complete collection of Cicero's speeches, copied by Poggio in February 1416 (ms. Laur. 48. 10).16 A Quintilian 'di lettera antica' is perhaps a tenth century manuscript which Poggio claimed to have discovered at Strasbourg (ms. 13 See the definitive study by B. L. Ullman and Philip A. Stadter, The Public Library of Renaissance Florence, Niccold Niccoli, Cosimo de' Medici and the Library of San Marco (Padua, 1972, cited hereafter as Ullman-Stadter, San Marco, 1972). Cf. the review by F. di Benedetto, in Studi Medievali, 3rd ser., 14 (1973), pp. 947-60.1 owe thanks to Prof. Stadter for drawing my attention to this review. 14 Ullman-Stadter, San Marco, (1972), p. 15, n. 2, and review by F. di Benedetto (cit. in the preceding note), p. 948. 15 See especially G. Cavallo, 'La trasmissione dei testi nella area beneventano-cassinese', La Cultura antica nell' occidente latino dal VII all' XIsecolo (Spoleto, 1975), pp. 3934. It appears as no. 530 of the Latin inventory of Vigili, described as in 'littera longobardica' (ms. Vat. lat. 7134, fo.251v.). 16 See especially A. C. Clark, The Vetus Cluniacensis of Poggio (Oxford, 1905), pp. XXXIX-XLII. It is probably no. 33 of the Latin inventory of Vigili.

164

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 17

Laur. 46. 7). The inventory also contained at least three manuscripts that had belonged to Coluccio Salutati (d. 1406), who during his thirty one years as chancellor of Florence had been the leading patron of the new humanistic learning.18 After 1418 Cosimo continued to buy further manuscripts from Salutati's heirs, but he subsequently gave most of them to San Marco.19 Apart from this bequest, Cosimo's best remembered service to learning is his encouragement of the translation of the works of Plato by Marsilio Ficino. Ficino repeatedly stated that Cosimo had procured for him the complete text of Plato's works.20 The identity of the Platonic manuscript that he had received from Cosimo in 1462 has been a matter of speculation. M. Sicherl has asserted that it is ms. Laur. 59. 1 and that this is the paper ms. that Ficino left in 1499 in his testament to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, cousin and personal enemy of Lorenzo the Magnificent.21 But the Greek inventory of Vigili shows that ms. 59. 1 was among the manuscripts returned to Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici in 150822 and therefore it could not conceivably 17 A. de la Mare, The Handwriting of Italian Humanists, I (Oxford, 1973), pp. XVI and 65, n. 7. There is also an account of this manuscript in M. Winterbottom, 'Fifteenth century manuscripts of Quintilian', Class. Quart., new ser., 17 (1967), p. 353, but I find his doubts about its discovery by Poggio unconvincing. The most authoritative description of this manuscript is in B. Bishoff, Mittelalterliche Studien (3 vols., 1966-81), I, p. 46 and n. 32, and II, p. 382. 18 Salutati's known books are listed in B. L. Ullman, The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati (Padua, 1963), pp. 138-209. The items certainly, or probably, in the 1418 inventory are Ullman's nos. 5 (ms. Laur. 16.31, no. 160 of Latin Vigili, John Cassian), ms. Laur. 41.10 (Petrarch's Canzoniere) and a Valerius Maximus (no. 10 of 1418 inventory). Cf. A. C. de la Mare, Handwriting (1973, cit. supra), p. 32, n. 1. 19 These others are Ullman's nos. 9, 11, 16, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 57, 58, 62. Only two can be traced in the Latin inventory of Vigili: mss. Laur. 30.21 (Pomponius Mela, nos. 382 or 383) and 36.49 (Propertius, no. 342). 20 The texts are edited in P. O. Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum (Florence, 1937), I, p. CXLVII. 21 M. Sicherl, 'Neuentdeckte Handschriften von Marsilio Ficino und Johannes Reuchlin', Scriptorium, 16 (1962), pp. 51-2; M. Sicherl, 'Platonismus und Textiiberlieferung', Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, 15 (1966), cited from D. Harlfinger (ed.), Griechische Kodikologie und Textiiberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1980), p. 554. But Sicherl has scrupulously noted that he could not discover any notes of Ficino in Ms. Laur. 59.1 and I could not find any on careful inspection of this ms. Ficino's testament is printed by Kristeller, op. cit., II, pp. 193-5 (the bequest of the Platonic ms. is on p. 195). 22 Vigili, no. 109. This cannot refer to the only other complete Plato in the Laurenziana, ms. Laur. 85-9 (on parchment, therefore not the one given to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco by Ficino). In ms. 85-9 the various works preceding Plato are in a different order from Vigili (and from ms. 59.1) while Vigili is usually meticulously correct in listing contents in the right order. Furthermore, Vigili's list ends with Plato's letters (as virtually does ms. 59.1) while in ms. 85-9 there are several works by other authors covering fols. 366434. It would be unusual for Vigili to omit them all.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

165

be identical with the Plato given by Ficino to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco. That manuscript still remains to be traced. Cosimo occasionally entered his name in his books but, unlike his eldest son, Piero, he certainly did not do so systematically.23 Some of the volumes that are known to have belonged to Cosimo bear only Piero's ownership note. 24 Manuscripts personally commissioned by Cosimo do not include a special scheme of emblems or mottoes peculiar to him. Such things began to be introduced by his sons. A fully elaborated system of personal devices (emblems and mottoes) appeared only in books illuminated for Cosimo's grandson, Lorenzo.25 The library of San Marco has been a source of much confusion among historians. Though in the last quarter of the fifteenth century Politian was in the habit of referring to it as the Public Library of the Medici,26 it was, in reality, quite separate by that time from Lorenzo's private collection. There is no evidence that Lorenzo was even particularly interested in the San Marco manuscripts. 27 When, after the expulsion of the Medici from Florence, the private Medici library was for a time deposited at San Marco by order of the Florentine government, the two collections were kept rigorously distinct. In 1508 only the private books of the Medici were restored to Cardinal Giovanni but none of the manuscripts belonging to San Marco were forwarded to Rome. This is quite clear from the inventories of the cardinal's books compiled at Rome by Fabio Vigili.28 This distinction has not been rigorously observed in some of of the older studies of the Medici libary, with baffling results. For example, As a further argument for eliminating ms. 59.1 from among the ones used by Ficino it should be noted that it most probably entered the Medici collection only in 1492. It is probably identical with 'universa opera Platonis in uno volumine' purchased by Lascaris at Candia in Crete on 3 April, 1492. Cf. E. Legrand, Bibliographic Hellenique des XVe et XVIe siecles, II (1885), reprinted Brussels (1963), p. 327. 23 A. de la Mare, Handwriting (1973, cit. supra), p. 49, n. 2. There is a brief list of Cosimo's ownership notes entered not at the start or the end of manuscripts but inside texts in A. de la Mare, 'Messer Piero Strozzi, a Florentine priest and scribe', in A. S. Osley (ed.), Calligraphy and Palaeography. Essays presented to Alfred Fairbank (London, 1965), p. 61, n. 14. 24 A. de la Mare, Handwriting (1973, cit. supra), p. 49, n. 2. 25 F. Ames-Lewis, 'Early Medicean Devices', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 42 (1979), pp. 12243 and pp. 37-9 of the plates. I owe thanks to the author for several helpful suggestions made in conversation with me. 26 This was his usage in his Miscellanea Prima. I am using the Aldine edition (Venice, 1498) in the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. See also Ullman and Stadter, San Marco (1972), p. 49. 27 Only two books are known to have been given by him to San Marco. Cf. F. di Benedetto, Studi Medievali (1973, cit. supra), pp. 949, 959 (no. 1079). 28 This was noted by Ullman-Stadter, San Marco (1972), p. 35. My own systematic study of the Vigili inventories entirely confirms their conclusion.

166

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

K.K. Miiller was not aware of this problem in trying to identify manuscripts mentioned in a list of the Medicean Greek books found among the papers of J. Lascaris. His failure to do so makes his guesses about the date and the contents of this list unreliable.29 The confusion originated in a high-handed act of Duke Cosimo I who, some time in, or after, 1545, transferred many of the more valuable manuscripts of San Marco to the main Medici collection so that they bear to-day catalogue numbers indistinguishable from those of Lorenzo's books. The transfer was kept as secret as possible: the distinguishing possession note of San Marco was carefully scraped or cut away, together with the name of the donor, unless of course he should be Cosimo the Elder'. This transfer, or theft, had been kept 'hidden for hundreds of years, for Bandini noted in his catalogue the provenance only of those few volumes in which ... the name of San Marco was not cancelled'.30 At least 90 San Marco manuscripts were transferred in this way, of which 70 were Greek.31 In this manner many of the elder Cosimo's bequests rejoined the Medicean collection within a century of his gift of them to San Marco. While the bulk of Cosimo's books owned by him at his death in 1464 passed to his only surviving legitimate son and heir, Piero, he had previously given away some of his manuscripts to the descendants of his younger brother, Lorenzo di Giovanni,32 who had died in 1440. These manuscripts, therefore, did not form part of the Medicean collection listed in 1495 and were reunited with it only after 1537 when the descendant of this younger branch of the Medici became duke as Cosimo I. This has been another source of confusion to scholars.33 Cosimo's two legitimate sons, Piero and Giovanni, started to collect books independently of their father. Giovanni predeceased his father in 1463 and his manuscripts were mostly passed on to Piero.34 Both Piero and Giovanni developed a taste for finely illuminated manuscripts which enables us to identify works commissioned by them.35 Neither 29 K. K. Mu'ller, 'Neue Mittheilungen iiber Janos Laskaris und die Mediceische Bibliothek', Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, 1 (1884), pp. 371-9. On p. 373 alone there are six wrong guesses (mss. Laur. 60.4, 69.22, 70.9, 70.16, 70.32 which belonged to San Marco and 59.8 which probably belonged to the abbey of Settimo). 30 Ullman and Stadter, San Marco (1972), pp. 47-50. The citation is from p. 49. 31 F. di Benedetto in Studi Medievali, 3rd ser., 14 (1973, cit. supra), p. 90 and n. 13. 32 E.g., mss. Laur. 36.28 (Ovid) and 48.27 (Cicero). Both these manuscripts subsequently belonged to Lorenzo di Giovanni's grandsons, Giovanni and Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco. 33 E.g. Miiller, loc. cit., p. 379, ms. Laur. 7.28. 34 At least twenty of Giovanni's manuscripts can be identified. Cf. Ames-Lewis, loc. cit., pp. 131-4 and V. Rossi, 'L' indole e gli studi di Giovanni di Cosimo de' Medici', R. Ace. dei Lincei, 5th ser., 2(1893). 35 Ames-Lewis, loc. cit. (1979).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

167

brother knew Greek and their libraries consisted exclusively of Latin and Italian works. Piero, who was a methodical person, frequently noted his name in his own acquisitions as well as in the books that he had inherited from his father and brother. Very few of Piero's known acquisitions were old manuscripts but he commissioned numerous texts from the finest Florentine copyists and illuminators. He was making a systematic attempt to fill gaps in his collection of the ancient Latin authors and of the Latin translators of Greek writers. For example, a set of five dialogues of Cicero, written by Poggio before 1408, was completed in 1456 by Piero's leading copyist, Girardo del Ciriagio, who added Cicero's 'De Officiis'.36 One of Piero's most famous commissions was the procurement in 1458 from Vespasiano da Bisticci's Florentine bookshop of a complete set of the first, third and fourth 'Decades of Livy', written by Piero Strozzi.37 The same scribe also executed for the Medici a complete set of the Latin versions of Plutarch's lives.38 Piero's inventory of 1456, with additions made a few years later, comprised 158 books.39 The collection inherited from him in 1469 by Lorenzo and Giuliano must have been considerably larger as it had been augmented by Piero's further acquisitions during the last decade of his life as well as by his inheritance of the books of Cosimo and Giovanni. One has the impression that Piero's library was not much used by scholars,40 though this is, admittedly, merely an argument from lack of evidence. As far as is known, in 1469 it still did not contain any Greek manuscripts. All this would change under Lorenzo.

36 The probable history of this manuscript has been reconstructed by A. de la Mare, Handwriting (1973, cit. supra), p. 77. Poggio's copies probably constituted two items (nos. 25 and 26) in Cosimo's inventory of 1418. It is ms. Laur. 76.1. 37 A. de la Mare, 'Piero Strozzi' (cit. supra, 1965), pp. 57 and 64. They are mss. Laur. 63.10, 63.11 and 63.12 (Latin Vigili, nos. 451, 454, 455). 38 Ibid, pp. 58 and 65. They are mss. Laur. 65.26 and 65.27 (Latin Vigili, nos. 467 and 468). They contained 47 of Plutarch's 'Lives', but for his 'Life of Cicero' was substituted Leonardo Bruni's Cicero Novus (for which supra, chapter 2 in this volume). Piero's commission for Plutarch's 'Lives' from Vespasiano da' Bisticci was something separate and it is not sure whether it was ever completed (De la Mare, ibid, 1965, p. 58 and n. 30). For negotiations about it see A. Campana, 'Una lettera inedita di Guarino Veronese e il Plutarco mediceo della bottega di Vespasiano', Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 5 (1962). 39 Printed by Piccolomini, loc. cit., 21 (1875), pp. 106-12. For subsequent additions to it see A. M. Brown, 'Bartolomeo Scala's dealings with booksellers, scribes and illuminators, 1459-63', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 39 (1976), p. 239, n. 10. 40 It was used by Gentile Becchi, Lorenzo's tutor, who annotated the 1456 inventory. Cf. A. M. Brown, cit. in the preceding note, p. 239, n. 10.

168

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography III

Before tracing the development of the Medici library under Lorenzo an account must be given of our sources of evidence. Even without Vigili's inventories there is a considerable amount of information for the period from 1480 onwards but only those inventories can turn inquiries that had involved in the past an excessive amount of guesswork into a study based on a much larger body of solid facts. As has been just noted, the first ten years of Lorenzo's regime, down to 1480, form a sort of 'dark age' in our knowledge of the Medici library. Unlike his father, Lorenzo only very seldom inscribed his books with his name. The same was true of his brother, Giuliano, whose manuscripts passed to Lorenzo after his assassination on 26 April 1478.41 Only a few presentation copies given to the two brothers can be securely numbered among the acquisitions of the first decade of Lorenzo's rule. 42 From an early date Lorenzo was interested in acquiring Greek books: in 1476 he tried, but failed, to purchase the library of Andronico Callisto who for a few years had been professor of Greek at the University of Florence.4 2 a For the period from 6 Sept. 1480 to 15 July 1494 there has survived a record of the books lent from the Medici library.43 Most entries are not detailed enough to allow a secure identification of these manuscripts44 though with the help of Vigili inventories more can be

41 There are scattered references to Giuliano's books in the registers of loans from the Medici library. Cf. M. del Piazzo, Protocolli del carteggio di Lorenzo il Magnifico per gli anni 1472-4, 1477-92 (Florence, 1956; cited hereafter as Del Piazzo, 1956), pp. 226 (24 October 1480), 227 (17 October 1481), 228 (6 June 1482). Ms. Laur. 35.21 (Lucan, 'Pharsalia', 13c.) is 'liber luliani Petri de Medicis'. 42 They included: 1. Bartolomeo Scala 'Collectiones Cosmianae', dedicated to Lorenzo in 1470 (ms. Laur. 54.10, Vigili, no. 519); 2. Mario Filelfo 'Laurenziad', dedicated to Lorenzo (Brit. Libr. ms. Harl. 2522, corrected autograph, Nov. 1474, cf. fo. 245v.); 3. Domizio Calderini, Commentary on Juvenal, presented to Giuliano, 1474 (ms. Laur. 53.2, Vigili, no. 280), cf. E. Sandford in P. O. Kristeller, Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, I (Washington, D. C., 1960, cited henceforth as Kristeller, Catalogus), p. 219; 4. Domizio Calderini, Commentary on Martial, presented to Lorenzo (1 September 1473, ms. Laur. 53.23, Vigili, no. 279), cf. F. F. Hausmann in Kristeller, Catalogus, IV (1980), p. 253; 5. Cristoforo Landino, 'Questiones Camaldulenses', presentation copy to the Medici of 1474 (ms. Laur. 53.28, Vigili, no. 100); 6. Philostratus, 'Vita Apollonii Tyanei', trans, by Alamanno Rinuccini, presented to the Medici in 1475 (ms. Laur. 67.21, Vigili, no. 91). 42a E. Legrand, op. cit., I, pp. LIV-LV. 43 In Del Piazzo, Protocolli (op. cit., 1956), pp. 226-9, 445-9, 490-93. A part of this evidence was published by Piccolomini (cit. supra), Arch. Stor. Ital., 3rd ser., 21 (1875), pp. 282-91, but his edition is less complete. 44 For some exceptions see below, appendix 2, nos. 6, 21 and appendix 3, nos. 47, 53.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

169

achieved here than was possible in the past. There is also a wealth of other information. Lorenzo's generous policy of giving wide access to his scholarly treasures is amply documented. Books were borrowed by leading booksellers like Vespasiano da' Bisticci.45 An artist borrowed Dominizio Calderini's presentation copy of his commentary on Juvenal in order to copy the amusing assembly of satyrs on its title page.46 Various notables, both Florentine and foreign, made frequent use of the library. Some, like Pandolfo Collenuccio, the representative at Florence of the Lord of Pesaro, were distinguished men of learning.4 7 Foreign envoys resident at Florence also borrowed books on behalf of leading scholars in their own states. Thus the Milanese ambassador procured the speeches of Isocrates for Bartolomeo Calco, an important Milanese humanist. 48 Of the greatest interest are loans to leading Florentine scholars. Most numerous of all were loans of manuscripts to Politian whose increasingly close connexion with the Medicean library is one of the most important features of its history under Lorenzo.49 Politian's, and Lorenzo's, young friend, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, appears several times among borrowers. Marsilio Ficino, the leading Platonist scholar, is recorded as a borrower of a single manuscript of Proclus just after it had been brought to Florence from the East by Lascaris. But this loan took place three months after Lorenzo's death. 50 Among other borrowers should be noted Demetrius Chalcondyles, professor of Greek at the Florentine university, Bernardo Michelozzo, brother of Lorenzo's favourite secretary, Giorgantonio Vespucci, a distinguished Dominican scholar at San Marco and Janus Lascaris himself, who almost rivalled Politian in the number of books he was borrowing and failing to return. The loan registers can teach us a great deal about the growth of Lorenzo's library. The first Greek book lent out of the library on 24 Oct. 1480 had belonged to Lorenzo's murdered brother, Giuliano 51 and another early Greek loan had belonged to Lorenzo's mother, Lucretia, whose books were clearly at her son's disposal even in her 45 DelPiazzo(1956),p.226. 46 Ibid., p. 448 (4 April 1490). This is ms. 53.2 (Latin Vigili, no. 280). 47 Del Piazzo (1956), pp. 226, 229. 48 Ibid., p. 490. 49 See below, section 4. 50 Del Piazzo (1956), p. 490. This is ms. 80.9, called by modern scholars the commentary by Proclus on the 'Republic' of Plato. Ficino mentioned in a letter of 3 August 1492 that it had been brought back from Greece by Lascaris. Cf. H. D. Saffrey, 'Notes platoniciennes de Marsile Ficin dans un manuscrit de Proclus (Cod. Rice. 70)', Bibliothdque d'humanisme et de Renaissance, 21 (1959), p. 184. For further details see below, section 4. 51 Del Piazzo (1956), p. 226.

170

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 52

lifetime. As might be expected, from the start Politian was the most frequent borrower of Greek manuscripts.5 3 A massive addition to this growing Greek collection occurred in the later part of 1481 when the Greek and Latin manuscripts of Francesco Filelfo were finally acquired by Lorenzo.54 Some of them had been pledged to Lorenzo since 1472 and they mostly passed to the Medici after Filelfo's death at Florence on 31 July 1481, at the age of 83.55 Zanobi Acciaiuoli, who after the expulsion of the Medici from Florence in Nov. 1494 became the custodian of their former library at San Marco, tried to recover in 1495 any books of Filelfo that had gone astray because, as he put it, 'Lorenzo had bought almost all the books of Filelfo after his death.'56 Some of them came to rank among the most valuable scholarly treasures in Lorenzo's possession. Loans of Filelfo's books were first recorded on 1 August 1482. Again Politian was the borrower.57 The best known incident in Lorenzo's search for Greek books was the dispatch in July 1490 of Janus Lascaris to copy or buy as many Greek manuscripts as he could find elsewhere in Italy and in Greece.5 8 His purchases mostly reached Florence only after Lorenzo's death and are first recorded in the loan register under 7 July 1492.59 But it is certain that long before there had been a steady expansion of Lorenzo's Greek holdings. The loan registers reveal the lending of at least 40 Greek manuscripts between 1480 and the end of 1491, including 12 of Filelfo's former books. The registers of loans also help to fix the approximate date at which a regular system of numbering books was introduced into the Medici collection. Piccolomini has urged that this could not have happened before 1491. In that year 67 manuscripts of Francesco Sassetti, the 52 Lucrezia died in 1482. C/., G. Pieraccini, 'Lucrezia Tornabuoni', Arch. Star. Ital., 107 (1949), pp. 212-5. A loan of one of her books is recorded under 2 June 1481 (Del Piazzo, 1956, p. 226) and a Greek 'Logic' of Aristotle 'de' libri de Lucretia' was borrowed by Politian on 6 June, 1482 (ibid., p. 228). 53 See ibid., p. 227, under 21 Nov. 1481. One of the loans recorded there, 'Apollonio grammaticho' is perhaps ms. Laur. 60.26 (Apollonius Dyscolus 'De constructione'), of 14c. On fo. Ir. it has a note 'Olim Petri de Medicis, recuperatus a fratribus S. Marci de Florentia de manibus domini Joannis Lascaris Graeci'. Vigili, no. 352. 54 For details see below, section 4 and appendix 2. 55 Correspondence between Filelfo and Lorenzo in 1472 is published in Per Centenario di F. Filelfo. Atti e Memorie della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province delle Marche, 5 (Ancona, 1901, pp. 188-93. For the date of Filelfo's death see A. F. Verde, Lo Studio Fiorentino, 1473-1503. Ricerche e Document!, II (Florence, 1973), pp. 222-3. 56 'Sciens ego quia omnes fere libros Philelphi emit Laurentius de Medicis post eius mortem'. Published by Piccolomini, loc. cit., 20 (1874), p. 81. 57 Del Piazzo (1956), p. 229. 58 See below, section 4. 59 Del Piazzo (1956), p. 490. This is a loan to Ficino of ms. Laur. 80.9 of Proclus for which see above in this section.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

171

deceased general manager of the Medici bank, were 'pledged' to Lorenzo. Five of these were subsequently allotted serial numbers, perhaps by error.60 In the loan register the first borrowing of a manuscript with a number (a 'new' Hippocrates 'numero 238', borrowed by Politian) is recorded under 1 September 1492.61 Thereafter such numbers appear regularly. It is tempting to connect this introduction of systematic numbering with the entry into the library of the numerous Greek manuscripts brought from the East by Janus Lascaris.62 Lorenzo did not live to see most of them. The task of drawing up an adequate list of the acquisitions procured by Lascaris has for long baffled historians. It is possible to make some fresh progress by comparing the Greek inventory of Vigili with other sources long familiar to scholars. The extensive list, among the papers of Lascaris, of documents discovered by him shows what texts he had seen, though not necessarily acquired or copied. 62a In combination with other records it can, however, provide a useful starting point, as long as it is realised that it is a summary list of authors who have interested Lascaris rather than a careful inventory of manuscripts inspected by him. 62b The same is true of an anonymous inventory of the authors procured by Lascaris published as far back as 1854 but little used by scholars hitherto because of its summary nature. 620 The man who drew it up was not an expert scholar but undoubtedly he had access to the manuscripts which had been brought to Florence. He was wrong in claiming that he was listing authors brought from the Peloponnese, for he had included several texts known to have been copied at Venice or acquired elsewhere in Greece,6 2 d but otherwise hi Piccolomini, cit. supra, Arch. Stor. ltd., 3rd ser., 19 (1874), pp. 115 and 124. See 60 also A. de la Mare, "The library of Francesco Sassetti (1421-90)', in C. H. Clough (ed.), Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Manchester, 1976), pp. 170-71. 61 Del Piazzo, op. cit. (1956), p. 491. The date 1491 printed there must be an error as that particular register starts on 13 January 1492 (13 January 1491 Florentine style), ibid., p. 490, and all the subsequent entries refer to 1492. 62 For a detailed account of the acquisitions of Lascaris see below, section 4. The two most reliable sources are a letter sent by him from Constantinople to Demetrius Chalcondyles at Florence, dated probably in Sept., 1491, listing 15 manuscripts (not all identifiable) and a contract drawn up at Candia (Crete) on 3 April 1492 for the purchase of 44 manuscripts (only partly identifiable). C/. P. Moraux, Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles, I (Berlin, 1976), p. 185. They were printed by E. Piccolomini in Rivista di Filologia Oassica, II (1874), pp. 401-23 and reprinted in Legrand,op. cit.., II, pp. 322-27 (the text cited by me). 62a Muller, loc. cit. (1884), pp. 379407. 62b G. Mercati, Codici latini Pico Grimani Pio e di altra biblioteca ignota del secolo XVI esistenti nett' Ottoboniana (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, no. 75, 1938), p. 205, n. 6. 62c E. G. Vogel, 'Litterarische Ausbeute von Janus Lascaris' Reisen im Peloponnes urn's Jahr 149V,Serapeum, 15 (1854), pp. 154-60. 62d Some of the manuscripts copied at Venice are listed below, appendix 3, section C (nos. 64-9). For further details see below, section 4.

172

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

list, though not exhaustive, appears to be quite correct as far as it goes. It is particularly valuable where it can be compared with a good, independent inventory of manuscripts accessible to Lascaris. This is the case with the manuscripts of Giorgio Valla at Venice. Most of these passed subsequently to Alberto Pio of Carpi and can be studied in an excellent modern list compiled by Cardinal Giovanni Mercati. 62e To return to the serial numbers of the Medici collection after 1492. They are recorded in the sequestration inventory of 1495 but cannot now be traced in the manuscripts themselves.63 The rebinding of the whole collection in the sixteenth century presumably accounts for their disappearance. To judge by the inventory of 1495 only a part of the collection listed in it bore serial numbers.64 Books presented to the Medici by their authors appear not to have been numbered as a rule.65 The same was true of a collection of 104 predominantly religious works deposited in 1495 at the church of San Lorenzo.66 The inventory of 1495 listed also about 125 unnumbered Greek manuscripts. Perhaps these were partly very recent acquisitions.6 7 The numbers mentioned in that inventory provide the starting point for an estimate of the approximate size of the Medicean library. At the time of the flight from Florence of Piero and his brothers (9 November 1494) it must have contained at least some 1200 volumes and this may be a considerable under-estimate.68 It consisted at that date mostly of manscripts though there are mentions of a limited number of printed books. In studying the manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo and his sons we can expect to find several types of useful information. The subscriptions of the copyists often mention the date of completion. Even in the absence of this evidence the hands of the copyists can be frequently identified and at least approximately dated. The same is true of the illuminators. Besides, the schemes of decoration provided by them can often supply essential clues to the origin of each commission. 62e G. Mercati, op. cit. (1938), pp. 203-20. 63 I have examined for this purpose a large proportion of the identifiable manuscripts with completely negative results. 64 There is a partial summary of the evidence in Piccolomini, cit. supra, 19 (1874), pp. 115-17. 65 This is my own impression. 66 Piccolomini, cit. supra, 19 (1874), p. 115 and n. 1; 20 (1874), pp. 86-9. 67 Ibid., 19 (1874), p. 115. They certainly included some manuscripts acquired by Lascaris. 68 See below, appendix 1. The suggested estimate includes 67 manuscripts pledged by the heirs of Francesco Sassetti.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

173

The greatest pleasure awaiting a student of Lorenzo's library comes from handling the illuminated manuscripts commissioned by his ancestors and himself. Written on superb, shiny, white vellum, with elaborately decorated title pages and ingeniously varied initials at the start of each new section, they seem almost too beautiful to touch. Writing as recently as 1981, Miss A. de la Mare has pointed out that 'an adequate study of the Medici emblems used in their manuscripts still needs to be made. The ascriptions of emblems' in the principal extant list of P. d'Ancona, published in 1914, 'are not all convincing'.69 The most exquisite illuminator working for the Medici was Francesco d'Antonio del Cherico, who died in 1484.70 In his most typical decorative schemes 'the white-vine scroll was combined with more naturalistic plant forms, and small scenes were inserted in roundels in the borders, showing portrait heads, studies of animals, birds, insects'.71 However, most of Francesco's manuscripts in the Medici collection were decorated before Lorenzo's time. Only a manuscript of the Greek works of Homer, which contains the Medici arms, 72 was perhaps executed for Lorenzo but this is far from certain. Lorenzo's delicately illuminated 'Book of Hours' appears to have been completed in Francesco's workshop after his death.73 The vast majority of the illuminated manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo date from the last years of his life 74 and were mostly decorated in the workshop of Attavante di Attavanti. 75 He was a pupil of Francesco d'Antonio in 1471-2 but was a less delicate artist, using stronger colours and tending to overcrowd his compositions. However, at his best, he could produce decorative schemes of impressive richness and elegance. The emblems and mottoes included in the decoration of the Medici manuscripts can show which members of the family had commissioned 69 M. Gibson (ed.), Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence (Oxford, 1981), p. XIX, n. 3.1 owe this reference to the kindness of Miss A. de la Mare. P. d'Ancona's principal publication was La Miniatura Fiorentina, secoli XI-XVI (Florence, 1914). 70 'E forse il piu elegante decoratore del Rinascimento fiorentino'. M. Levi d'Ancona, Miniature e Miniatori a Firenze dal XIV al XVI secolo (Florence, 1962), p. 110. For evidence about him see ibid., pp. 108-16. 71 J. J. G. Alexander, Italian Renaissance Illumination (London, 1977), p. 13. 72 Ms. Laur. 32.4. Its decoration is attributed to Francesco d'Antonio by M. Salmi, Italian Miniatures (London, 1957), p. 50. 73 Ms. Laur. Ashburnham 1874, reproduced in Alexander, op. cit. (1977), plate 3a and 3b. See also M. Levi d'Ancona (op. cit., 1962), p. 110. 74 See below, section 4, for some further details. 75 The best recent account is by R. Cipriani, in Dizionario Biograflco degli Italiani, 4, pp. 526-30 (under Attavanti). On p. 529 it provides an excellent list of illuminated manuscripts attributed to him. See also M. Levi d'Ancona, op. cit. (1962), pp. 254-9.

174

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

them. Dr. Ames-Lewis has usefully surveyed these devices in the illuminated manuscripts of Lorenzo's father and uncle, 76 but there exists as yet no comparable systematic study of the books commissioned by the Medici after 1469. In 1465 King Louis XI of France, in return for the aid provided by Florence during a dangerous rebellion of the French nobility, authorised Piero and his descendants to add to their family arms (the Medici balls) the lilies of France. This provides a sure way of dating Medici manuscripts illuminated for them from 1465 onwards. Lorenzo's own personal emblems and mottoes are well documented only during the last years of his life but they can be used to distinguish his own commissions from manuscripts decorated for his sons. It is true that some of the manuscripts of Cardinal Giovanni (the future Pope Leo X) have emblems and mottoes that are normally associated with Lorenzo,77 but Giovanni's personal manuscripts can be readily distinguished through the subsequent insertion of a papal tiara over the Medici arms. There were some devices and mottoes common to all the members of the ruling branch of the Medici after 1465, which appear, for example, in books specially decorated for presentation to them. They normally include a varying number of the Medici balls and one of these balls usually contains three golden lilies on a blue field. The three Medici feathers inserted in a diamond ring was another common device and 'semper' was a motto used by various members of the family. By contrast, manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo contained a distinctive additional group of devices. Most of them occur in books illuminated in Attavante's workshop.78 In searching for manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo one looks in the first place for his most usual motto 'non leset qui non lessaie'79 which might appear in slightly differing spelling and 76 Loc. cit. (1979). 77 Two such unusual manuscripts (not listed in the Vigili inventories) are ms. Laur. 12.10, St. Augustine, 'Liber questionum super Genesim' and ms. Laur. 47.1, a complete Priscian. Ms. Laur. 12.10 is reproduced in C. Csapodi and K. Csapodi-Gardonyi, Bibliotheca Corviniana. The Library of King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary (Irish U. P., Shannon, 1969), plate XL It was written in 1489 for King Matthias (ibid., p. 52) but could not have been illuminated before his death in 1490 (illumination by Attavante's workshop). It contains one of Lorenzo's typical emblems of a green parrot and three of his most usual mottoes. Ms. Laur. 47.1 is more distinctly Cardinal Giovanni's manuscript (including his special motto suave) but it includes also a motto associated with Lorenzo 'par le fue reverdira et reflora'' (the last two, italicized words seem an extension added by Lorenzo's sons as they are usually lacking in Lorenzo's own manuscripts). It was also illuminated in Attavante's workshop (cf. for both manuscripts Cipriani in Dizionario,cit. supra, p. 529). 78 For a good description of some of Attavante's decorative schemes see A. de la Mare, in Gibson (cit. supra, 1981), p. XVIII. 79 As in ms. Laur. 12.10 (Bibliotheca Corviniana, 1969, cit. supra, plate XI).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

175

80

wording. The other mottoes used by Lorenzo, and specially connected with him, were le tens revient' and 'par le fue reverdira'. His personal emblems included a group of butterflies over a flame, a beehive surrounded by flames, bees flying over an assemblage of beehives and a green parrot among the rye. 81 To judge by this type of evidence, Lorenzo only rarely commissioned illuminated Greek manuscripts.82 Most of the books decorated for him were either works of ancient Latin authors, including many religious writers, or works of Italian poets. The commissions of his son, Piero, tended to have a different, darker colour scheme. They are clearly distinguished by Piero's capital initial P, inserted into one of the borders. Sometimes this was expanded into two capital letters P. and R.83 Our reconstruction of the contents of the Medicean library must depend, above all, on various lists compiled between 1492 and 1510. On the death of Lorenzo in April 1492 an inventory of most of his possessions was drawn up but it did not include a list of his library, presumably because a separate inventory already existed. There is a reference to such a list in the sequestration inventory of 1495,84 but it 80 The other main variant, 'mils ne le set qui ne lessaie' occurs, for example, in two nearly identically decorated manuscripts of Tertullian, both from Attavante's workshop, mss. Laur. 26.12 and 26.13 (Vigili, nos. 175 and 132). 81 There are good summaries of the 'imprese' [devices] of Lorenzo, supplied by E. Rostagno, in G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro il Cardinale Ruteno (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, 46, 1926), p. 140, n. 4 and by A. de la Mare in Gibson (op. cit., 1981), p. XVIII. See also A. Maruchi, 'Stemma di possessor! di manoscritti conservati nella Biblioteca Vaticana', Melanges Eugene Tisserant, 1 (Studi e Testi, 237, 1964), no. 132 (p. 89) and table IX, no. 4. 82 The Greek commissions from Attavante that can be attributed to him are for the following mss.: 1. 28.11, (?Vigili, no. 255), Manuel Briennos, 'Mousike'; 2. Laur. 71.8 (Vigili, no. 141), Nicephorus Blemmydes, 'Introductoria epitome in logicem et res naturales'; 3. Laur. 74.1 (Vigili, no. 364), Hippocrates; 4. Laur. 85.4 (Vigili, no. 100), Theodore Metochites, commentary on Aristotle's 'De physico auditu', see appendix 3, no. 38; 5 Laur. 86.1 (Vigili, no. 104), commentary of Olympiodorus on Aristotle's 'Meteorologica'; 6. Laur. 86.9 (Vigili, no. 101), Michael of Ephesus on Aristotle's 'De partibus animalium'; 7. Vat. gr. 1614, 'Alexandri Aphrodisiensis questiones et solutiones', Galen's 'defmitiones medicae' (Vigili, no. 140), cf. P. Canart, Les Vaticani Graeci 1487-1962 (Studi e Testi, no. 284, 1979), pp. 155, 202. 83 1. Laur. 6.6 (Vigili, no. 187), Greek Eusebius 'Preparatio evangelica'; 2. Laur. 18.1 (Vigili, no. 208), 'Moralia' of St. Gregory the Great (finished December 1492) part 1 and the companion volume, Laur. 18.2 (not in Vigili), finished on 1 August 1493; 3 Laur. 74.8 (Vigili, no. 366), Greek Galen, acquired by Politian from the heirs of Paolo Toscanelli (appendix 3, no. 26) but containing Piero's monogram P. R.; 4. Laur. 86.5 (Vigili, no. 106), Greek Damascius. Ms. Vat. gr. 1614 (Vigili, no. 140), Greek Alexander of Aphrodisias, with commentaries 'dubiorum et solutionum' on various works of Aristotle has decoration very simfliar to Laur. 6.6. Cf. C. Gannelli, Codices Vaticani Graeci ... 1485-1683 (Citta del Vaticano, 1950), his comment under no. 1614 (ms. not seen by me). 84 No. 595: 'Inventarium librorum domus Medicorum in membranis', Piccolomini, he. cit., 3rdser. 20 (1874), p. 77.

176

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

does not appear to have survived. However, an inventory was drawn up in 1492 of various objects, including books, found in Lorenzo's study, and in the other rooms of the Medici palace in Via Larga at Florence or else in some of the rooms of Lorenzo's villa at Carregi where he had died.85 They were chiefly devotional books or else works of Italian literature and they throw interesting light on Lorenzo's interests at the end of his life. A few of these books can be tentatively identified8 6 but most of them cannot be readily traced in the sequestration inventory of 1495 or in the Latin list of Vigili of 1508-10.87 The fate of the library between the expulsion of the Medici from Florence on 9 November 1494 and the return of the Medicean collection to Cardinal Giovanni in 1508 will be discussed in the final section of this articled 7a We have to rely on the lists drawn up during that troubled period for a retrospective reconstruction of the library up to 1494. Among these lists the inventories of Fabio Vigili of 1508-10 are incomparably the most detailed but for some purposes they have to be combined with information in other, earlier, lists. The one serious defect of Vigili's inventories is that he did not usually specify whether the manuscripts listed by him had been written on parchment, bombycin or paper, though he does so in a few cases, as with the texts of Homer, where he wants to distinguish clearly between otherwise identical manuscripts.88 The absence of this information in most of Vigili's entries does hinder their identification. Here the inventory of 1495 drawn up on the orders of the sequestrators of the Medici fortune has to be consulted, though its laconic and sometimes

85 Piccolomini, loc. cit., 3rd ser., 21 (1875), pp. 292-6. 86 E. Rostagno, in pencil notes to the offprint of Piccolomini (3rd ser., 21, pp. 292-6 of the original pagination) possessed by Bibl. Laurenziana, has suggested that 'opera delle riductioni breve delle cronache di Giovanni Villani e d'altri' is probably ms. Laur. 61.30 (p. 294, or p. 135 of Piccolomini offprint). I have seen this ms. and it certainly contains notes of someone interested in the history of the Medici. Rostagno's other suggestion is that 'uno libro dell' opera del Petrarcha, trionfi.... storiati et miniati' should be identified with ms. par. it. 548 of Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale (p. 293, or p. 133 of Piccolomini offprint). 87 One possible exception is a manuscript of Seneca's letters 'ad LucUlum' with 'arme de' Medici' (Piccolomini, loc. cit., p. 294 or p. 134 of the offprint cited in the preceding note). Rostagno suggests identifying it with ms. Laur. 45.33 (written for Giovanni de' Medici in 1458, cf. Ames-Lewis, loc. cit., p. 131, n. 44, ctd. on p. 132). It may correspond to nos. 72 or 73 of the Latin inventory of Vigili. 87a See below, section 6. 88 Greek Vigili, no. 286 is a Homer preceded by his life 'in membranis' which points to ms. Laur. 32.4. Greek Vigili, no. 288 is Homer's Iliad 'in membranis' which identifies it probably with ms. Laur. 32.15 of the tenth or eleventh century (for these mss. see also below, section 5).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

177

incorrect entries are otherwise a poor substitute for Vigili's careful and much more detailed lists. A still earlier inventory of some 240 Greek manuscripts in the Medicean collection, preserved among the papers of Janus Lascaris, also does provide information about whether he was listing parchment or paper texts but again his entries are very summary and not easily identifiable.89 The other disappointing feature of Vigili's inventories is that he does not, as a rule, indicate the age of manuscripts or the type of their handwriting. When he occasionally did so, especially in the list of the Latin manuscripts, this can be quite decisive in helping to identify exceptionally valuable texts. While there are seven manuscripts of Cicero's letters 'ad familiares' in the Latin inventory, Vigili identified by the word 'vetustissimus'' the famous ms. Laur. 49.9, that may well have been written in the palace scriptorium of Emperor Louis the Pious and is our oldest text of that work. It had been acquired by Lorenzo from Filelfo and was put to a masterly use by Politian in Miscellanea I.90 The oldest manuscript in Lorenzo's library, ms. Laur. 65. 1, the History of Orosius, written in the sixth century, possibly at Ravenna, is securely identified by Vigili as written in ancient capital letters: 'characteribus maiusculis veteribus'.91 Likewise ms. Laur. 73. 41, the venerable 'herbarium' written in southern Italy in the ninth century in the Beneventan script, is identified by Vigili's 'liber litteris longobardicis scriptus'.92 But such specific details are rare in Vigili's lists. An equally ancient medical text of Cornelius Celsus and of other miscellaneous medical authorities, ms. Laur. 73.1, written probably in the middle of the ninth century at Milan, lacks in Vigili any mention of its age or script, though it can be securely identified by the contents of Vigili's detailed description.93

89 Muller,/oc. cit. (1884), pp. 371-9. 90 Latin Vigili, no. 26. For its acquisition from Filelfo see below, appendix 2, no. 28. For the use made of it by Politian see below, section 4 and appendix 3, no. 52. The most recent and authoritative account of its origin is by B. Bishoff, 'Die Hofbibliothek unter Ludwig dem Frommen', in his Mittelalterliche Studien, III (1981), p. 185. 91 Latin Vigili, no. 538. For its history see E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, III (Oxford, 1938), no. 298, p. 7. See also Bishoff, op. cit., II (1967), p. 316. 92 Latin Vigili, no. 391. See E. A. Lowe, The Beneventan Script (Oxford, 1914), p. 339 and A. Beccaria, / codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X e XT) (Rome, 1956), pp. 281-4. 93 Latin Vigili, no. 367. See Beccaria, op. cit., pp. 277-81. For the use made of it by Politian see below, appendix 3, no. 60.

178

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography IV

On 4 April 1444, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, the future Pope Pius II, wrote a letter to Count Johann von Lupfen asking for a loan of books from the count's library. He divided owners of precious books into two categories. There were those whose greatest pleasure it was to communicate their learned treasures to others. But there was also another kind of bookowners who guarded their collections like the dragon who had protected the Golden Fleece and Cerberus, the custodian of the entry to Hell. These people neither read their books themselves nor allowed others to consult them.94 Lorenzo de' Medici by conviction and policy alike belonged to the first category of generous lenders. In the absence of the loan registers of Lorenzo's library before 1480 it is impossible to say how far Ficino used the resources of the Medici collection for his Platonic translations. His entire translation of Plato's 'Dialogues' was probably carried out between 1462 and 1469 but he continued to revise it until 1482 and sent it to the printers in 1483.95 Mss. Laur. 85.696 and 85.797 containing Plato's 'Dialogues' were certainly consulted by Ficino at some stage and were in the Medici library by 1494. As 'nobody has yet attempted to collate his Latin translation with the Greek text' 98 it is impossible to say whether Ficino might have used them for making or correcting his Latin versions. Nor is there anything to indicate whether these two manuscripts were originally owned by him or whether he had borrowed them from the Medici at some date before the Pazzi Conspiracy of April 1478 against Lorenzo and Giuliano which produced a prolonged estrangement between Ficino and his former Medici patrons.99 In the two preceding years Ficino gave to the Medici brothers two 94 R. Wolkan, Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, I (Vienna, 1909), p. 310. 95 P. O. Kristeller, 'Marsilius Ficino as a beginning student of Plato', Scriptorium, 20 (1966), p. 43. 96 A 13c. ms. with further additions between c. 1280 and 1355. Cf. E. R. Dodds, 'Notes on some manuscripts of Plato', Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77 (1957), pp. 27-9. No. 33 in N. G. Wilson, 'A list of Plato manuscripts', Scriptorium, 16 (1962), p. 387. For its use by Ficino see Sicherl, loc. cit. (1962), p. 59 and Kristeller, loc. cit. (1966), p. 42. Vigili, no. 117. 97 Probably copied in Italy c. 1420. Cf. Dodds, loc. cit. (1957), p. 24 and E. R. Dodds (ed.),Plato: 'Gorgias' (Oxford, 1959), p. 44, n. 2. No. 34 in Wilson, loc. cit. (1962), p. 387. For its use by Ficino see Sicherl, loc. cit. (1962), p. 59 and Kristeller, loc. cit. (1966), p. 42. Vigili, no. 108. 98 Kristeller, loc. cit. (1966), p. 42. 99 See above, chapter 5 in this volume.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

179

copies of his own work. A volume of his letters, the first of several assembled by him, was copied in February 1476 and dedicated to Giuliano.100 A copy of Ficino's 'De Christiana Religione' contains a dedicatory letter to Lorenzo of 25 July 1477.101 One of Lorenzo's greatest successes as a book collector was his acquistion of Francesco Filelfo's library after his death on 31 July 1481. Loans of Filelfo's former books begin to appear in the loan registers of Lorenzo's collection from 1 August 1482 onwards.102 As a young man Filelfo had spent seven years at Constantinople, had married a relative of Manuel Chrysoloras and had acted as the secretary to the Venetian envoy at Constantinople.103 Some of the texts ultimately acquired by Lorenzo went back to that part of Filelfo's career.104 Not all of Lorenzo's acquisitions can be traced. Out of twelve items mentioned in the loan registers as formerly belonging to Filelfo only six can be securely identified.105 Several of Filelfo's manuscripts found today at Paris and the Vatican may have been alienated by him long before 1481 and may have never formed part of Lorenzo's purchase. 106 My provisional list of manuscripts that almost certainly passed to Lorenzo consists of 30 items. 107 A few were of venerable antiquity or of unique value. Pride of place should go to ms. Laur. 49.9 of Cicero's 'Familiar Letters', dating from the early ninth century.108 Politian's masterly use of it will be described presently. Ms. Vat. gr. 218 of the late ninth or early tenth century, written in a 100 Ms. Laur. 51.11 is dedicated to Giuliano and opposite its title page has a Greek note 'Laurentiou Medikos'. For its probable identification with Ficino's presentation copy see E. Rostagno, 'Di un esemplare del "De Christiana Religione" di Marsilio Ficino', La Bibliofilia, 2 (1900), p. 402 and Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum, cit. supra, I, p. X. It is possibly Latin Vigili no. 113 but its history was peculiar. At some stage (apparently at a later date) it strayed into the library of San Marco at Florence and was recovered only by Duke Cosimo I. Cf. Ullman and Stadter, op. cit. (1962), p. 47, n. 3. 101 Ms. Laur. 21.9. Cf. Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum (cit. supra), I, p. IX. Latin Vigili, no. 137. 102 See above, section 3 and below, appendix 2. 103 E. Legrand, Cent dix lettres grecques de Franqois Filelfe (Paris, 1892); Per Centenario di F. Filelfo. Atti e Memorie delta R. Deput. di Storia Patria per le Province delle Marche, vol. 5 (Ancona, 1901); Repertorium Fontium Historiae Medii Aevi, 4 (Rome, 1976), pp. 456-7. There is valuable autobiographical information in Filelfo's letters to the Milanese diplomat and statesman, Nicodemo Tranchedino (Florence, Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. 834, fos. li-16t, passim). 104 Below, appendix 2, nos. 5 (32.16), 8 (55.19), probably 13 (59.22), 14 (60.18), 22 (81.20). 105 Del Piazzo, op. cit. (1956), pp. 229,446-7. 106 This is particularly true of several mss. of Filelfo listed in H. Omont, 'Un nouveau manuscrit de la Rhetorique d'Aristote et la bibliotheque grecque de Francesco Filelfo', La Bibliofilia, 2 (1900). 107 Out of 33 listed in appendix 2, below. 108 Below, appendix 2, no. 28 and appendix 3, no. 52.

180

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

minuscule hand that 'suggests Constantinople as the place of origin', forms the source of our textual tradition of the 'Collectio mathematica' of Pappus of Alexandria (dating from c. 320 A.D.). 109 There were two manuscripts connected with one of the greatest Byzantine erudites, Maximus Planudes. 109a One was a collection of Greek poetry formed by himself c. 1280 which supplied Politian with at least one hitherto unknown text, to be discussed presently. 110 The other was Filelfo's autograph copy of the translation by Planudes of Cicero's 'Somnium Scipionis' from Latin into Greek.111 One of Filelfo's two manuscripts of the 'Eudemian Ethics' of Aristotle represents the origin of one of our two textual traditions of that work. 112 Politian is recorded as borrowing 14 books from the Medici library in 1481-2 and two of these were Filelfo's former manuscripts. At that stage he was still described in the loan register in a formal manner as 'messer Agnolo da Montepulciano'. 113 There is no further mention of him in the surviving loan registers between 1482 and 1491. This would help to explain why there is virtually no record of Politian's borrowing of the manuscripts which were used by him in his first Miscellanea, published in 1489. When his name reappears in the loan register he had become virtually the custodian of the Medici collection and is referred to as 'messer Angelo (or Agnolo) nostro'.114 In 1489 Politian published his masterpiece, the first Miscellanea of 100 learned essays on various erudite points of classical scholarship.115 It was dedicated to Lorenzo but the use of only six manuscripts from the Medicean private library can be identified in it with varying degrees of probability.116 This does not mean that Politian may not have used many more of Lorenzo's books as his explicit quotations of them usually refer only to exceptional manuscripts. Three of these were very 109 Below, appendix 3, no. 3. In addition see M. N. Boyer, 'Pappus Alexandrinus' in P. O. Kristeller (ed.), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, II (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 205-6 and below, section 5. 109a See especially C. Wendel in Pauly's Realencyclopadie, 40 (XXII. 2), 1950, coll. 2202-2253. 110 Below, appendix 2, no. 5 and appendix 3, no. 7 (ms. Laur. 32.16). It is uncertain how far Politian appreciated the distinctive scholarly achievements of Planudes and his other Byzantine contemporaries active c. 1280 -c. 1330. This requires much further research. 111 Below, appendix 2, no. 19 (ms. Laur. 80.24). 112 Ibid. no. 21 (ms. Laur. 81.15). 113 Del Piazzo, op. cit. (1956), pp. 227, 229. 114 Tte/., pp. 449, 491-2. 115 I am using the 1498 edition of Politian's Opera Omnia (ed. Aldo Manuzio at Venice). 116 Below, appendix 3, nos. 7 (ms. Laur. 32.16), 8 (ms. Laur. 32.45), 13 (ms. Laur. 57.20), 49 (ms. Laur. 45.15), 52 (ms. Laur. 49.9), 61 (Milan, ms. Ambrosianus L 85 sup.).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

181

117

old. Politian was a pioneer in reintroducing in the West the poetry of Callimachus, perhaps the greatest of the Hellenistic scholar poets. His works are cited, edited or reconstructed in five different chapters of the first Miscellanea:118 The sequestration inventory of 1495 has rightly convinced scholars that the lost final part of ms. Laur. 32.45 must have contained at that date a text of Callimachus which had been used by Politian in 1489.119 The Greek inventory of Vigili confirms this in greater detail. 120 It explicitly mentions the presence of the elegy on the 'Bath of Pallas' which Politian edited with an elegant Latin translation, in chapter 80. It also adds the valuable information that some scholia were appended to the text of Callimachus. This might explain some of Politian's variant readings that have puzzled Rudolf Pfeiffer. 121 Filelfo's manuscripts provided Politian with two important discoveries. In a collection of Greek poets assembled in 1280 by that great Byzantine scholar, Maxim us Planudes (ms. Laur. 32-16) Politian found a work called 'Dionysiaca' in forty eight books, hitherto unknown in Italy. 122 It did not contain the name of the author but in Miscellanea I Politian, using a citation in a Byzantine historian of the sixth century, Agathias, was able to identify him correctly as Nonnus. He was an Egyptian poet writing in the fifth century A.D. Politian called him 'poeta mirificus' and well appreciated his value for the knowledge of Greek mythology. It is the source of our modern text though two more manuscripts derived from it turned up in the sixteenth century. 123 It is interesting to note that by the time Vigili was compiling his Greek inventory (1508-10) he could correctly list this work as 124 'Nonni poetae ... Dionysiacorum sive de gestis Bacchi libri

xLvur.

Politian's 'most sweeping innovation in philological method was ... to treat textual criticism as a historical study'. 125 His model 117 Ibid., no. 49 (Donatus of late eighth century), no. 52 (Cicero of early ninth century), no. 61 (Columella of ninth century). 118 Chapters 24, 35, 52, 68 ("The Comb of Berenice'), 80 ('The Bath of Pallas'). For a recent appreciation of Politian's interest in Callimachus see R. Pfeiffer, History of Oassical Scholarship (Oxford, 1976), pp. 45-6. 119 Below, appendix 3, no. 8 and the sources there cited. For 1495 inventory see Piccolomini, loc. cit., 20 (1874), p. 58 (no. 111). 120 Greek Vigili, no. 295. 121 R. Pfeiffer (ed.), Callimachus, II (Oxford, 1953), p. LXVII. 122 Below, appendix 2, no. 5 and appendix 3, no. 7. 123 L. R. Lind, Nonnos and his readers. Studies in the classical tradition, I (U. of Kansas P., 1958), pp. 159-61. 124 Vigili, cat. gr., no. 417. 125 A. Grafton, 'On the scholarship of Politian and its context', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 40 (1977), p. 164.

182

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

demonstration in Miscellanea I (chapters 18 and 25) of how one should identify a manuscript from which all other versions of the same text may descend was based on one of Filelfo's texts. This was a copy of Cicero's Epistolae ad Familiares dating probably from the early ninth century, the most ancient that we have (ms. Laur. 49.9). 126 Previously the oldest text known at Florence was a manuscript of the late fourteenth century brought there in 1392 (ms. Laur. 49.7). 127 It was a defective text because an entire quire had become misplaced in binding it together. A large number of copies made from it were current in Florence and elsewhere in Italy, all containing the same misplacement. Politian was able to show that ms. 49.7, with its numerous progeny, was itself a copy from 49.9 which alone was in a correct order. 128 Politian may have known some of the faulty descendants of 49.7 available in the library of the Medici. 129 During the last years of Lorenzo's life hundreds of manuscripts were added to his library. Some 350 can be accounted for and this is probably an underestimate. Between a quarter and a third of the collection of November 1494 consisted of manuscripts acquired between 1489 and 1492. My total of acquisitions in that period includes manuscripts procured on Lorenzo's orders but which reached the library only after his unexpected death on 8 April 1492. In arriving at this estimate of some 350 acquisitions I am making a number of assumptions. The largest item consisted of the 200 Greek manuscripts that Janus Lascaris claimed to have procured for the Medici, apparently mostly in Greece. He is not the most reliable of witnesses but this particular claim was made in the preface to his edition of 'The Greek Anthology' (of epigrams) presented to Piero, Lorenzo's son and heir, in 1494.13° It is unlikely that Lascaris would have been making a wildly exaggerated claim to the man who was then the new owner of the Medici library. My other assumption concerns the illuminated copies commissioned by Lorenzo. It is most probable that almost all the manuscripts entrusted by Lorenzo to that great illuminator, Attavante di Attavanti, date from the years 1489-92. This 126 Below, appendix 2, no. 28 and appendix 3, no. 52. Latin Vigili, no. 26. 127 49.7 was in Politian's time at San Marco, Florence. Cf. Ullman and Stadter, op. cit., p. 229 (no. 889). 128 The whole story was reconstructed in detail by G. Kirner, 'Contribute alia critica del testo delle Epistolae ad Familiares di Cicerone', Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica', 9 (1901), pp. 400-406 but his article is not arranged clearly and is not entirely reliable. A brief authoritative summary is in S. Timpanaro, La Genesi del Metodo del Lachmann (Florence, 1963), pp. 4-6. 129 Mss. Laur. 49.3 and 49.6 (among six of the recent mss. listed in Vigili lat., nos. 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 550). Cf., for their faulty order Kirner, loc. cit., p. 408. 130 Bandini, cat. gr., II, coll. 106-7.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

183

is almost invariably the case with the manuscripts that can be dated precisely. This Attavante group consists of at least 65 manuscripts. 131 The other large component in my total are the books of Francesco Sassetti, the deceased manager of the Medici bank. 67 of his books were 'pledged' in 1491 to Lorenzo by his heirs. 132 Most were Latin works with a few in Italian. One suspects that, but for the collapse of the Medici regime in November 1494, they might have stayed permanently in the Medicean collection.13 3 If we add a number of dedicatory copies given by their authors to Lorenzo in 1489-92 and various other miscellaneous acquisitions, this comes to about 350 books (mostly manuscripts). The one uncertain item consists of the manuscripts procured for the Medici library by Politian during his tour of north-eastern Italy in the spring and early summer of 1491. Lorenzo must have been personally responsible for acquisitions on this huge scale, but Politian's advice must have influenced some of his choices. Politian was enthusiastic about these opportunities for displaying Lorenzo's intellectual patronage. As he wrote to Lorenzo from Venice on 20 June 1491, 'that enterprise of writing Greek books and the favours you bestow on the learned brings you so much favour and universal good will as no man has enjoyed for many years'. 134 The largest group of manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo in the last years of his life consisted of the Latin works of Christian religious writers. Even in this field Politian may have advised Lorenzo about the choice of texts as Politian's correspondence and notebooks reveal an extensive knowledge of early Christian Church Fathers, both Greek and Latin. 135 It is equally plausible to suggest that Lorenzo may have been also much influenced by his young friend, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who had returned to Florence in the summer of 1488.136 131 I am using the list of manuscripts decorated by Attavante in R. Cipriani's biography in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, p. 529. I have excluded all items that can be shown to have been commissioned by others than Lorenzo or which cannot be traced in Vigili's inventories. A list of seven Greek manuscripts illuminated by Attavante for Lorenzo is cited in section 3, above. 132 A. de la Mare, 'The Library of Francesco Sassetti (1421-90)' in C. H. Clough (ed.), Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (1976), p. 170. 133 See ibid., pp. 170 and 174, for their restoration to Sassetti's heirs in February 1498. 134 A. Fabronius, LaurentiMedicis Magniflci Vita (Pisa, 1784), II, p. 286. 135 Perosa, Mostra, no. 80 (Miinchen Staatsbibliothek, ms. lat. 748); London, Brit. Library, Add. ms. 21.187, Tertullian's 'Apologeticus' of Tristan Calco of Milan. According to a note on fo. Iv. it was derived in part from a manuscript of Politian. On fos. 70v. and 71r. is copied a letter of Politian to Calco, dated 12 January 1491, providing a detailed list of the works of Tertullian and a discussion of some of them (citing also Lactantius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine). 136 On Pico see especially E. Garin, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (Parma, 1963) and P. O. Kristeller, 'Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and his sources' in L'Opera e il pensiero di Giovanni Pico della Mirandola nella storia dell' umanesimo, I (Florence, 1965).

184

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Pico was very interested in Dionysius, the Areopagite, still at that time regarded as a contemporary of St. Paul. Among the Latin manuscripts commissioned by Lorenzo and illuminated by Attavante there was a collection of letters and other writings attributed to Dionysius.137 Amidst Lorenzo's acquisitions, though there are no means of dating it, there is also a manuscript of Origen's very controversial 'peri Archon' (translated into Latin by Rufinus) condemned by the Fifth Oecumenical Council of 553. This manuscript contained also an apology for Origen, likewise translated by Rufinus. Pico was a fervent admirer of Origen and was much influenced by the heterodox views expressed in 'peri Archon'.138 About 50 Latin manuscripts of Christian writers were commissioned by Lorenzo during the last years of his life 139 and this is probably an underestimate. They included a few Latin translations of the Greek Church Fathers140 and some Christian poets of late Antiquity. 141 The great majority were manuscripts of the principal Western Church Fathers, Tertullian, Lactantius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Popes Leo I and Gregory the Great, Cassiodorus. From later periods there were manuscripts of Bede's ecclesiastical works 142 and of the writings of St. Bernard. In 1488 Lorenzo renewed a closer contact with Ficino who acted on his behalf in May in trying to persuade Giovanni Pico to return to Florence.143 From 1489 onwards Ficino resumed his former practice of presenting to Lorenzo copies of his translations and other works. Counting only gifts that can certainly be attributed to this period and can be readily identified in the Latin inventory of Vigili, there are, at least, seven such manuscripts144 but this is only a provisional list.145 137 Ms. Laur. 17.22 (Vigili, no. 207). For Pico's interest in Dionysius see Kristeller, loc. cit., p. 66. 138 Ms. Laur. 22.9 (Vigili, no. 159). Only this Latin translation transmits this work of Origen in an expurgated version (cf. Geschichte der Textuberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur, Zurich, 1961, I, p. 496). Cited hereafter as Geschichte der Textuberlieferung, I (1961). Pico's admiration for Origen is discussed by Kristeller, loc. cit., pp. 79-80 and, especially by E. Wind, "The revival of Origen' in Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton, 1954), pp. 412-15. 139 I have arrived at this total by combining the manuscripts entrusted for illumination to Attavante with manuscripts that can be identified in Vigili's Latin inventory. 140 E.g. ms. Laur. 19.26 (John Chrysostom, Vigili, no. 103); 17.31 (Gregory of Nazianzen and Basil, Vigili, no. 187). 141 Including Paulinus of Nola (ms. Laur., 23.20, Vigili, no. 156) and a manuscript of Prudentius, Sedulius and Arator (ms. Laur. 23.15, Vigili, no. 324). 142 Ms. Laur. 16.9 (Vigili, no. 212). 143 Garin, op. cit., pp. 44-5 (letter of 30 May 1488). 144 (i) Ms. Laur. 21.8, Platonic prefaces and many other works of Ficino, finished in February 1491 and illuminated by Attavante, Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum (cit. supra), I, pp. VIII-IX. Vigili, no. 436.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

185

Some of them were specially prepared and illuminated manuscript versions, destined for the Medici, of works that were intended to be printed. 146 As the new Greek acquisitions of Lascaris reached Florence, probably in the first half of 1492, Ficino turned to search among them for fresh Platonic manuscripts. Already on 7 July 1492 he borrowed a commentary of Proclus on the earlier books of the 'Republic' of Plato. 147 In a letter to a foreign friend of 3 August 1492 he described this find as the most important of the new texts that he was perusing.148 Ficino had been familiar for a long time with the other works of Proclus but this is one or our two oldest texts. It formed part of a group of philosophical manuscripts copied probably at Constantinople between c. 850 and c. 88O.149 In 1490-92 Lascaris made two lengthy visits to Greece in search of (ii) Ms. Laur. 73.39, 'Libri Tres de Vita' (printed ed. Dec. 1489), copied and illuminated (by Attavante) at the expense of Filippo Valori in 1490, Kristeller, op. cit., pp. X-XI. Vigili, no. 372. (iii) Mss. Laur. 82.6 and 82.7, Latin translations of Plato's 'Dialogues'. Illuminated by Attavante. Kristeller, op. cit., pp. XI-XII. Vigili, nos. 422-23. (iv) Mss. Laur. 82.10 and 82.11, Latin translations of Plotinus. Copied and illuminated (by Attavante) at the expense of Filippo Valori some months before the publication of the printed edition (published 7 May 1492 at the expense of Lorenzo de' Medici). Kristeller, op. cit., pp. XII, LXVI. Vigili, nos. 425 and 435. (v) Ms. Laur. 82.15. A collection of Neoplatonist works (Synesius, Psellus, lamblichus, Proclus, Porphyrius, Priscianus Lydus), published in a printed edition only in 1497 (Aldo Manuzio, Venice) but completed in many cases by 1488-9 and dedicated to Lorenzo and his son Piero (with Attavante's illumination). Kristeller, op. cit., p. XII; M. Sicherl, 'Druckmanuskripte der Platoniker-iibersetzungen MarsUio Ficinos', Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 20 (1977), pp. 330-33. Vigili, no. 420. 145 I have left out two manuscripts probably presented to Lorenzo some years earlier, ms. Laur. 21.9, of 'De Christiana Religione', work completed (in the Latin version) in 1476 (Vigili. no. 137) and ms. Laur. 83.10, of Theologia Platonica' (Vigili, no. 419). Neither was illuminated by Attavante. Ms. Laur. 83.11 of 'Opuscula Theologica', completed on 7 Sept. 1491 and illuminated by Attavante (Kristeller, op. cit., p. XIII), has not yet been identified by me in Vigili. 146 In addition to the two presentation mss. of Plotinus (mss. Laur. 82.10 and 82.11, cit. supra), Vigili contains also a printed single vol. copy of Plotinus (no. 424). It was published at Florence by Antonio Miscomini on 7 May 1492 (copy at the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth). 147 Del Piazzo, op. cit. (1956), p. 490. Its acquisition by Lascaris recorded in Vogel, he. cit. (1854), p. 157. 148 Cited by H. D. Saffrey, loc. cit. (1959), p. 184. 149 T. W. Allen, 'Paleographica III. A group of ninth-century Greek manuscripts', Journal of Philology, 21 (1893), pp. 49-50; P. O. Kristeller, 'Some original letters and manuscripts of Marsilio Ficino' in Studi di bibliografla e di storia in onore di Tamaro de Marinis (Rome, 1964), III, p. 19, n. 6; C. Gallavotti, 'Intorno ai commenti di Proclo alia Repubblica', Bollettino del comitato per la preparazione delta edizione nazionale dei classici greci e'latini, new ser., 19 (1971), p. 41; S. Irigoin, 'Survie et renouveau de la litterature antique a Constantinople (IXe siecle)', in D. Harlfinger, Griechische Kodikologie und Textuberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1980), p. 190. See also below, section 5.

186

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

manuscripts for Lorenzo's library. 150 On one of these journeys, but we cannot tell which, he also travelled through the south-eastern corner of Italy where there still existed valuable collections of Greek works. 151 The only thing known about his first journey is the probable time of his departure from Florence in late July or early August 1490.152 The start of the second journey cannot be dated with certainty. Joannes Rhosos, acting it seems on the instructions of Lascaris, completed on 23 April 1491 the copying at Venice of one short work of Eusebius15 3 but Lorenzo's letters for the journey of Lascaris are dated only on 27 April. 154 Perhaps he was then already at Venice and they were forwarded to him there. At Venice Lascaris was preparing the way for the forthcoming visit of Politian and his inspections of Venetian manuscripts will be more conveniently discussed in my account of Politian's activities. The subsequent movements of Lascaris in Greece can be partly reconstructed from a letter he wrote from Constantinople, probably in September 1491, to his friend Demetrius Chalcondyles, the professor of Greek at Florence.155 This can be correlated with the list of his discoveries among his papers. This is not the place for enumerating the acquisitions made by Lascaris, many of which can be identified in the Greek inventory of Vigili. Only a few most illustrious purchases will be noted. Some were made in small provincial places. At the modern town of Velestimon in Thessaly he procured the important Byzantine collection of writings on military science in the present ms. Laur. 55.4. 156 As Lascaris appears to have also acquired elsewhere other connected manuscripts the whole group will be described more conveniently later on. In the letter to Chalcondyles he mentions the copying or purchase of fifteen other 150 Some of the main sources have already been cited in section 3, above. The letter sent by Lascaris from Constantinople reporting his acquisitions was published for the first time by E. Piccolomini, 'Due document! relativi ad acquisti di codici greci fatti da Giovanni Lascaris per conto di Lorenzo de' Medici', Rivista di Filologia Classica, 2 (1874), p. 418. The contract for purchases of manuscripts concluded on 3 April 1492 at Candia was published ibid., pp. 420-23. The biography by B. Knos, Un ambassadeur de I'Hellenisme: Janus Lascaris et la tradition greco-byzantine dans fhumanisme franqais (1945) covers these journeys in chapter II (especially pp. 31-51). Unfortunately Knos did not try to identify the manuscripts procured by Lascaris but only the printed editions of the relevant works. In several other respects his account is now outdated but it remains useful. 151 Knos, op. cit., pp. 40-41 (but without trying to distinguish what Lascaris has merely seen from his verifiable acquisitions). 152 Moraux, op. cit. (1976), p. 186. 153 Ms. Laur. 6.22, item I (Bandini, cat. gr., I, p. 142; Vigili, no. 324). 154 Legrand,op. cit., I.p.CXXXIV. 155 Legrand, ibid., II, pp. 322-4, with a summary in Knos, op. cit., pp. 43-7. 156 Knos, ibid., pp. 47-8; Vogel, loc. cit. (1854), pp. 156-7; Miiller, loc. cit. (1884), p. 380. For further details see below, section 5.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

187

manuscripts. Among the religious texts must be mentioned the unique manuscript of 'Stromata' of Clement of Alexandria, dating from the eleventh century.15 7 This was apparently bought at Constantinople but Lascaris also acquired on Corfu a twelfth century manuscript of other works of Clement. 158 Perhaps the most outstanding of the acquisitions mentioned in the letter to Chalcondyles is the present ms. Laur. 59.15 dating most probably from the early eleventh century. It contains a veritable corpus of the writings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. One of these 'De compositione verborum', is preserved in a version that furnishes the oldest text of one of our two textual traditions.15 9 One of the highlights of the journey was the visit to Mt. Athos. Lascaris mentions the collections of four monasteries of which the most important were at Vatopedi and at Lavra. From the latter may have come some of the medical manuscripts listed in Vigili.160 By 17 December 1491 Lascaris was back at Constantinople where he concluded a contract for a purchase of more manuscripts. He then returned to Florence where he was on 25 February 1492.161 Finally he made another brief journey to Crete where, at Candia, he concluded on 3 April, a contract for the purchase of a further forty four manuscripts. 162 These included ms. Laur. 85.1 containing the largest known collection of commentaries on Aristotle (of the thirteenth or fourteenth century) nicknamed by scholars, because of its immense size, 'Oceanus'. 163 Politian's journey in June - July 1491 to Bologna, Ferrara, Padua and Venice was undertaken chiefly in order to fill gaps in the Medici library.164 It was financed by Lorenzo 165 but, to judge by Politian's 157 La Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana nel secolo della sua apertura al pubblico (II Giugno 1571), Florence, 1971, p. 64, no. 33. This is ms. Laur. 5.3, recorded in the sequestration inventory of 1495 (ibid.) but apparently not in Vigili. It was used in the editio princeps of Piero Vettori. 158 Ibid., p. 64, no. 34. This is ms. Laur. 5.24 (Vigili, no. 36). Listed in Vogel,/oc. cit. (1854), p. 160. For its discovery on Corfu, see Miiller, loc. cit. (1884), p. 389. See also below, section 5. 159 No. 15 in the letter of Lascaris to Chalcondyles (Legrand, op. cit., II, p. 324). The fullest account of this ms. is in G. Aujac, 'Recherches sur la tradition du "Peri syntheseos onomaton" de Denys d'Halicarnasse', Revue d'Histoire des Textes, 4 (1974), especially pp. 25-32. Vigili, no. 49. See also below, section 5. 160 Miiller, loc. cit., (1884), pp. 397-99. 161 Legrand, op. cit., I, pp. CXXXV-VI. 162 Ibid., II, pp. 325-7. 163 See below, appendix 3, no. 37a. 164 I have been unable to use the edition of Politian's diary during this journey published by G. Pesenti, 'Diario odeporico-bibliografico inedito del Poliziano'', Memorie del R. Institute Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere (Classe di letters ...), XXIII (1916), pp. 229-39 and I am relying on a useful summary in C. di Pierro, 'Zibaldoni autografi di Angelo Poliziano inediti e sconosciuti', Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana, 55 (1910), pp. 8-12. See also Perosa, Mostra, no. 59 (pp. 63-5). 165 At the end of his letter to Lorenzo of 20 June 1491 Politian mentioned that he had

188

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

letter to him from Venice, he must have been glad to hear of Politian's private scholarly pursuits and exciting discoveries of new texts. 166 Politian left Florence on 3 June 167 in the company of his, and Lorenzo's, close friend, Giovanni Pico. As will be seen, Pico's presence was intended to have also some practical advantages. At Padua Politian arranged for the copying of five Greek texts lacking in Lorenzo's library. One was a work of Galen and the other four were commentaries on Aristotle.168 None of them can be identified with any certainty in Vigili's inventory. At Venice, which they had reached by 22 June, 169 Politian desired, above all, to gain access to Cardinal Bessarion's library owned by the Venetian state. As the relations between Lorenzo and Venice were notoriously bad, he used the services of the Ferrarese ambassador, in whose house he was staying, and of various friendly Venetian notables and pretended that it was Pico who was trying to see this collection. But it was all in vain.17 ° There is no evidence that either Lascaris or Politian managed to buy at Venice any manuscripts for the Medici library. 171 We can only trace the copying of several Greek texts, chiefly, it appears, from the collection of Giorgio Valla. He had been an official humanist lecturer at Venice since 1485 and was specially interested in Greek science and mathematics. 172 After his death in 1500 his library was acquired by Alberto Pio of Carpi and there is a detailed and well-edited list of this collection, carefully identifying Valla's manuscripts in it. A scrutiny of this list confirms that Valla is most unlikely to have sold any manuscripts to the Medici but it makes it easy to identify Valla's manuscripts copied for Lorenzo's library.17 3 Two copyists were used. The veteran Joannes Rhosos, who is not yet cashed the bill of exchange given to him (Fabronius, op. cit., II, p. 286). 166 Ibid., pp. 284-6. 167 Di Pierro, loc. cit., p. 12, n. 4. 168 Fabronius, op. cit., II, pp. 284-5. 169 Di Pierro, loc. cit., p. 9. 170 Fabronius, op. cit., II, p. 285. 171 Cf. N. G. Wilson, 'The book trade in Venice ca. 1400-1515' in H. G. Beck (etalii, eds.), Venezia Centra di Mediazione tra Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV-XVI), Aspetti e Problemi (Florence, 1977), II, p. 391. 172 J. L. Heiberg, Beitrdge zur Geschichte Georg Valla'sundseiner Bibliothek (Leipzig, 1896); V. Branca (ed.), Giorgio Valla tra Scienza e Sapienza (Florence, 1981). 173 The best edition of the list of Alberto Pio's books, including careful identifications of Valla's former mss., is in Mercati, op. cit. (1938), pp. 203-220. Copies of texts in Valla's collection executed for the Medici library are listed in appendix 3, section C (nos. 64-7, 69). In a letter to Niccolo Leoniceno of 13 Nov. 1491 Valla spoke of transcripts of six works (Heiberg, op. cit., p. 72).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

189

mentioned in Politian's letter to Lorenzo as being at his disposal, executed a series of copies of Valla's texts between 23 April 1491 and 31 March 1492.174 The other copyist was Joannes Skutariotes who did not date his transcripts. He may be identical with a copyist working for the Medici who in July 1492 was residing in Valla's household. 175 The most important of the copies made by Skutariotes for Lorenzo was the present ms. Laur. 28.4 containing works of Archimedes, with a commentary by Eutocius, dating from the 6th century A.D., and 'De mensuris' by Hero of Alexandria. Valla's original, from which it was transcribed, had been noted by Lascaris, but it was Politian who persuaded Valla to allow this copy to be made and he was clearly aware of its outstanding value. 176 Because Valla's own manuscript was subsequently lost (some time in the middle of the sixteenth century) this Medici copy has become our best version of this oldest known text of Archimedes (referred to as codex A, of the ninth century). 177 It is possible that a manuscript of 'Pneumatica' of Hero, which in 1510 was returned to Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici, may also be a transcript, by two different copyists, of a text belonging to Valla. 178 Politian's diary and the transcripts made by him during this journey bear witness to his boundless curiosity and immense diligence. One of his first scholarly ventures after his arrival at Venice (on 23 June) 179 was his inspection in the house of Pietro Bembo, son of a former Venetian envoy to Florence, of an ancient manuscript of the 'Comedies' of Terence. Politian described it as one of the oldest manuscripts he had ever seen and it is, in fact, our oldest known text of Terence, dating from the fourth or fifth century. 180 Politian carefully 174 Cf. appendix 3, nos. 64-5, 67, 69. Rhosos is 'Papa Janni' of Politian's letter (cf. Fabronius, op. cit., II, p. 285). For photostats of his handwriting see D. Harlfinger in Colloque, 1977 (cit. infra, section 5), p. 346, plates 5 and 6. 175 Cited in P. L. Rose, 'Humanist culture and Renaissance mathematics: the Italian libraries of the Quattrocento', Studies in the Renaissance, 20 (1973), pp. 96-7. For photostats of the handwriting of Skutariotes, see D. Harlfinger (cit. in preceding note), p. 358, plates 30 and 31. 176 Heiberg, op. cit., pp. 71-2 (letters nos. 15-16). 177 Cf. appendix 3, no. 66. For the approximate date of the disappearance of codex A. of Archimedes see Mercati, op. cit., no. 12 (on p. 206). For the origin of Codex A see below, section 5. 178 Laur. ms. 86-28 (Bandini, cat. gr. Ill, coll. 371-6). Its derivation from a manuscript of Valla was doubted by Rose, oc. cit., p. 96, but without any convincing reasons. It is no. 3 of the list of books returned to Cardinal Giovanni in J June 1510. Cf. Piccolomini, loc. cit., 3rd sen., 19(1874), p. 279. 179 Di Pierro, loc. cit., p. 12. 180 Perosa, Mostra (cit. supra), no. 61; S. Prete, fl. Codice Bembino di Terenzio (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, vol. 153, 1950) and S. Prete, Observations on the history of textual criticism in the Medieval and Renaissance periods (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1969), pp. 24-7. For the use made of it by Politian in Miscellanea II see below.

190

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

noted its textual variants in a printed copy (1475 ed.) of Terence owned by him. 181 During the last years of his life until his illness and death in September 1494 Politian was preparing a second collection of Miscellanea, leaving behind 59 completed articles.182 As in the case of the first Miscellanea, manuscripts from the Medici library are only cited for special reasons and many more may have been used by him. As he himself says in chapter 31, he searched through the Greek manuscripts brought from Greece for Lorenzo. 182a One of them supplied an answer to a problem that had been troubling Politian for some time. This was a manuscript of miscellaneous works, the present ms. Laur. 56.1, purchased by Lascaris at Candia in Crete. Politian annotated parts of it. For chapter 31 he used an unique text, preserved only in this manuscript, of a Greek 'rhetor', Sotopater. In it he found the correct words of three Greek epigrams which Vitruvius had cited in his 'De Architectura'. All the manuscripts of that work and the printed version had either left them blank or cited only baffling and distorted fragments, which Politian now replaced by full quotations. 183 One of Politian's most impressive articles in Miscellanea II is chapter 53 entitled 'Universale', concerned with Aristotle's conception of universals. Since 1490 Politian had been lecturing annually on some of Aristotle's treatises.184 In chapter 53 he refers to several of them as well as to commentaries by later scholars. 184a He was particularly indebted to commentaries of Simplicius, active at Athens in the first quarter of the sixth century. He annotated, and probably owned, a commentary by Simplicius on the 'Categories' of Aristotle, noting from it the probable chronological order of some of Aristotle's works (ms. Laur. 71.5). 185 He copied passages from the same commentary into one of his notebooks in a section that seems to date from the early part 181 This book had been appropriated after Politian's death by Piero Crinito and by 1567 was in the hands of Piero Vettori. It passed later into Biblioteca Laurenziana with the reference number 38.14. Today it is no. B. R. 97 of Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence. Cf. Peiosa,Mostra, no. 61 (pp. 66-7). 182 Edited by V. Branca e M. Pastore Stocchi, Miscellaneorum Centuria Secunda (4 vols., Florence, 1972). There is also an edition by them of the final text alone, editio minor (1 vol., Florence, 1978) and this is the edition referred to by me, unless otherwise indicated. 182a. Ibid., ed. minor, p. 47 of text: 'cum enim graecos evolverem codices quos advehendos sibi e Graecia Laurentius Medices curaverat'. 183 V. Juren, 'Politien et Vitruve', Rinascimento, 18 (1978), p. 288, n. 5. For other sources see below, appendix 3, no. 11 and chapter 31 of ed. minor of Miscellanea, II, pp. 46-50 of text. 184 Branca e Stocchi, op. cit. (ed. minor), introduction, p. 24, n. 53 and p. 25. 184a In citing these commentaries, Politian's purpose was to clarify what Aristotle may have meant. 185 For sources see below, appendix 3, np. 23. On fo. 9v. of ms. 71.5 Politian noted: 'Topica statuit post predicamenta'.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

191

186

of 1494. This may be the time when he was drafting his chapter on the 'Universale'. In it Politian used another commentary of Simplicius on 'De physico auditu'.18 7 The only complete text of this work known to have been in the Medici library at that time is to be found in the great collection of Aristotelian commentaries (ms. Laur. 85.1) acquired by Lascaris in April 1492 at Candia. 188 In chapter 53 Politian also cited several sentences from a commentary on the same Aristotelian treatise by Theodore Metochites, a Byzantine scientist and statesman active in the first quarter of the fourteenth century.189 The manuscript of Metochites used by Politian (ms. Laur. 85.4) must have been copied for Lorenzo in the last years of his life as it is finely illuminated by Attavante. 190 Politian did not annotate it, perhaps because it is too lovely to touch.191 A number of chapters prepared by Politian in his initial draft were later crossed out by him. Chapter 53 on the 'Universale', that I have just discussed, was originally preceded by a chapter based on a medical manuscript of Celsus.192 This was the venerable text of mid-ninth century (ms. Laur. 73.1) that had been in the hands of Politian since 1490-91 and which he later gave to the Medici library. 193 Perhaps the excessively technical and scientific character of this text was in conflict with Politian's literary aims in this work. 194 One of the Latin manuscripts used by Politian in Miscellanea II raises special problems because it can only be identified tentatively. In chapter 20 Politian corrected a textual corruption in several Latin authors by invoking a passage in a 'pervetus liber' of the Medici library 186 Branca e Stocchi, op. cit., pp. 24-5 of the introduction. For the excerpts from Simplicius see also L. Dorez, 'L' Hellenisme d'Ange Politien', Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire 15 (1895), p. 12. 187 Branca e Stocchi, op. cit., text, note on p. 101 and p. 102. 188 See below, appendix 3, no. 37a. The commentary of Simplicius was edited by H. Diels, Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca (Berlin), IX (1882) and X (1895). Simplicius knew and cited two different traditions of the text of 'De physico audito' and used less corrupted versions than were available in medieval manuscripts. Cf. P. Moraux, 'Notes sur la tradition indirecte du "De Caelo" d'Aristote', Hermes, 82 (1954), pp. 147-8 and W. D. Ross (ed.), Aristotelis Physica (Oxford, I966),praefatio,p. II. 189 On this commentary of Aristotle, with a list of known manuscripts, see J. Verpeaux, Nicephore Choumnos, Homme d'fitat et Humanists Byzantin (ca. 1250/1255-1327), Paris, 1959, p. 57 and n. 7. 190 Dizionario Biografico (cit. supra), vol. 4, p. 529. 191 For sources see below, appendix 3, no. 38 and Branca e Stocchi, Miscellanea, II (ed. minor), introduction, p. 24 and n. 54. 192 The original no. 59, 'Parulides'. Cf. ibid., introduction, p. 36. The text of the cancelled chapter is printed of 1972 ed. of Miscellanea II, vol. Ill, p. 120. 193 See below, appendix 3, no. 60. 194 This is the suggestion of Branca e Stocchi, op. cit. (ed. minor), text, p. 37, n. 27.

192

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

from book 23 of Seneca's letters.195 The editors of Miscellanea II made no attempt to identify this manuscript but perhaps ms. Laur. 45.24 containing the letters from book 14 to the end (13 c. ms.) might be the one. 196 The oldest version of Terence in the Medici library, containing a note of Lorenzo's ownership, was the present ms. Laur. 38.24. It derives from a text probably of the sixth century and was copied in Germany or Lotharingia in the tenth or the eleventh century.197 In chapter 43 of Miscellanea II Politian needed a series of venerable textual witnesses in order to correct a faulty reading in Terence's 'Andria'. The recent 'vulgatissimi' versions had the word 'symbolus', meaningless in the context of that play, instead of the correct 'symbola' meaning something quite different. It was a Latin adaptation of a likewise feminine Greek noun. Politian listed the testimony of this Medici manuscript, which he called 'antiquissimus', alongside Bembo's Vetustissimus' volume, 198 which, as mentioned a moment ago, he had been collating at Venice in June 1491. V

As has been noted earlier, the numerous old Greek manuscripts formed the most distinguished feature of the Medici library in 1494. Most of the identifiable Byzantine manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries deserve detailed comment, together with a selection of the more important later ones up to c. 1200. Such a survey would bring out that many of the more significant developments in Byzantine scholarship and in the art of illumination between c. 830 and the capture of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204 can be illustrated from the library assembled by Lorenzo and Piero between 1470 and 1494. Almost all the surviving Byzantine manuscripts are written in minuscule scripts and are copies of texts transliterated from older capital scripts.199 This practice may have started in Byzantium before 195 Ibid., text, p. 31. 196 For sources see below, appendix 3, no. 50. I have not yet been able to see this manuscript. 197 See below, appendix 3, no. 46. 198 Branca e Stocchi, op. cit. (ed. minor), text, pp. 73-6. 199 There are expert general accounts of this development in B. A. van Groningen, Traite d'Histoire et de Critique des Textes Grecs (Amsterdam, 1963) and A. Dain, Les Manuscrits (second ed., Paris, 1964). Technical details are well documented in J. Irigoin, 'Pour une etude des centres de copie byzantins', Scriptorium, 12 and 13 (1958-59) and, more recently, in a collection of studies in a publication of Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, La Paleographie grecque et byzantine, (Colloque, Paris, 21-25 Octobre 1974), Paris, 1977. For scholarly background see P. Lemerle, Le Premier Humanisme Byzantin (Paris, 1971) and some of the detailed studies assembled in D. Harlfinger (ed.), Griechische

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

193

the ninth century. However, our earliest dated Byzantine minuscule manuscript is a religious book of 835. Copies resulting from the initial transliteration appear not to have been preserved in most cases, though the Medici collection seems to have possessed in 1494 at least one manuscript of this rare kind. Parts of it had apparently been transliterated for the first time in the scriptorium of the imperial palace at Constantinople.200 A number of these Medici manuscripts were probably very near in time to the first transliterated versions and may be among their earliest descendants. One of the earliest known undated minuscule manuscripts was in the Medici collection in 1494.201 Where transliteration of an author had occurred more than once this gave rise to several families of transliterated texts. The Medici collection contained several manuscripts that are the first known versions of some of these variant textual families. The presence in the Medici library of 1494 of many of these famous early manuscripts has long been familiar to scholars, but in some cases the evidence has not been conclusive. The information contained in Vigili's Greek inventory can often now turn probability into certainty. There are also a few surprises when Vigili's summary can reveal the original contents of a manuscript that has subsequently suffered damage or dislocation202 or where manuscripts that are to-day kept at the Vatican or at Paris can be shown to have been in the Medici collection under Lorenzo and his sons. 203 The manuscripts discussed below can mostly be identified in the Greek inventory of Vigili and can be assumed to have belonged to the Medici in 1494. Where this is not certain I shall review the evidence. By basing my list on Vigili's inventory I shall be including also some manuscripts that had belonged to Politian because it is not always certain whether books recovered from his house after his death were his own possessions or had been merely borrowed by him from the Medici library. I have naturally also included a few manuscripts not listed in Vigili but known to have belonged to the Medici collection in 1494.204 Ms. Laur. 28.18 is one of the oldest known Byzantine minuscule manuscripts, perhaps from before 835 (the date of the earliest dated manuscript). It might be one of the products of the scientific interests Kodicologie and Textuberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1980) with an excellent, up to date bibliography (pp. 657-78). 200 See below, ms. Laur. 55.4. 201 See below, ms. Laur. 28.18. 202 See below, ms. Laur. 28.3 and see section 6 for several examples of dislocated manuscripts. 203 See below, mss. Par. gr. 1853 and 1962;mss. Vat. gr. 218 and 1164. 204 See below, mss. Laur. 5.3 and 74.7.

194

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

of John the Grammarian, the last iconoclastic patriarch of Constantinople (837-43). The main part of it consists of a work of Theon of Alexandria, who was active in the second half of the fourth century. This text of his commentary on the first six books of the 'Syntaxis mathematica' (the 'Almagest') of Ptolemy is our earliest and best source of this work. It is followed by a commentary on books 5 and 6 of Ptolemy by Pappus of Alexandria who was active in the first quarter of the fourth century. This manuscript had later a fascinating history. It formed part of the library of the Sicilian kings who may have received it as a gift from a Byzantine emperor in the middle of the twelfth century. Charles of Anjou, who took over the library after his conquest of their kingdom, gave our ms. Laur. 28.18 to the Papacy and it was certainly in the papal library under Boniface VIII. It was owned byPolitianin 1494.205 A very summary description in Vigili probably conceals the presence of another manuscript of Ptolemy and Theon dating from the ninth century. 206 It contains the so-called 'Handy Tables' of Ptolemy for astronomical computations. They 'represent one of the most important astronomical documents of antiquity'. 207 Theon's edition of them is preserved in two manuscripts of the early ninth century, still written in uncial capitals, and a somewhat different version, probably from the second half of the century, which is in our ms. Laur. 28.26. 207a From the ninth century there survive two collections of minuscule manuscripts of philosophical works. We have no evidence about their precise date or the place where they were copied 208 though it is most likely that they had originated at Constantinople. The slightly earlier of the two chiefly covered Aristotelian writings, while the second group, of which more manuscripts survive to-day, contains mainly the works of Plato and of various Neoplatonists. On the whole scholars incline to assign both groups to the second half of the ninth century, though a somewhat earlier date might be possible. There is some connexion between these two groups, as the same hand has copied notes in the 205 See below, appendix 3, no. 3. In addition see P. Maas in Harlfinger (op. cit., 1980), p. 50 and J. Irigoin, ibid., (cit. supra), p. 176; H. Hunger, Die Hochsprachliche Profane Literatur der Byzantiner, II (1978), pp. 227-8 and 254, n. 61. Vigili, no. 242. 206 Vigili, no. 262: 'Tabule astronomice urbium etc. cum suis canonibus coniunctionum' which I am inclined to identify with ms. Laur. 28.26. According to Bandini, cat. gr., II, coll. 46, the initial item (fos. 1-30) was added in 14 c. 207 O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, II (Berlin, 1975), 969. 207a Ibid., pp. 370, 965-78. 208 Irigoin in Scriptorium, 12 (1958), p. 209.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

195

margins of one of the Aristotelian manuscripts and in the majority of the texts of the Platonic collection.209 One is tempted to attribute these oldest known minuscule philosophical texts to the two most eminent Byzantine scholars of the ninth century, Leon, surnamed the Philosopher, and Photius. In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to connect any of the manuscripts in the Medici collection with Photius and he cannot concern us here any more. The case is somewhat different with Leon, who was the older of the two. He was archbishop of Thessalonica between 840 and 843 and was subsequently a leading teacher at the imperial university of Constantinople. He is known to have been alive as late as 869.210 His mathematical interests are well attested and provide the first of a number of links with Medici manuscripts. Ms. Laur. 28.4, copied for Lorenzo de' Medici at Venice in 1491, 211 derived ultimately from a manuscript of the ninth century which at the end contained an invocation expressing a wish for a long and studious life for Leon. 212 The case for connecting Leon with the two philosophical collections is fairly plausible. He was certainly engaged on revising the 'Laws' of Plato and possibly also other Platonic texts. 213 A note to this effect appears in ms. Par. gr. 1807, our oldest manuscript of Plato, one of the texts in this Platonic group. 214 There are also reasons for connecting Leon with some of the manuscripts of the Aristotelian collection.215 The one representative of that Aristotelian group in the Medici library of 1494 was ms. Laur. 81.11 which contains the 'Nicomachean Ethics' and the 'Magna Moralia' of Aristotle. 216 It is one of the best manuscripts of these two works. 216a It is written in a hand very similar to the handwriting of the two Aristotelian manuscripts that may have originated in Leon's circle. 217 To return to the Platonic collection, which seems to have been the later of the two philosophical groups of manuscripts. As far back as 209 Irigoin in Harlfinger (1980), pp. 189-92. 210 Ibid., pp. 179-81. 211 See above, section 4. Lemerle, op. cit., p. 170 followed Bandini in dating ms. Laur. 28.4 in the thirteenth century. He has obviously never seen it. This is one of the reminders that Lemerle's fascinating book must be used with caution where manuscripts are concerned as it relies too much on secondary sources. For another instance of such errors see N. G. Wilson, 'Leo the Philosopher and his text of Ptolemy', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 14 (1973), p. 223 and n. 2. 212 B. Hemmerdinger, Essai sur I'Histoire du Texte de Thucydide (Paris, 1955), pp. 36-7. 213 Lemerle, op. cit., pp. 168-9. 214 J. Irigoin in Harlfinger (1980), p. 182. 215 J. Irigoin, 'L' Aristote de Vienne', Jahrb. der Osterr. Byzant. Gesellschaft, 6 (1957), pp. 7-10. 216 Vigili, no. 90. 216a I. During in Pauly's Realencyclopadie, Sammelband 11 (1968), coll. 200. 217 Moraux, op. cit. (1976), pp. 266-7; D. Harlfinger in Harlfinger (1980), p. 453.

196

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

1893 T.W. Allen drew attention to nine similar manuscripts written at the same time in the second half of the ninth century and most probably copied at Constantinople. They have very similar paleographic features, though more than one writer was responsible for them. Seven contained works of Plato, including the already mentioned ms. Par. gr. 1807, or else commentaries on Plato. 218 Two out of these seven can be traced in Vigili's Greek inventory. One is ms. Laur. 80.9, the commentary of Proclus on the earlier books of the 'Republic' of Plato, which Ficino was in such haste to borrow as soon as Lascaris had brought it to Florence.219 The other manuscript had gone astray from the Medici library but Vigili's detailed description clearly identifies it with ms. Par. gr. 1962 of the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. It starts with the 'Diatribes' of Maximus of Tyre, a Platonic teacher of the second century of our era. This is the source of all the later texts of this work. 220 The manuscript also includes the 'epitome' of the commentary of Albinus on Plato's works.22 l Arethas, archbishop of Cesarea c. 903-post 932 was responsible for preserving and commissioning transliterated copies of many important texts. 222 But only a small number of manuscripts of the Medici library can be connected with him in any convincing way. As has been already mentioned, Lascaris brought from Greece two manuscripts of Clement of Alexandria, the present mss. Laurenziani 5.3 (eleventh century) and 5.24 (twelfth century). 223 Only the latter concerns us here. It contains one main work, the 'Pedagogus', which goes back in its textual tradition to a manuscript transcribed in 914 for Arethas by the notary Baanes (ms. Par. gr. 451). The scholia in it show that it was a text used in the schools.224 In 1494 the Medici library contained two very valuable mathematical manuscripts of the late ninth or tenth centuries, ms. Vat. gr. 218 and ms. Laur. 28.3. A.P. Treweek, in his detailed study of the 218 T. W. Allen, 'Paleographica III. A group of ninth century Greek manuscripts', Journal of Philology, (1893), pp. 48-55. See also A. Diller, 'The scholia on Strabo', Traditio, 10 (1954), pp. 29-50. On p. 11 he lists eleven manuscripts that seem to have belonged to this group. 219 Vigili, no. 111. See above, section 4. 220 B. A. Van Groningen, op. cit. (1963), pp. 14 and 49. For Maximus see B. Reardon, Courants Litteraires Grecs des IIe etIII6 siecles aprts J. C. (Paris, 1971), pp. 200-205. Vigili, np. 85. This identification was first suggested by A. Diller in K. Treu (ed.), 221 Studio Codicologica (op. cit., 1977), p. 149, n. 2. 222 Lemerle, op. cit., chapter VIII (pp. 20541). 223 See above, section 4. 224 M. Imhof in Geschichte der Textuberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur, I (Zurich, 1961), p. 302; Lemerle, op. cit., p. 234. Ms. Laur. 5.24 is Vigili, no. 36.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

197

first of these, was unable to date its acquisition by the papal library. 225 It was, in fact, one of the manuscripts acquired by Lorenzo de' Medici from Filelfo and can be identified with no. 241 of Vigili's inventory. 226 It must have been diverted from the Medici collection some "time after 1510. In format, and in some paleographic features, it resembles a manuscript of Euclid (ms. Bodleian d'Orville 301) acquired by Arethas in 888 and annotated by him. 227 They might be both of roughly the same date. Ms. Vat. gr. 218 starts with a fragment of 'De admirabilibus machinis' of Anthemius, the Alexandrian mathematician who became the architect charged by Justinian with the rebuilding of Santa Sophia at Constantinople.228 The main portion of the manuscript consists of 'Collectio mathematica' of Pappus of Alexandria (fragment of book II, books III-VIII). This is a fundamental work for our knowledge of ancient Greek geometry and gives invaluable information about works of other ancient mathematicians, available nowhere else. Ms. Vat. gr. 218 is the sole known source of this text, from which were copied all the later manuscripts.229 The identification of ms. Laur. 28.3 (the original sections in a tenth century hand) with one of the books in the Medici collection is quite certain because Vigili's serial number 270 can still be seen on fo. 1 of the manuscript. 230 It was probably one of the acquisitions of Lascaris in Greece.231 Sir Thomas Heath in his edition of Euclid's 'Elements' (books 1-13), based partly on this manuscript, remarked that its original composition was unknown. 232 Vigili supplies the evidence about the portion now lost. When he described the manuscript it still started with what seems to have been the Commentary of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's 'Elements'. 233 This is the only work on what 225 A. P. Treweek, 'Pappus of Alexandria. The manuscript tradition of the Collectio Mathematica', Scriptorium, 11 (1957), p. 209. 226 See below, appendix 2, no. 25 and a detailed description of this manuscript in Treweek, loc. cit., pp. 206-9. 227 Ibid., p. 206. 228 Hunger, op. cit., II (1978), p. 230. 229 M. N. Boyer, 'Pappus Alexandrinus' in P. O. Kristeller (ed.), Catalogus (cit. supra), II (1971), pp. 205-6. 230 Top left of folio Ir. Today only fos. lr-64 and 88r-144 are in the original hand. The rest are additions made in the sixteenth century on fresh parchment, covering books 13-15 of 'Elements' (of which books 14 and 15 are not really by Euclid), the 'Optics' and the 'Phenomena'. For the present contents of the manuscript see Sir Th. L. Heath, The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements, I (Oxford, 1926), p. 47. 231 Vogel, loc. cit. (1854), p. 158: 'Euclidis opera cum expositione Theonis'. 232 Heath, op. cit., p. 47. 233 Vigili's description in ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 308v.: 'Commentarium quoddam sive longa praetheoria in Euclidis geometriam. Euclidis Elementorum libri .... ex traditione Theonis Alexandrini'.

198

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

might be termed the philosophy of ancient mathematics that we still possess, as well as one of the principal sources, alongside the treatise of Pappus (in the Medicean ms. Vat. gr. 218), for our knowledge of ancient Greek geometry. 234 It might be added that the second item in ms. Laur. 28.3, Euclid's 'Elements' in the recension of Theon, 235 is also present in the manuscript of Arethas of 888, but, as it is not accompanied there by the Commentary of Proclus, there may have been no direct connection between these two manuscripts. 236 The dating of the Byzantine minuscule manuscripts of the ninth and the tenth centuries is still a very uncertain science. There is a disturbing divergence between the dates urged on paleographic grounds and the suggestions based on the study of miniature illumination. For the present the paleographic tests seem to be based on a larger body of reliable evidence.2 3.7 My own chronological sequence of the Medicean manuscripts that might be ascribed to the tenth century must reflect the prevailing uncertainty. From an early date in that century, but especially from between c. 930 and c. 960, some of the copyists active, apparently, at Constantinople used an exceptionally elegant script, which has been accorded the distinctive name of 'minuscule bouletee'. 238 A biblical manuscript of the Medici collection, containing a portion of the Old Testament, ms. Laur. 8.27, provides a typical example of this script. 239 From the first half of the tenth century, and perhaps even from its beginning, dates a collection of surgical treatises by various writers, of which six appear also in a somewhat later assemblage of sixty treatises known as the Hippocratic collection.240 This ms. Laur. 74. 7 is not in 234 Heath, op. cit., I, p. 29; Hunger, op. cit., II (1978), pp. 225-6. 235 See also the edition of I. L. Heiberg, Eudidis Elementa, I (Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1969), p. IX, describing ms. Laur. 28.3 as one of the oldest and best manuscripts of this text. 236 Oxford, Bodleian Libr., ms. d'Orville, 301. There is a brief description of it in The Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1966), no. 4 on p. 14. 237 A. Diller, 'The age of some early Greek classical manuscripts' in J. L. Heller (ed.), Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Paleography in Honor of Aleksander Turyn (Urbana, 1974) cited hereafter as Diller (1974), pp. 515-16; J. Irigoin in Harlfinger (1980), p. 194 and J. Irigoin 'Une ecriture du Xe siecle, la minuscule bouletee' in La paleographie grecque et byzantine [Colloque, Paris, 21-25 Octobre 1974, cited hereafter as Colloque (1974)], p. 193. 238 Irigoin, loc. cit. (Colloque, 1974). V. Gardthausen has called it 'Diamantschrift'. Cf. S. Bernardinello, 'nuovi manoscritti in minuscola "bouletee"' in Miscellanea Codicologica Francois Masai dicata (Ghent, 1979), p. 105. 239 Irigoin, loc. cit. (Colloque, 1974), p. 194 and Bernardinello, loc. cit. (1979), p. 107. It is Vigili, no. 230: 'Bibliae pars incipiens a Job et desinens in Ecclesiaste et Cantica canticorum'. 240 J. Irigoin, 'Tradition manuscrite et histoire du texte. Quelques problemes relatifs a la collection hippocratique', Revue d'Histoire des Textes, 3 (1973), pp. 3-4. For the date see also P. Maas in Hailfinger (1980), p. 51.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

199

Vigili but appears to correspond to a manuscript acquired by Lascaris.241 Two of the treatises in it include pictures illustrating methods of bandaging and types of treatment of bone injuries. These illustrations are the earliest to survive in the presently known Byzantine minuscule manuscripts. 242 Another very early manuscript of scientific interest that contains illustrations is ms. Laur. 9.28. 243 It is the so-called Christian Topography of Cosmas, called subsequently from his alleged travels Indikopleustes. This work was written around the middle of the sixth century and reflects first hand knowledge of the Red Sea and Ethiopia though it may be merely based on narratives of other travellers for its account of the more distant parts of southern Asia.244 E. Rostagno suggested a date for ms. Laur. 9.28 in the ninth or tenth centuries. 245 As in two other early manuscripts of Cosmas, there are pictures of the known earth and a variety of curious illustrations.246 In the middle of the tenth century a copyist called Ephraim the Monk, active in an unidentified monastic scriptorium at Constantinople, used a distinctive script including a number of majuscule letters. Two of the manuscripts written by him bear the dates of 948 and 954. His type of script found numerous imitators in the second half of the tenth century. 247 Ms. Laur. 9.22, containing various works of John Chrysostom, dating from 974, which was in the Medici collection in 1494, provides a good example. 248 Manuscripts that do not show the traces of Ephraim's influence tend to be ascribed to the earlier part of the tenth century. This is the case with ms. Laur. 59.9, regarded as not later than the middle of that century. 249 It contains eight speeches of Demosthenes with commentaries and summaries by 241 Vogel,/oc. cit. (1854), p. 159. 242 K. Weitzmann, Illustration in Roll and Codex. A study of the origin and method of text illustration (Princeton, 1970, cited hereafter as Weitzmann I, 1970), pp. 73-4, plate XXII, no. 60 and plate XXXI, no. 94; K. Weitzmann, Studies in classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination (ed. H. L. Kessler, Chicago, 1971, cited hereafter as Weitzmann II, 1971), pp. 109, 13940 (and fig. 116 on p. 140), pp. 195-6. 243 Vigili, no. 243. 244 Hunger, op. cit. (1978), I, pp. 528-30. On Cosmas see also the most recent remarks of W. Wolska-Colus in Travaux et Memoires (Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance) 5 (1973), pp. 263-72. 245 E. Rostagno, Mostra storica di Geografla inaugurata nella Laurenziana il 29 Marzo 1921 (Florence, 1921), no. 49 (on p. 10). 246 Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze, Monumenti di Cartografia a Firenze (secc. X-XVIII), Florence, 1981, no. 20 (on. p. 8), including illustrations of two maps from fos. 92v., 93r.; Weitzmann I (1970), p. 198 and fig. 192. 247 J. Irigoin, Tour une etude des centres de copie byzantins', pt. II, Scriptorium, 13 (1959), cited hereafter as Irigoin, Scriptorium (1959), pp. 181-95; Diller (1974), pp. 516-8. 248 Ibid. (1974), p. 518. Vigili, no. 222. 249 Diller (1974), p. 523.

200

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 250

Libanius. It provides one of our best versions of those speeches and it is particularly valuable as one of the two extant sources for the scholia to Demosthenes that may have originated with Ulpian (fourth century A.D.), though his authorship is controversial.251 It is not certain whether ms. Laur. 59.9 was present in the Medici library in 1494. But Vigili only rarely mentions that a manuscript is written on parchment and he sometimes seems to do so in order to convey that it is an old book. No. 79 in his Greek inventory, 'Demosthenis Orationes in membranis sine principio et fine', 252 would fit our manuscript 59.9. 253 Ms. Laur. 72.5 clearly shows the influence of Ephraim's scriptorium., which suggests a date in the second half of the tenth century. 254 As constituted to-day, it goes back to the tenth century only in part, but this earliest portion contains the text of one of the oldest and most valuable versions of the logical works of Aristotle.255 The detailed list of contents in Vigili securely identifies it as one of the Medicean possessions in 1494.256 The vast collection of the non-logical works of Aristotle in ms. Par. gr. 1853, filling to-day 453 folios, constitutes one of our oldest and most important Aristotelian manuscripts. About three quarters of it belong to the original tenth-century copy. Scholars have differed about the precise date of this main portion of it, but the most authoritative, detailed study by Paul Moraux assigns it to the middle of the tenth century. 257 It contains one of the best texts of the first treatise in it, 'De physico auditu'. 257a As editor of 'De Caelo' Moraux has particularly scrutinized the version of this work in ms. Par. gr. 1853, though his conclusions do not necessarily apply to other treatises contained in it. The text of 'De Caelo' is not the result of direct transliteration but was derived from some earlier minuscule copy. 258 250

L. Canfora, Inventario del Manoscritti Greet di Demostene (Padua, 1968), no. 49 (p.

36). 251 Ibid., p. 19 and M. R. Dilts, 'Demosthenic scholia in codex Laurentianus 59.9', Trans, and Proc. of American Philological Association, 104 (1974), p. 100. 252 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 277v. I was able to inspect this manuscript. 253 C/. Bandini, cat. gr., II, col. 496 for damage at the beginning and the end of this manuscript. 254 Moraux (1976), p. 478 (and cf. the list of comparable manuscripts in Diller, 1974, pp. 517-8). 255 Moraux (1976), pp. 475-80. 256 Vigili, no. 89 (ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 280r.). 257 P. Moraux, 'Le Parisinus Graecus 1853 (Ms. E.) d'Aristote', Scriptorium, 21 (1967), pp. 17-41. 257a Ross (ed.), cit. supra (1966), introd., cited in During, loc. cit., coll. 201. 258 P. Moraux (ed.), Aristote Du del (Coll. Bude, Paris, 1965), I, pp. CLXXIII-IV.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

201

In the case of 'De Caelo', at any rate, it is very probable that its text was transliterated twice into minuscule versions, with ms. Par. gr. 1853 representing the oldest surviving copy of one of these two textual traditions. One peculiar feature of its text of 'De Caelo' is the absence, unique among the surviving older manuscripts, of all conjectural emendations by Alexander of Aphrodisias, a distinguished commentator active around the start of the third century A.D. 259 The very detailed list of contents in no. 81 of Vigili's Greek inventory clearly corresponds to this manuscript, 26 ° which must have been removed from the Medici collection only some time after 1510. Emperor Constantine VII (born 906, emperor 912-59) 'is a figure of central importance for every byzantinist. He was not so much an original author as a compiler; yet it is from his compilations that we derive much of our knowledge of Byzantine administration, court ceremonial and foreign relations'.261 The Medici library possessed in 1494 at least two manuscripts of the collections of texts and excerpts from earlier Greek authors commissioned by him. 262 The first of these, ms. Laur. 55.4, consists of an assemblage of treatises on military subjects.263 Unlike a large part of the fifty three

259 Ibid., chapter III ('La transmission du texte'), pp. CLVIII-CLXXVII. 260 The identification with ms. Par. gr. 1853 was first suggested by A. Diller in K. Treu, Studio Codicologica (op. cit., 1977), p. 148. The description in Vigili (ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 278v.) is as follows: 'Aristotelis opera: videlicet De physico auditu libri octo, De caelo et mundo IIII, De generatione et corruptione II, Meteor' IIII, De anima III ['De sensu', fos. 203-10, omitted by Vigili], De memoria et reminiscentia unus, De somno et sui somni divinatione I, De motu animalium I, Metaphysicorum XIIII, Theophrasti Metaphysicorum liber unus, Aristotelis eiusdem peri chromaton id est de coloribus liber unus, De partibus animalium IIII [fos. 318-51, the original portion of the manuscript ends on fo. 344v. De generatione animalium quinque ['De incessu animalium', a few lines on fo. 393 omitted by Vigili], Ethicorum nicomachorum libri X, Magnorum moralium II'. I am comparing Vigili's list of contents with Moraux, loc. cit. (1967), p. 18. 261 C. Mango, Byzantine Literature as a Distorting Mirror (Oxford, 1975), p. 14. The most recent critical discussion of his scholarly activities is in Lemerle, op. cit., chapter X (pp. 267-300). 262 Mss. Laur. 55.4 and 59.32. 263 The main sources used in the account that follows are A. Dain, La Collection Florentine des Tacticiens Grecs (Paris, 1940, cited as Dain I); A. Dain, Histoire du Texte d'tilien le Tacticien (Paris, 1946, cited as Dain II); A. Dain, 'Les strategistes byzantins', Travaux et Memoires (cit. supra), 2 (1967), pp. 317-92 (ed. by J. A. de Foucault). Irigoin, Scriptorium (1959), pp. 177-81 (on manuscripts from the scriptorium of the imperial palace); Hunger, op. cit. (1978), II, pp. 323-38. The best recent bibliography of Byzantine works on military subjects, listing, in particular, the various publications of A. Dain, ibid., pp. 33940. For the contents of ms. Laur. 55.4 see also Bandini, cat. gr. II, coll. 218-38. The fullest recent description in Dain, 1967 (cit. supra), pp. 382-85.1 was allowed to re-examine this manuscript in August 1981. It is no. 253 of Vigili.

202

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

collections compiled on Constantine's orders, it consists of the transcripts of complete works and not merely of excerpts. It is most probably one of the exemplars of the Constantinian collections actually written in the scriptorium of the imperial palace not later than 959. It was presumably preserved in the library of the imperial palace as it was never subsequently copied in Byzantium It may have been one of the victims of the sack of the palace by the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, as this is the most likely occasion for its removal from the palace library. It was acquired by Lascaris in an obscure little town in Thessaly and Vigili's inventory identifies it securely.264 It is a finely written and tastefully decorated manuscript but, apart from some schematic diagrams of troop formations, 265 it does not contain any illustrations. For several ancient treatises on military subjects it provides our earliest text. This is true of the only surviving work of Aeneas, a commentary on siegecraft, dating from the middle of the fourth century B.C, 266 and of a treatise on 'Taktike' (troop formations) of Asclepiodotes, a pupil of Posidonius, writing in the second half of the first century B.C. The texts of these treatises, carefully marking with special signs puzzling readings, suggest that, in these cases, we are actually looking at the first transliteration into minuscule.267 The other treatises, lacking such notes, probably derive from earlier, already transliterated minuscule copies. This is certain of the 'Tactica theoria' of Aelianus, written c. 103 A.D. and presented some years later in a revised form to Emperor Trajan. The text of Aelian in ms. Laur. 55.4 represents one of the three known transliterations of this work and is again our earliest source of it, as are the texts of the 'Strategicus' of Onosander from the second half of the first century A.D. and the 'Ars tactica' of Arrian completed in 137 A.D. 267a Of all these works only Arrian's treatise was written by a professional soldier and not by theoretical armchair students of the art of war. The only other manuscript that can be directly connected with Constantine VII is an assemblage of excerpts on all aspects of agriculture.268 The popularity of this collection is attested by its 264 See above, section 4 and Vogel, loc. cit., 1854. 265 These diagrams are very effaced. Cf. Dain II (cit. supra, 1946), p. 186. A clearer idea of how the diagrams to Aelian should look is provided by ms. Vat. gr. 1164 (on which see below). One of them is reproduced in Weitzmann II (1971), fig. 174, on p. 193. 266 Cf. A. Dain 'Les manuscrits d'Enee, le Tacticien', Rev. des £tudes grecques, 48 (1935). 267 This is reaffirmed for Aeneas by Dain in Harlfinger (1980), p. 218. 267a On the exceptionally damaged texts of Arrian's two treatises see A. Dain in Melanges Bidez (Brussels, 1934), I, pp. 158-60. 268 There is a detailed account of this agricultural collection in Lemerle, op. cit., pp. 288-92.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

203

survival in some forty manuscripts. The only one that preserves a tribute to Constantine is ms. Laur. 59.32, to be identified with Vigili's no. 251. It is a manuscript of the mid-ninth century 'but it lacks the elegant script and the refined ornament which one would expect to find in the exemplar dedicated to the emperor'. 269 It must, however, be an early copy of the book presented to Constantine VII. The next item in Vigili, numbered 252, can be identified with the present ms. Vat. gr. 1164, dating probably from the middle of the eleventh century. It must have been removed from the Medicean collection some time after 1510. It contains another group of military treatises. Some of them duplicate the contents of ms. Laur. 55.4 (Aelian and Onosander). But Aelian's text, at any rate, had originated in a different transliteration.270This part of the collection must have descended from a different archetype that may not have been known to Constantine VII. In order to complete this account of the military treatises we should mention two other miscellaneous manuscripts of much later date which included military works, mss. Laur. 56.1 and 75.6. Both were acquired by Lascaris.271 It is impossible to say whether they are descended from versions connected with Constantine VII, though in each case some links with the texts used by him are possible. Only the earlier of these two manuscripts, ms. Laur. 56.1 of the thirteenth century, deserves some brief comment. In the instructions to his son, Emperor Romanus II, Constantine described the 'Strategemata' of Polyenus as one of the works that an emperor should always have with him on a military campaign. This treatise on ruses in warfare was completed in 162 A.D. and was another work of a rhetorician and not a professional soldier. Ms. Laur. 56.1 constitutes our earliest source of his treatise from which derive all subsequent copies.2 7 2 The earliest Greek literary texts that can perhaps be attributed to the Medici collection of 1494 are two manuscripts of Homer, 273 mss. 269 Weitzmann II (1971), pp. 1924. 270 Dain II (cit. supra, 1946), chapters XI-XII. A reconstruction of the original contents of this collection is on p. 205. The fullest recent description is in Dain, 1967 (fit. supra),pp. 385-6. 271 Vogel, loc. cit. (1854), pp. 156 and 157. They are Vigili nos. 62 (ms. 56.1) and 381 (ms. 75.6). 272 Dain I (cit. supra, 1940), p. 48. See also below, appendix 3, no. 11 (the use by Politian of another text contained in ms. 56.1). On the treatise of Polyenus and its subsequent fortunes see also Dain in Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 33 (1931), pp. 321-45. 273 There is an important discussion of the textual tradition of Homer in G. Pasquali, Storia della Tradizione e Critica del Testo (2nd ed., Florence, 1971), pp. 20447. See also T. W. Allen, Homeri flias, I, Prolegomena (Oxford, 1931); T. W. Allen, "The text of the Odyssey', Papers of the British School at Rome, 5 (1910); R. Aubreton, 'La transliteration dTiomere', Byzantion, 39 (1969), pp. 13-14; R. Browning, 'Homer in Byzantium', Viator, 8 (1975), pp. 15-33.

204

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Laur. 32.15 and 32.24. Both may have originated in the late tenth century. 274 The brevity of Vigili's descriptions makes it difficult to identify them with certainty. Ms. Laur. 32.15 of Iliad might be identifiable with no. 290 of Vigili: 'Homed Ilias cum quibusdam glossematis, antiquissima'.275 The portion in a tenth century hand starts only on fo. 36v. and the marginalia are mostly textual corrections rather than notes of variants. Ms. Laur. 32.24 of Odyssey might be identifiable with no. 311 of Vigili: 'Homed Odyssea in parvo volumino in membranis'. 276 Ms. Laur. 32.24 is our oldest manuscript of Odyssey. The two manuscripts are very similar and probably formed originally a joint pair. 277 A third manuscript of a later date (11 c. - 12 c.), consisting of Iliad and Batrachomyomachia, can be identified with more assurance. It is ms. Laur. 32.3 described in Vigili (no. 289) as 'Homeri Ilias cum commentario circumposito et batrachomyomachia'.278 There is nice decoration with a tree and two birds on folio 1 and each work starts with an illuminated initial. This 'Homeric' collection might fittingly be concluded with the extraordinary manuscripts described by Vigili as follows (nos. 314, 315, 316): 'Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonices commentaria amplissima et optima super Homeri Iliada et Odyssea in tribus separatis voluminibus in membranis. Liber pulcherrimus'.279 The item concerning Odyssey raises a problem. If Vigili is correct, this should be a third volume of the original autograph of Eustathius, in which case it would be the present ms. Par. gr. 2702, gone astray some time after 1510.280 The first two volumes on Iliad are certainly mss. Laur. 59.2 and 59.3, dating from the second half of the twelfth century and containing the complete commentaries on Homer's Iliad of Eustathius 274 For the probable copying of ms. Laur. 32.24 (and therefore also of ms. Laur. 32.15) in the tenth century, see Diller (1974),p.524.I have seen both these manuscripts. 275 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 310r. It is no. 18 of Allen's list of manuscripts (op. cit., 1931),p. 15. 276 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 312r. Dr. T. Lodi made the same identification independently. 277 Allen, loc. cit. (1910), p. 6. 278 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 310r. I have seen this manuscript which is easily identified by the presence of a commentary around the text. It is no. 14 of Allen's list of manuscripts (op. cit. 1931), p. 14. See also H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Hliadem, I (Berlin, 1969), pp. XVIII-XIX, IL-L. 279 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 312r. 280 The other autograph text of the commentary of Odyssey by Eustathius,ms. Marc, gr. 460, belonged to Cardinal Bessarion and could not have been in the Medici collection. Bessarion's identification of it as an autograph of Eustathius is published by C. Frati in La Bibliofllia, 13 (1911-12), p. 254. If Vigili was careless (which would be untypical of him on this sort of matter) the Odyssey item might refer to the present ms. Laur. 59.6, a fifteenth century copy (cf. Bandini, cat. gr. II, coll. 493).

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

205

281

(archbishop of Thessalonica 1175 - c. 1195). As more than one hand appears in them they cannot be entirely autograph and were probably written in part by his secretaries but were annotated by him personally over a long period. 282 It is an immensely detailed commentary and was clearly needed for teaching. 283 It is a work of astonishing erudition and constitutes one of the most remarkable monuments of Byzantine literary learning. It would be impossible to comment on more than a small selection out of the numerous manuscripts of the eleventh and the twelfth centuries identifiable in the Medici collection. Besides, a considerable proportion of them are religious texts and the study of this part of the Byzantine inheritance is still only in its early stages.284 I can discuss here only a few manuscripts that are of importance for the textual tradition of the authors that they contain or are distinguished by their beautiful illumination. Reference has already been made to the acquisition by Lascaris at Constantinople in 1491 of the present ms. Laur. 59.15, 285 v/hich dates from the eleventh or, more probably, from the early part of the twelfth century. Its most notable components are three rhetorical works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, an important Greek scholar writing at Rome in the time of Augustus. It is one of the vital manuscripts for the textual tradition of these works of Dionysius.286 It starts with his treatise on 'De compositione verborum' ('Peri syntheseos onomaton'), probably the best known of his literary writings. This particular version of that work descends from one of the two known transliterations of it and forms our source of one of its two textual traditions. There follows in ms. Laur. 59.15 a treatise on the 'Ancient orators' and this Dionysian collection ends with 'a short piece on the genuine and spurious writings of Dinarchus'. 287 It is one of the most interesting examples of ancient literary criticism. 287a This is our only source of this work and 281 E. Martini, 'Eustathianum', Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, new ser., 62 (1907); D. Reinsch, 'Bemerkungen zu Byzantinischen Autorenhandschriften' in Harlfinger (op. cit., 1980), pp. 635-36 ('Eustathios von Thessalonike')- The most recent account with good bibliography is in Hunger, op. cit. (1978), II, pp. 63-7, 80. See also R. Browning mByzantion, 32 (1962), pp. 186-93. 282 J. Irigoin in Lustrum, 1 (1962), pp. 65-6. 283 An excellent illustration of Eustathius' method of commenting on Homer is provided by R. Browning, 'Byzantine scholarship', Past and Present, 28 (July 1964), pp. 15-16. 284 C/. K. Treu, 'Uberliefungs-und Editions-probleme der Patristik' in Harlfinger (op. dr., 1980), pp. 613-28. 285 Above, section 4. 286 The best discussion is in G. Aujac,/oc. cit. (1974), pp. 144. It is no. 49 of Vigili. 287 G. M. A. Grube, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides',/%0e«z.x:,4 (1950), p. 96. 287a M. Untersteiner, ScrittiMinori (Brescia, 1971), pp. 649-53.

206

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

subsequent versions were copied from it. 288 Several of the manuscripts present in the Medici collection in 1494 make a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the writings of a number of important Byzantine authors active between c. 350 and c. 600. We have to-day a vast number of manuscripts of the speeches, letters, homilies and diverse other religious writings of the great Cappadocian Church Fathers, St. Basil (c. 330-379) and St. Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329 - c. 390). But the Medici library contained already in 1494 two of the oldest and best manuscripts, mss. Laur. 4. 14 and 57.7. Their dates are controversial and range in various modern publications between the tenth and the twelfth centuries. 289 Ms. Laur. 4. 14 is generally accepted as the older of the two. Vigili's description (no. 194) is tantalizingly brief but points to this manuscript, especially by its inversion of the order of the letters of St. Basil and St. Gregory. 290 The version of Basil's letters is fairly near to the probable archetype of his correspondence and forms an early prototype of the second, less good (B) textual family. The better (A) textual tradition is represented in ms. Laur. 57.7, one of the earliest exemplars of this textual family. 29l For the letters of Gregory ms. Laur. 4. 14 is one of the two oldest manuscripts of one of the six textual families into which his correspondence is subdivided by modern scholars. 292 Ms. Laur. 57.7 contains again his letters from another tradition of the correspondence.293 It is also the sole source for the seven letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch written on his journey to martyrdom at Rome(110A.D.). 2 9 4 In contrast to the Cappadocian Church Fathers, the survival of several Byzantine historians of the fifth and sixth centuries had depended on a tiny group of manuscripts. Three of these were in the Medici collection by 1494. The 'Ecclesiastical History' of Socrates (c. 380 - 450), though of doubtful reliability, must, for lack of other evidence, remain one of our principal sources for the reign of 288 Van Groningen, op. cit. (1963), pp. 14-15. 289 G. Przychocki, 'De Gregorii Nazianzeni Epistularum Codicibus Laurentianis' Wiener Studien, 33 (1911); P. Gallay, 'Liste des manuscrits des Lettres de St. Gregoire de Nazianze', Rev. des etudes Grecques, 57 (1944); J. Gribomont, 'Etudes sur ITiistoire du texte de St. Basile', Scriptorium, 8 (1954); Y. Courtonne (ed.), St. Basile, Lettres, Bude ed., I (Paris, 1957); P. Gallay (ed.), St. Gregoire de Nazianzen, Lettres, Bude ed. (Paris, 1964); P. Gallay (ed.), Gregor von Nazianzen, Briefe (Berlin, 1969). 290 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 294v.: 'Basilii Epistolae ad varies et ad Libanium cum Libanii epistolis, mutuis ad eundem. Gregorii Nazianzeni Epistole ...' For the inversion of headings which led Vigili into error (and identifies this manuscript), cf. Bandini, cat. gr., I, p. 539. 291 Gribomont, toe. cit. (1954), p. 300; Courtonne, op. cit. (1957), pp. XV-XVII. 292 Gallay, op. cit. (1969), pp. XLVI-VII. 293 Vigili, no. 175. His detailed summary identifies it quite securely. 294 Geschichte der Textiiberlieferung (cit. supra, 1961), I, p. 593.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

207

295

Theodosius II (408-50). Ms. Laur. 70.7, possibly of the tenth century, constitutes one of the principal manuscripts of this work, which is included in it as a second item after the 'Ecclesiastical History' of Eusebius.296 Socrates also figures as the first work in the eleventh century ms. Laur. 69.5, which was acquired by Lascaris.297 Here the second work is another 'Ecclesiastical History', written c. 593-4 by Evagrius, a high imperial official. 298 This is a much more reliable source, distinguished by its author's accuracy and honesty. 299 Ms. Laur. 69.5 is one of the two manuscripts that has transmitted to us his history.300 The eight books of the 'History' of Procopius (c. 500 - c. 560), are preserved in a full version only in a recension divided into two volumes, dating from the fourteenth century. 301 The second of these (books 6-8), covering the Gothic Wars of Justinian and forming our principal source for the Byzantine reconquest of Italy, was the only text used by Leonardo Bruni for his Latin adaptation of 1441. 302 It is a mystery how it reached the Medici library later on in the fifteenth century but it was certainly there by 1494. 303 The Medici collection of 1494 had its fair share of beautifully illustrated Byzantine manuscripts. Only some of the oldest can be mentioned here. Vigili's inventory never specifies the presence of illumination and is very summary in its description of religious books so that they cannot always be identified satisfactorily. Vigili's no. 226 'Evangelia cum Commentario circumposito'304 gives enough of a lead to equate it with ms. Laur. 6. 18. The commentary certainly surrounds the text of the Gospels on three sides. It is a manuscript possibly of the tenth century, 305 though its lovely full page miniatures of the four

295 A recent brief account of him, with a bibliography, is in W. E. Kaegi, Jr., Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton, 1969), pp. 177-8. 296 L. Canfora, Conservazione e Perdita dei Classici (Padua, 1974), p. 31. It is no. 199 of Vigili. 297 Vogel./oc. cit. (1854),p. 160. 298 Kaegi, op. cit. (1969), pp. 217-23. 299 C/. A. Momigliano, 'L'eta del trapasso fra storiografia antica e storiografia medievale (320-550 D. C.)', La Storigografla Altomedievale (Spoleto, 1970), I, p. 114. 300 Canfora, op. cit., p. 31. It is no. 144 of Vigili. 301 J. Haury, 'Uber Prokophandschriften', Sitzungsberichte ... der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miinchen (1895), pp. 126-7, 131-5; Geschichte der Textuberlieferung (cit. s«pra,1961),I,pp.435,600. 302 See above, chapters 2 and 4 in this volume. (Laur. ms. 69.8). 303 It is no. 4 of Vigili. His serial number is still visible in the left corner of the page facing fo. Ir. 304 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 298r. 305 This is the date suggested in Bandini, cat. gr., I, p. 136.

208

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Evangelists may be of a later date. 306 Each of the Evangelists holds an open Bible with the first words of their respective Gospels clearly readable and this replaces the need for their traditional symbols.307 The Canon tables are delicately sketched in red. 308 Vigili's next item (no. 227) is 'Evangelia sine Commentario'.309 This might correspond to a large number of manuscripts. One would like to speculate that it refers to ms. Laur. 6.23, dating from the end of the eleventh century, which has been described by Kurt Weitzmann as 'the richest illustrated Gospel book' and which contains hundreds of pictures. 'The Gospel narrative is illustrated with a spirit of epic breadth'.31 ° But I could not find in it any evidence of the Medici ownership in the fifteenth century such as Vigili's serial number or notes in the hand of Zanobi Acciaiuoli who did annotate many Medici manuscripts while they were at San Marco between 1495 and 1508. The situation is much better with no. 223 of Vigili, 'Biblia graeca a Genesi usque ad Ruth' 311 which can be identified fairly safely with ms. Laur. 5. 38. It is one of the two known illustrated Octateuchs of the eleventh century, containing very numerous miniatures derived from several cycles of illustrations of diverse date and origin.312 VI

The history of the Medici library from the flight of Piero di Lorenzo and his brothers from Florence on 9 November 1494 to the restitution of the bulk of the collection to Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici in 1508 has been ably reconstructed by Piccolomini and he has discovered and published all the essential documents.313 There is little to add to this part of the story. The library may have suffered considerable losses during the sack of the Medici palace on 17 November 1494. The inventory drawn up nearly a year later shows that out of the books that bore catalogue numbers 188 were then missing, but it is impossible to estimate losses of books that had never been 306 Irigoin in Scriptorium, 12 (1958), p. 226;H. Buchthal, 'Illuminations from an early Palaeologan scriptorium' in H. Hunger und M. Restle (eds.), Festschrift fur Otto Demus zum 70 Geburtstag (Vienna, 1972), pp. 48-9. 307 Ms. Laur. 6.18, fos. 17v., 94v., 139v., 212v. 308 Ibid., fo. 10. 309 Ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 298r. 310 Weitzmann II (1971), pp. 290-91. 311 Ms. Laur. Barb. lat. 3185, fo. 297v. 312 Weitzmann II (1971), p. 53 and n. 18. 313 E. Piccolomini, loc. cit. (19, for 1874), pp. 107-29 (text), 254-281 (documents). The account that follows is chiefly based on this.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

209

314

allotted catalogue numbers. Many of the missing volumes appear to have been on loan at the time of the fall of the Medici and only some of these were recovered subsequently. Janus Lascaris appears to have been one of the major culprits.3 *5 In December 1494, or shortly afterwards, the Medici library was deposited at the Dominican convent of San Marco and there, with two interruptions of a few months on each occasion, it remained until 1508. During much of that time Fra. Zanobi Acciaiuoli (1461-1519), a pupil of Politian and a member of a distinguished Florentine family, was in charge of it. 3 l 6 Only one book was lost in the attack on San Marco on 8 April 1498 when its prior, Girolamo Savonarola, was arrested. This was the occasion of the second removal of the library from the convent but it was returned to it after six months. The inventory of the Medici collection was drawn up in October 1495 under the supervision of Bartolomeo Ciai, the chancellor of the Signoria of Florence, and of Janus Lascaris, 3l7 though the numerous inexactitudes and mistakes in it show that the latter could not have controlled the actual writing of it very closely. In spite of this close connection of Lascaris with the new regime that had supplanted the Medici, he seems to have behaved unscrupulously in detaining and permanently appropriating to himself a number of Medici manuscripts. In February 1497, when Lascaris had already left Florence and had settled at Paris, the Florentine government wrote to him asking for their return. 318 On 3 April 1497 five Greek manuscripts were recovered by Zanobi Acciaiuoli from the Florentine abode of a Greek lady friend of Lascaris.319 A number of permanent losses of Greek manuscripts should probably be attributed to Lascaris. Some of these seem to have ultimately passed into the hands of Cardinal Niccolo Ridolfi, a grandson of Lorenzo de' Medici, and are today at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.320 As has been shown, some of the volumes that are 314 See below, appendix 1. 315 For details see below. 316 A. L. Redigonda, 'Zanobi Acciaiuoli', Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, I, pp. 93-4. See also A. Perosa in Parola del Passato, 22 (1952),p. 68;C. Dionisotti inMachiavellerie (ed. Einaudi, Turin, 1980), pp. 23940. 317 Piccolomini, loc. cit. (19, for 1874), p. 113. 318 Ibid., pp. 264-5 (documents X-XI). Piccolomini, ibid., pp. 120-21, was puzzled by the conduct of Lascaris but was reluctant to condemn him. 319 Piccolomini, loc. cit. (20, for 1874), pp. 80-81. 320 H. Omont, 'Un premier catalogue des manuscrits grecs du Cardinal Ridolfi', Bibliotheque de I'ficole des Chartes, 49 (1880); Roberto Ridolfi, 'La biblioteca del cardinale Niccolo Ridolfi (1501-1550)', La Bibliofilia, 31 (1929); G. Mercati, 'Indice di manoscritti greci del cardinale N. Ridolfi, Opera Af/Hori" (Citta del Vaticano, Studi e Testi, 78, 1937), especially p. 128: 'La massima parte dei manoscritti greci del Ridolfi venne dal Lascaris'.

210

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

to-day there had been removed from the Medici collection only after 1510.321 But some of the former Medici books at Paris which cannot be traced in Vigili's inventory may have belonged to the collection appropriated since 1494 by Lascaris. Ms. Par. gr. 1394 is the one 'suspect' where the evidence is fairly strong. It is a luxurious manuscript which had been specially commissioned by Lorenzo around 1485 and it is finely illuminated. It contains the whole of Strabo's 'Geography' and there is annotation by Lascaris down to the middle of book 8. 322 Ms. Par. gr. 2833, another of Lorenzo's beautifully decorated commissions, may also have been appropriated by Lascaris. It contains Theocritus, Theognis and other Greek poets of special interest to Lascaris.323 In the present state of knowledge it would be pure speculation to make this list any longer. Zanobi Acciaiuoli's handwriting can be identified with reasonable certainty 324 and it is visible in many Medici manuscripts. In a number of cases it helps to identify them as belonging to the Medici collection deposited in San Marco. He was responsible for recovering several of them and his autograph notes of restoration to San Marco's custody can still be read in several manuscripts.325 He entered lists of contents 326 and even tried to emend defective texts. He appears to have been particularly interested in Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics'. One copy, recovered by Acciaiuoli on 18 January 1498, has been treated by 321 See above section 4 (mss. Par. gr. nos. 1853, 1962, 2702). It is possible that ms. Parl. suppl. gr. 97 may be identifiable with no. 298 of Vigili: 'Aristophanis Comoedie due: videlicet Plutus et Nepbule cum poete vita in principio. Euripidis Tragedie due: videlicet Hkabe kai Orestes cum glossis quibusdam et poete vita in principio'. This identification was suggested by Diller, loc. cit. (1977), p. 149 n. 2. This manuscript is assigned to the sixteenth century in J. A. Spranger, 'A preliminary skeleton list of the manuscripts of Euripides', Classical Quarterly, 33 (1939), no. 138 (p. 102) but, if Diller's identification is correct, it must be earlier. 322 A. Diller, The Textual Tradition of Strabo's Geography (Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 146-8. Perhaps this was identical with a manuscript of Strabo borrowed by Lascaris from the Medici library on 6 Nov. 1492. Cf. Diller, ibid p. 148 and Del Piazzo, op. cit., pp. 491-2. 323 D. C. C. Young, 'A codicological inventory of Theognis manuscripts', Scriptorium, 1 (1953), pp. 18, 28-30. For the contents of this manuscript see H. Omont,Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 2nd pt. (Paris, 1888), p. 47. 324 There are signed autograph entries in the register of loans of books from the papal library. The earliest were by Acciaiuoli as a borrower and others in his capacity of the prefect of the Vatican library in 1518-19. Cf. photostats in M. Bertola, I due primi registri di prestito della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Citta del Vaticano, 1942), plates 34, 123*, 124*. 325 Piccolomini, loc. cit. (19 for 1874), pp. 80-83; Mss. Laur. 28.13 (Vigili, no. 261), 28.14 (Vigili no. 247), 28.20 (Vigili, no. 170), 32 .46 (Vigili, no. 306); ms. Vat. gr. 1698 (Vigili, no. 275) cited by G. Mercati, Scritti d'Isidoro Cardinale Ruteno (op. cit., 1926), p. 90, n. 1. 326 Mss. Laur. 31. 32, fo. 1 r. (Vigili no. 312); 58. 2, fo. 2 r. (Vigili, no. 80); 60. 25, fo. 1 r (Vigili, no. 65); 75. 11, fo. 4 v. (Vigili, no. 390); 87. 11, facing fo. 1 r., in part (Vigili, no. 120). This is not an exhaustive list.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

211 327

Ullman and Stadter as retained at San Marco (ms. Laur. 81.7). It certainly includes Acciaiuoli's textual emendations.328 But so does ms. Riccardianus 46 329 and perhaps this is no. 1139 of San Marco catalogue. Three Greek manuscripts of the 'Nicomachean Ethics' are listed in Vigili's inventory. 330 One can be readily identified as a copy borrowed by Lorenzo de' Medici from the city of Pistoia and never returned. 330a The second might be ms. Laur. 81.7. The choice of a third lies between ms. Laur. 81.8 and ms. Laur. 81.10. Of Acciaiuoli's numerous notes in other manuscripts the most unexpected and amusing is his declension of the name 'Zanobius', both in the singular and the plural, inserted into a Greek 'liber declinationum tam nominum quam verborum' which it helps thereby to identify as one of the Medici manuscripts.331 As a consequence of complex financial settlements between the Florentine state and some creditors of the Medici, the brothers Jacopo and Alamanno Salviati, members of one of the leading Florentine families, acquired a claim on the Medici books deposited at San Marco. A third of the collection appears to have passed into their ownership in 1500. In 1506 Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici was negotiating with the Salviati for the repurchase of their share. It is not clear whether the transaction was ever completed. In any case the Salviati retained at least some of the Medici books. 332 To-day a considerable number of volumes that had formerly belonged to the Medici are scattered through many libraries outside the Laurenziana of Florence. They include numerous works of Italian literature and poetry and derive perhaps from the later dispersal of the Salviati share of the Medici books. Among the manuscripts brought from Greece by Lascaris was a ninth-century text of a number of writings of Proclus which to-day we call the 'Commentaries of Proclus on the Republic of Plato'. 333 327 Op. cit. (1972), pp. 38 and 257 (no. 1139 of San Marco's catalogue). But there is nothing in that manuscript to confirm the supposition (p. 38) that it was one of Politian's former books. 328 See Moraux, op. cit. (1976), pp. 2634. As Acciaiuoli himself noted (fo. 122 r.), he had completed the emending of the text on 22 April 1504. 329 E. g. see a note on fo. 6 r. in Acciaiuoli's hand 'Hie nihil deest sed trans' ad alterum folium ....' This is a manuscript of the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence. 330 Vigili, nos. 119,121, 169. 330a Ms. Laur. 81. 17. Cf. A. de la Mare, Handwriting, I (op. cit., 1973), p. 96 and n. 5, citing R. Piattoli, 'Ricerche intorno alia biblioteca dell' umanista Sozomeno', La Bibliofilia, 36 (1934), pp. 301-2. 331 Ms. Laur. 57. 25, fo. 1 r. (Vigili, no. 354). 332 Piccolomini, loc. cit. (19, for 1874), pp. 119-23, 126-28, 270-76. (documents XX-XXIII). 333 See above, sections 4 and 5.

212

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Originally a tome of over 400 folios, it became split into two parts.334 This may have happened before they were brought to Florence as Ficino's reference to this work in a letter suggests that he had borrowed and was using the contents of only the first of the two volumes.335 The first volume is alone listed in Vigili and it constitutes the present ms. Laur. 80.9. The second volume was not in the collection returned to Cardinal Giovanni. The reason may be that before 1508 it had probably come into the hands of the Salviati. At any rate it was from the Salviati that this second volume was purchased by the Vatican library in the eighteenth century, where it forms the present ms. Vat. gr. 2197. 336 On 29 April 1508 Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici negotiated the repurchase of San Marco's share of the Medici books, constituting presumably the remaining two thirds of the collection.337 They were probably dispatched to Rome later on in that year. 35 books that had been accidentally left behind at San Marco were sent to Rome only in 1510. Cardinal Giovanni's receipt for them is dated on 13 June 1510.338 This last consignment is not covered by Fabio Vigili's inventory, which must have been drawn up between the arrival of the main collection at Rome in 1508 and the midsummer of 1510. The lists, of which the Greek inventory of the Medici library forms the first item, cannot in any case be later than April 1512, because this ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185 contains lower down the inventory of one of the monastic libraries at Ravenna which was destroyed during the battle of Ravenna on 11 April.339 The exact number of books restored to Cardinal Giovanni is unknown. Greek and Latin volumes, mostly manuscripts, totalled in June 1510 at least 1016.340 There is no evidence for estimating his Italian holdings and the Vigili inventories do not appear to cover Giovanni's private collection built up during his years of exile from Florence. The great usefulness of Vigili's Greek and Latin inventories for reconstructing the contents of the Medici collection has already been amply illustrated in the foregoing pages. One group of manuscripts 334 C. Gallavotti, 'Intorno ai comment! di Proclo alia repubblica', Bollettino del comitato per la preparazione della edizione nazionale dei classici greet e latini, n. ser., 19 (1971), pp. 41-54. 335 Saffrey, loc. cit. (1959), p. 184. 336 Gallavotti, loc. cit., p. 41. 337 Piccolomini, loc. cit, (19 for 1874), pp. 128-9, 276-7 (documents XXFV-XXV). 338 Ibid., pp. 279-81 (document XXVIII). 339 Laurent, op. cit. (1943), p. XXII. 340 See below, appendix 1.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

213

listed by Vigili deserves, however, some further comment. Occasionally his inventories show that a manuscript has been completely reshaped since his time, perhaps in the process of rebinding. An extreme case is presented by no. 248 of the Greek inventory.341 It is to-day ms. Laur. lat 29.27. 342 The change might be explained as follows. The manuscript statrs today, as did Vigili's entry, with the 'Elements' of Euclid, in Greek, but with a partial Latin translation. Vigili's next three items, works of Proclus and Ptolemy and David's commentary on Porphyry, all in Greek, have disappeared. The rest of the volume, consisting of miscellaneous translations into Latin, some of them printed, is still preserved and it is understandable that it should have been listed among Latin books in Bandini's catalogue.343 Several manuscripts treated as a single volume by Vigili have become split up subsequently into two, or even three separate volumes. Some were disparate items, originally bound together only because they had been transcribed by the same copyist for the Medici. This is the case, for example, with three Greek works copied in 1491 for Lorenzo at Venice by Joannes Rhosos: listed as no. 361 by Vigili they were split up into three manuscripts and are listed widely apart in Bandini's catalogue.344 No. 95 of Vigili's Greek inventory permits one significant piece of 'textual restoration'.345 The bulk of its contents, except for the last item, constitutes the present ms. Laur. 87.14 of the thirteenth century. It contains a collection of miscellaneous texts starting with Aristotle's 'De mundo' and including an important version of several writings and speeches of Isocrates. Its various components have been regarded with much interest by several modern editors.346 Vigili's last item is 'Aristotelis Metaphysicorum libri XIII'. If the present ms. Laur. 87.18, which contains precisely this one single work, 347 is compared with ms. Laur. 87.14, it is clear at a glance that they have once formed part of a single volume with a continuous pagination.348 As long as the true provenance of ms. Laur. 87.18 was unknown it was apt to be misdated. Assigned to the fourteenth century by Bandini's catalogue, it was 341 342 supra). 343 344 345 346

347

Ms. Vat. Barb, lat., fos. 301 v. - 302 r. The correct identification is indicated by the list of the late Dr. Teresa Lodi (cit. Bandini, cat. lat., II, 44-5. See below, appendix 3, no. 64. Ms. Vat. Barb, lat 3185, fo. 280 v. Moraux, op. cit. (1976), pp. 307-10.

Ibid., p. 318.

348 The vellum used is identical as well as size. There is identical illumination. The handwriting of 87.18 may be slightly different but it is clearly of the same period as the hand of 87.14. The continuous pagination is at the bottom of the pages, with 87.14 ending on p. 144 and 87.18 starting with page 145.

214

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

placed as late as the fifteenth century in Silvio Bernardinello's study of the manuscripts of Aristotle's 'Metaphysics'.349 Moraux was able to date it correctly in the thirteenth century 350 and he described it as clearly forming the last part of some longer manuscript 351 It was his description that prompted me to identify it with Vigili's last item in hisi no. 95 and to verify this by placing side by side mss. Laur. 87.14 and 87.18. Lastly, Vigili descriptions suggest that we have lost altogether some valuable texts.3 5 1a Francesco Albertini's description of the city of Rome was published on 4 February 1510 under the title 'De mirabilibus novae et veteris urbis Romae'. He was himself a Florentine and it was natural that he should mention among the glories of the 'new' Rome the library of Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici. It was then already installed in its new quarters. As his father before him, Giovanni allowed generous access to his books. Albertini tells us that anyone who wished could study them and scholars could work even in the presence of Cardinal Giovanni in the library's reading room. 35 2 349 S. Bernardinello, Eliminatio Codicum della Metafisica di Aristotele (Padua, 1970), pp. 17,179-80. 350 Op. cit., p. 318. It is also assigned to the thirteenth century by D. Harlfinger, 'Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Metaphysik' in P. Aubenque (ed.), Gtudes sur la Metaphysique d'Aristote, Actes du VIe Symposium Aristotelicum (Paris, 1979), p. 9. 351 Moraux, op. cit., p. 318. 35 la E. g. Vigili no. 148: Themistii philosophi Paraphrasis in Aristotelis apodeiktikes libros videlicet priorum et posteriorum etc. [analyticorum]. Themistius himself mentioned his 'paraphrase' of the Prior Analytics but it is lost now. Cf. G. Dagron in Travaux et Memoires (cit. supra), 3 (1968), p. 15. It looks as if this item had been irrevocably lost. The two mss. of the paraphrase on 'Posterior Analytics' in Laurenziana library (ms. Laur. 72. 24 and 72. 25) do not show any signs of mutilation at the start. 352 Piccolomini, loc. cit. (19 for 1874), pp. 278-79 (document XXVII).

APPENDIX 1

THE SIZE OF THE MEDICI LIBRARY, 1494 and 1510. It is impossible to know how many books were owned by the Medici on 9 November 1494, when Piero di Lorenzo was driven out of Florence, or in 1510, after the collection had been returned to Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici. In each case the best that can be done is to arrive at an approximate order of magnitude. (1)- 1510 A solid starting point is provided by the two inventories of Vigili. 419 books are listed in the Greek inventory and 962 in the Latin inventory. The number of Italian works is unknown. 35 books, for some unknown reasons, were not sent back to Cardinal Giovanni with the main collection in 1508 but were returned in 1510 (Piccolomini, loc. cit., 19 (1874), pp. 279-81). This raised the number of the Greek works to 431 and of the Latin ones to 585. The overall total of books (almost all manuscripts) recovered by Cardinal Giovanni amounted to 1016. This included an uncertain number of former books of Politian (see below, appendix 3). The private library of Cardinal Giovanni accumulated by him during his exile from Florence in 1494-1508 does not appear to have been listed in Vigili's inventories. (2) Around 1500 The one major element of uncertainty is provided by the third part of the Medici collection sold to the Salviati (above, section 6). It is not clear whether they resold at least some of their acquisitions to Cardinal Giovanni. Assuming that the Salviati really did retain for the time being all their purchases this would raise the total size of the Medici collection c. 1500 by another third to over 1300 volumes. It can be reasonably conjectured that the Salviati share contained a proportion of the Italian books, as this would help to account for a considerable number of vernacular works that had once belonged to the Medici and are now dispersed through many libraries outside the Laurenziana of Florence.

216

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography (3) 1494

The only sure guide is provided by the inventory of the sequestrated Medici books drawn up in 1495. We should eliminate at the outset 68 volumes, inventoried in 1495 but subsequently returned to their legitimate owners, the heirs of Francesco Sassetti (above, section 4) and Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici (no. 451 of 1495 inventory, cf. Piccolomini, 20 [1874, p. 71]. On the other hand one should add twenty three books recovered at various times between 1495 and 1498 by the Dominican friars of San Marco. They included some books that had formerly belonged to Politian but remained henceforth permanently annexed to the Medici collection. With these adjustments we get 971 volumes, of which 18 were in the vernacular. A large quantity of books was missing when the inventory of 1495 was drawn up. The losses from that part of the library that bore catalogue numbers can be readily calculated. Piccolomini reached the total of 190, out of which 152 were Greek and 38 Latin [loc. cit., 19 (1874), p. 117]. My own total is slightly smaller (188). If it is adjusted by the deduction of items that were subsequently recovered, there remained a permanent loss of 165. Added to the 971 books listed above this gives the grand total of 1136. But it is impossible to estimate losses of volumes that had never been assigned catalogue numbers. Many of them were probably devotional books, presentation copies or works of Italian literature. These types of books were often nicely illuminated and were therefore particularly likely to be removed.

APPENDIX 2

Manuscripts owned or annotated by Francesco Filelfo (identifiable in the Greek and Latin inventories of Vigili and, therefore, probably acquired by Lorenzo de' Medici from Filelfo in 1481 or earlier). Manuscripts seen by me are marked with an asterisk. References to uncertain identifications are italicized. Mss. connected with Filelfo but possibly never belonging to him are inserted within square brackets. Several manuscripts that had once belonged to Filelfo are scattered today through various libraries outside Florence (chiefly at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris and at the Vatican library). As there is no assured evidence that they did not cease to belong to Filelfo before Lorenzo acquired the bulk of his collection at his death, and as they cannot be identified with certainty in the inventories of Vigili, it seemed preferable to omit them here. Several are included in H. Omont's provisional list of 1900, cited below. List of abbreviations : Bandini, cat.gr. - A.M. Bandini, Catalogus manuscriptomm graecorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, Florence, 3 vols., 1754-70. Calderini - A. Calderini, 'Scopi e fonti di ricerche intorno alia biblioteca e alia cultura di Fr. Filelfo', Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, 20 (1913). Del Piazzo - M. del Piazzo, Protocolli del Carteggio di Lorenzo il Magnifico per gli anni 1472-4, 1477-92 (Florence, 1956). Legrand - E. Legrand, Cent dix lettres grecques de Franqois Filelfe (Paris, 1892). Moraux - P. Moraux, Aristoteles Graecus: die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles, I (Berlin, 1976). Omont - H. Omont, 'Un nouveau manuscrit de la Rhetorique d'Aristote et la bibliotheque grecque de Francesco Filelfo', La Bibliofilia, 2 (1900). Piccolomini (1495) - E. Piccolomini, 'Intorno alle condizioni ed alle vicende della Libreria Medicea privata', Archivio Storico Italiano, 3rd ser., 20 (1874), pp. 52-94. Turyn - A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy (Urbana, 1972), vol. I (text), vol. II (plates). (a) Greek mss. (inventory in ms. Vat.Barb.lat. 3185). All are mss. Laurenziani except the last Greek item (no. 25). 1 *28.32. 'Astronomica' of Isaac Argyrus and 'Onomasticon' of Pollux, 15c. Filelfo's ownership note, fo.!9v. (facing the beginning of Pollux) and perhaps only that text belonged to him. Omont, no. 18; Calderini p. 379 and n.2. Vigili, no. 328. 2 *28.45. 'Mechanica' of Aristotle, 'Metaphysica'of Theophrastus and 'De daemonibus'

218

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

of pseudo-Psellus, 1445. P.L. Rose, The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics (Geneva, 1975), p. 28 (for 'Mechanica' of Aristotle); Moraux pp. 194-5; P. Gautier "Le 'de daemonibus' de pseudo-Pselles", Rev. des Etudes Byzantines, 38 (1980), pp. 111-2. Filelfo's arms, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 98. 3 *31.1. 11 tragedies of Euripides, 6 of Sophocles, 3 of Aeschylos, c. 1470, copied from 32.2 of 14c. (then at San Marco, Florence). Calderini, pp. 237, 246-8 (but some statements unreliable or wrong). A. Turyn, Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Sophocles (2nd ed., 1970), pp. 41, 66-7; A. Tuilier, Recherches critiques sur la tradition du texte d'Euripide (1968), pp. 100, 192. For the date see A. Garzya in Boll, del Comitato per la Preparazione dell' Edizione Nazionale del Classici Greci e Latini, new ser. 20 (1972), p. 62, n. 19. Note of copying for Filelfo, fo. 123r. Vigili, no. 292. 4 32.1. Pseudo-Homer, 'Batrachomyomachia' and Homer, 'Iliad', copied by Theodore Gaza, 15c. Bandini, cat.gr., II, coll. 121-2, mentioning Filelfo's arms (coll. 122). T.W. Allen, Homeri Ilias, I,Prolegomena (Oxford, 1931),pp. 18-9;Omont, no. 23;Calderini,p. 237. Vigili, no. 285. 5 32.16. Collection of Greek poets, assembled by Maximus Planudes, 1280 - 83. The best descriptions of this very valuable ms. in Turyn, pp. 28-39 and in C. Gallavotti 'Planudea', Boll, del Comitato per .... Ediz. Naz. (cited fully above, no. 3), new ser., 7 (1959), pp. 30, 37-44. Omont no. 26; Calderini, p. 347. Ownership note of Filelfo, who bought it at Constantinople in 1423. Used by Politian (cf. appendix 3, no. 7); Vigili, no. 417. 6 32.20. Licophron, 'Alexandra', 15c. Possibly identical with a manuscript recorded under 31 May 1486 in the loan register of the Medici library as a book of Filelfo (cf. Del Piazzo, p. 447) and with no. 17 in the inventory of 1495 (paper), cf. Piccolomini (1495), p. 54. Vigili, no. 349. 7 *32.23. Homer, 'Odyssey', 15c. Omont, no. 24. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 283r. Vigili, no. 335. 8 *55.19. Xenophon, 'Convivium Philosophorum', 'Oeconomicus', 'Cyropaedia', 1426-7 at Constantinople. Legrand, p. 133; Omont, no. 11; Calderini, pp. 237, 406. Filelfo's arms and initials, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 29. 9 *56.7. Various works of Plutarch incip. with 'Regum apophthegmata'..., 1436. Omont no. 7; Calderini, pp. 237, 368. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 205v. and annotated by him. Vigili, no. 12. 10 *57.11. 'Etymologicon', 1466. Omont, no. 17. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 396r. Vigili, nos. 317 or 332 or 337. 11 *58.15. Fr. Filelfo 'De generatione animae' (autograph), 15c. Omont, no. 27. Filelfo's authorship note, fo. 80v. Vigili, no. 358. 12 *58.19. Herodian and other grammarians, 15c. Omont, no. 14; Calderini, pp. 256-7. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 191v. and annotated by him. Vigili, no. 339. 13 *59.22. Dion Chrysostom, 80 'sermones', 14c. Perhaps ms. owned by Filelfo in 1431 (cf. Legrand, p. 14). Omont, no. 21. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 406. Vigili, no. 35. 14 *60.18. Aristotle 'Rhetorica' and 'Rhetorica ad Alexandrum', Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 'De compositione nominum' ('epitome') and other works by Dionysius and Theophrastus, 1427 at Constantinople. The 'epitome' of Dionysius in the version revised by Maximus Planudes (cf. G. Aujac in Rev. d'Historic des Textes, 4 (1974), pp. 36-9). K. Wilke 'Uberlieferung der Rhetorike pros Aleksandron', Hermes, 46 (1911), pp. 4041; Moraux, pp. 219-20. Filelfo's arms, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 116. 15 *69.9. 'Histories' of Polybius, books 1-5 (ending fo. 296r.), 1435. S. Moore, The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius (Cambridge, 1965), p. 13 (the second part of ms., consisting of excerpts from books 6-18, added after Filelfo's time). Legrand, pp. 11-12; Calderini, pp. 381-3. Subsequently used and annotated by Politian (infra, appendix 3, no. 20). Filelfo's arms, fo. Ir. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 296r. Vigili, no. 16. 16 *70.18. Diodorus, books 1-3, 5, 15c.; Omont, no. 13; Calderini, pp. 289-91. Filelfo's arms, fo. Ir. Probably Vigili, no. 5. 17 *80.7. Plato, 'Republic' and 'Parmenides', ?Third quarter of 15c. N. G. Wilson, 'A list

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

219

of Plato manuscripts', Scriptorium, 16 (1962). Filelfo's emblems and initials, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 105. 18 *80.22. Plutarch, 'Moralia' and 'Lives of Galba and Otho', mainly 14c. but with autograph additions by Filelfo (including a collection of Greek and Roman inscriptions sent to Filelfo by Ciriaco of Ancona). Bandini, cat.gr. Ill, coll. 210-12; Omont, no. 8; Calderini, pp. 300 and n.l, 368-70. Filelfo's ownership note, fo.lv. Vigili, no 10. 19 *80.24. Initial part (fos. 1-89 only) translation by Maximus Planudes into Greek of Cicero's 'Somnium Scipionis' and the commentary on it by Macrobius. An autograph of Filelfo and annotated by him. The rest of the manuscript is written in a different hand and there is nothing to connect this further part with Filelfo. S. Bernardinello, 'La traduzione greca di Rhetorica ad Herennium', Aevum,41 (1973), p. 397. Vigili, no. 72. 19a [81.4. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum', 2nd quarter of 15c. Copied from ms. Laur. 81.20 that had belonged to Filelfo (below, no. 22). Probably annotated by Filelfo. Moraux, pp. 260-1. Not in Vigili]. 20 *81.13. Aristotle, 'Magna moralia' and pseudo-Demetrius of Phaleron 'de interpretatione', 1444. Omont no. 2; Calderini, p. 237; Moraux, pp. 268-9. Filelfo's emblems and initials, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 102. 21 *81.15. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum' (annoted by Filelfo) and Horapollon 'Hieroglyphica', 1st quarter of 15c., brought to Italy by Giovanni Aurispa, c. 1421-3. Aristotle's text is the oldest of one of the two textual families of that work. P. Moraux and D. Harlfinger (eds.), Untersuchungen zur Eudemischen Ethik. Akten des 5 Symposium Aristotelicum (Berlin, 1971), pp. 4-5, 14, n. 40; Moraux, pp. 269-70. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 72 (Aristotle). Loan, probably of this ms., restored by Demetrius Chalcondyles on 20 April 1484 (Del Piazzo, p. 446). Vigili, no. 84. 22 *81.20. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum', Horapollon 'Hieroglyphica', pseudo-Plato 'Definitiones', 1st half of 15c., written by three different copyists for Filelfo, probably partly at Constantinople. Omont, no. 3; Moraux, pp. 273-5. Filelfo's arms, fo. Ir. Vigili, no. 83. 23 *87.11. Aristotle, a large collection beginning with 'De physico auditu', second half of 15c. Moraux, pp. 301-2. Probably annotated by Filelfo. Vigili, no. 120. 24 *87.26. Aristotle 'Meteorologica' and 'Metaphysica', 2nd half of 13c. Alleged by Calderini (pp. 268-9) to have been owned and annotated by Filelfo. There are marginal notes that seem to be Filelfo's but no trace of his subscription, arms or emblems. Moraux, pp. 329-30. Probably in Del Piazzo, p. 447 (14 Oct. 1486). Vigili, no. 94. 25 Vat.gr. 218. Anthemius 'De admirabilibus machinis' and Pappus, 'Mathematical collections', late 9c. or early lOc. Del Piazzo, p. 447 (14 Oct. 1486). J. Irigoin, 'Survie et renouveau de la Litterature antique a Constantinople' (IXe siecle)' in D. Harlfinger (ed.), Griechische Kodikologie und Textuberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1980), pp. 192-3 (for the date); A.P. Treweek. 'Pappus of Alexandria. The manuscript tradition of Collectio Mathematica', Scriptorium, 11 (1957); Codices Vaticani Graeci, I (1923), no. 152 (p. 283). Vigili, no. 241. (b) Latin mss. (inventory in ms. Vat.lat. 7134). All are mss. Laurenziani. 26 *33.33. Fr. Filelfo, 'Sfortiados, libri 4, heroica carmine', 3rd quarter of 15c. Possibly annotated by Filelfo. Not a dedicatory copy and no evidence about ownership. Vigili, no. 353. 27 [*33.34. Fr. Filelfo, 'Carmina',? third quarter of 15c. Not a dedicatory copy and no evidence about ownership. Vigili, no. 366]. 28 49.9. Cicero, 'Epistolae ad famiiares', probably fust half of 9c. (possibly copied in the palace scriptorium of Emperor Louis the Pious), the oldest complete text. Lorenzo's acquisition from Filelfo (c. 1481) attested by Politian in Miscellanea I, no. 18 (also references to it, but without mentioning Filelfo, ibid., nos. 25, 87), infra, appendix 3, no. 52. B. Bishoff 'Die Hofbibliothek, unter Ludwig dem Frommen' (publ. 1976, republished in Mittelalterliche Studien, III, 1981), p. 185. Vigili, no. 26 (liber vetustissimus'). 29 *50.12. Cicero, 'Rhetorica vetus' ('de inventione') with the commentary of Victorinus, ?1 Ic. or later. Filelfo's ownership note, fo. 75v. Vigili no. 17. 30 [*52.31. Fr. Filelfo, Latin translation of 'Rhetorica ad Alexandrum', 15c. No

220

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

evidence about ownership and nothing to prove that Fifelfo commissioned this copy. Vigili, ?no. 63]. 31 *53.10. Fr. Filelfo, 'De Francisci Sfortiae felicitate', c. 1467. Apparently Filelfo's autograph with his subscription on fo. 105v. Vigili, no. 109. 32 *63.34. Latin translations by Fr. Filelfo of 'Xenophontis, de re publica Lacedaemoniorum', and 'de laudibus Agesilai' and Plutarch's 'Vitae Lycurgi ... et Numae Pompilii', c. 1432. Calderini, pp. 405-6. Filelfo's arms and initial, fo. Ir. and his subscription, fo. 138v. Vigili, no. 82.

APPENDIX 3

Manuscripts owned, procured or used by Politian, identifiable in the Greek and Latin inventories of VigilL The main aim of this appendix is to document more fully the use made by Politian of the manuscripts in the private library of the Medici. The inventories of Vigili form an obvious base for a reconstruction of what was available to Politian in the Medicean collection. I have also included a few manuscripts known to have belonged to the Medici but missing after 1494, and therefore not included in Vigili's inventories (indicated by square brackets). A number of Politian's own manuscripts were added after his death in September 1494 to the collection sequestrated from the Medici and they were included in the inventories of Vigili. As it is often impossible to ascertain whether a manuscript had belonged to Politian or was a Medicean property recovered from him after his death, it seemed best to include all these manuscripts and try to distinguish them by the fullest possible statement of the evidence. I have also included three manuscripts of Politian which, because they were recuperated somewhat later, were not added to the Medicean collection but were awarded to S. Marco at Florence in compensation for manuscripts that had been lent by that convent to Politian and had been lost by him (nos. 43, 62-3). Manuscripts seen by me are marked with an asterisk. References to mcertain identifications are italicized.

222

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography List of abbreviations :

Bandini, cat. gr. - A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum latinorum graecorwn Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, Florence, 3 vols., 1754-70. Bandini, cat. lat - A.M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Medicae Laurentianae, Florence, 4 vols., 1774-77. Bibtioteca Medicea - Laurenziana, 16c. - La Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana nel Secolo della sua Apertura al Pubblico (11 Giugno 1571}, Florence, 1971. Campana - A. Campana, 'Contributi alia biblioteca del Poliziano' in 77 Poliziano e il suo tempo (Florence, 1956). Del Piazzo - M. del Piazzo, Protocolli del Carteggio di Lorenzo il Magnifico per gli anni 1472-4,1477-92 (Florence, 1956). Diels - H. Diels, Die Handschriften der antiken Artze.Teil I (1905), Teil II (1906) Berlin 1906. Lascaris I (1854) - E.G. Vogel, 'Litterarische Ausbeute von Janus Lascaris' Reisen in Peloponnes urn's Jahr 1490', Serapeum, 15 (1854), pp. 154-60. Lascaris II (1884) - K. K. Miiller, 'Neue Mitteilungen iiber Janos Laskaris und die Mediceische Bibliothek', Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, I (1884). 'Verzeichnis gefundener resp. erworbener Hss.', pp. 397-407. Maier -1. Maier, Les Manuscrits d'Ange Politien (Geneva, 1965). Miscellanea I - Miscellaneeorum Centuria Prima (1489), ed. in Aldo Manuzio, Angeli Politiani Opera Omnia (Venice, 1498). Miscellanea II [1493-94] - Miscellaneorum Centuria Secunda (Editio minor), ed. V. Branca & M.P. Stocchi (Florence, 1978). Moraux - P. Moraux, Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles, I (Berlin, 1976). Perosa, 'Galen' - A. Perosa, 'Codici di Galeno postillati dal Poliziano' in Umanesimo e Rinascimento. Studi offerti a Paul Oskar Kristeller (Florence, 1980). Perosa, Mostra - A. Perosa (ed), Mostra del Poliziano nella Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Florence, 1955). Piccolomini (1495) - E. Piccolomini, 'Intorno alle condizioni ed alle vicende della Libreria Medicea privata', Archivio Storico Italiano, 3rd ser., 20 (1874), pp. 52-94. Recovered 1495 - Recovered from Politian's possession and inventoried on 24 October, 1495, ibid., pp. 92^. Turyn - A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy (Urbana, 1972), vol. I (text), vol. II (plates). Ullman and Stadter (1972) - The Public Library of RenaissaNiccold Niccoli, Cosimo de' Medici and the Library of San Marco (Padua, 1972). (a) Greek mss. Laurenziani (inventory in ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3815). 1 6.3. Commentaries of various Greek church fathers on the Psalms, lie. Includes (item 17) a letter of Athanasius to Marcellinus containing 'proemium in Psalmorum interpretationem', fos. 25v. - 30r. Used by Politian (with other mss.) in his 'Magni Athanasii in psalmos opusculum' (ed. in Angeli Politiani Opera Omnia, Aldo Manuzio, Venice, 1498), cf. Bandini, cat.gr. I, p. 89. L. Cesarini, 'La versione del Poliziano di un opuscolo di S. Atanasio', Rinascimento, 2nd ser., 8 (1968), especially pp. 316-9. Vigili no. 134. 2* 28.14. Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos' and various astrological works, 14c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 78; Maier, p. 331; A. Olivieri, Catalogus Codicum Astralogorum Graecorum, I (Brussels, 1898), no. 8 (pp. 20-37). Politian's ownership noted by Zanobi Acciaiuoli, fo. 2r. Vigili, no. 247. 3 28.18. Commentaries of Theon and Pappus on the first six books of Ptolemy's 'Almagest', 1st half of 9c. The oldest version. Perosa, Mostra, no. 54; Maier, p. 331; A. Pelzer, 'Un manuscrit de la bibliotheque de Boniface VIII a la Mediceenne de Florence', Antiquite Qassique, 1 (1938), pp. 261-70; R. Devreesse, Introduction a I'titude des manuscrits Grecs (Paris, 1954), p. 235, n. 9. Evidence (now lost) for Politian's ownership in Bandini, Cat. gr.., II, coll. 37. Vigili, no. 242. See also above, section 5.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

223

4* 28.37. Aratus, 'Phaenomena', January 1465.Perosa,Mosfra, no. 68;Maier,p. 332; J. Martin, Histoire du Texte des Phenomenes d'Aratos (Paris, 1956), pp. 247-8. A note of purchase by Politian from the heirs of Paolo Toscanelli and of Politian's ownership of it, fo. 64r. Vigili, no. 297. 5* 28.44. Commentary of Theon on Aratus 'Phaenomena'. [scholia provided by Maximus Planudes], 15c. Martin (1956, cit supra, no. 4], pp. 253-4. Recovered 1495 (no. 1034). Vigili, no. 265. 6* 31.32. Incip. 'Scutum' and 'Theogonia' of Hesiod; fos. 23r.-52v. 'Phaenomena' of Aratus, annotated by Politian, 15c. Martin (1956, cit supra, no. 4), p. 261. No evidence of Medici ownership and probably belonged to Politian. Vigili, no. 312 (catalogue no. still visible on fo. lr., top left). 7 32.16. A collection of Greek poets of Maximus Planudes, 1280-83 (a ms. acquired by Lorenzo from Filelfo, supra, appendix 2, no. 5). Politian used Nonnus in Miscellanea I, chapters 11, 12, 80 and Miscellanea II (see 1978 ed., p. 119, index under Nonnus). Turyn, I, pp. 28-9, 36; L. R. Lind, Nonnos and his readers. Studies in the classical tradition, I (U. of Kansas, 1958), pp. 159-61. Vigili, no. 417. See also above, section 4. 8* 32.45. Apollonius Rhodius 'Argonautica' ... 'Homeri Hymni,' III -VII, 15 c. In 1508 still contained 'Callimachi Cyrenei Hymni' (Vigili, no. 295). Used by Politian, Miscellanea I (publ. 1489), chapter 80. R. Pfeiffer (ed), Callimachus, II (Oxford, 1953), pp. XLIII, LXV-LXIX. Vigili, no. 295. See also above, section 4. 9* 32.46. Theocritus, 15c. Perosa,Mostra, no. 13; Maier, p. 332; F. Garin, 'La Expositio Theocriti d'Angelo Poliziano nello Studio fiorentino (1482-83?)', Rivista di Filologia e d'htruzione classica, 42 (1914), pp. 275-82. Politian's ownership note, fo. lr. and text annotated by him. Vigili, no. 299. 10* 32.48. Theognis and Lucian (two separate mss. bound together), 15c. D.C.C. Young, 'A codicological inventory of Theognis manuscripts', Scriptorium, 1 (1953), p. 24. No evidence about ownership. Theognis possibly annotated by Politian. Vigili, no. 48. 11* 56.1. A partial text of Pollux, 'Onomasticon' (annotated by Politian), Polyenus 'Strategemata' and other works, 13 c. For its date see A. Dain, La Collection Florentine des Tacticiens Grecs (Paris, 1940), p. 48. Bought by J. Lascaris at Candia in 1492 (Piccolomini, loc. cit., 20, pp. 17, 24). A passage from Sotopater (unique text in this ms.) cited by Politian in Miscellanea II, chapter 31 (p. 49 of text in ed. minor of 1978). Cf. ibid., introd.,p. 21, no. 38 and p. 22, n. 41. Recovered 1495 (no. 1030). Vigili, no. 62. 12* 56.4. Plutarch's 'Moralia' and six 'Lives', 15c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 64. Probably annotated by Politian. No evidence about ownership but probably a Medici ms., Vigili. no. 9. 13 57.20. Libanius 'Orationes', 15c. Most probably used by Politian in Miscellanea I (publ. 1489), chapter 11. A. Perosa e S. Timpanaro, Jr., 'Libanio (o Coricio). Poliziano e Leopardi' Studi Ital. di Filologia Classica, new ser., 27-8 (1956), pp. 411, 422. Vigili, no. 31. 14* 59.19. Demosthenes, 15c. L. Canfora, Inventario dei Manoscritti greet di Demostene (Padua, 1968), no. 51. No evidence of ownership or of annotation by Politian. Recovered 1495 (no. 1024). Vigili, no. 39. 15* 59.30. partly 13c., partly 15c. Maximus Planudes, 'Collectanea'... Libanius. Perosa, Mostra, no. 69; Maier, pp. 334-5; E. Piccolomini, 'Intorno ai Collectanea di Massimo Planude', Rivista di Filolgia ed Istruzione Classica, 2 (1873). Mutilated at the beginning and the end and no evidence of ownership. Annotated by Politian. Recovered 1495 (no. 1031). Vigili, no. 73 (description includes the initial and final sections now missing). 16* 59.35. Letters of Sinesius and of Theodore Lascaris and other works, 14c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 72; Maier, p. 335. Mutilated at the beginning. Annotated by Politian. Recovered 1495 (no. 1014). Vigili, no. 59. 17 60.5. Arrian, 'Epicteti dissertationes' and other works, 15 April 1485. Perosa,Mostra, no. 55; Maier, pp. 335-6. Politian's ownership note (c/. Bandini, cat. gr. II, coll. 589-90). Vigili, no. 55. 18* 60.14. Aristotle, 'Poetica' and other works, 15c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 71; Maier, p. 336; Moraux, pp. 215-6. Annotated by Politian and his ownership note, fo. lr. Recovered 1495 (no. 1005). Vigili, no. 97. 19* 60.25 Apthonius and Hermogenes 'Rhetorica', 14c. with later additions. Mutilated

224

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

at the end. Politian's ownership note, fo. 2r. and some notes by him. Vigili, no. 65. 20* 69.9. Polybius, books 1-5, 22 Nov. 1435, acquired by Lorenzo from Filelfo (supra , appendix 2, no. 15). Annotated by Politian. Vigili, no. 16. 21* 69.12. (15c.) or* 69.15 (1455). Both mss. contain Xenophon, 'Hellenica' and 'Cyropaedia'. Neither contains any evidence of ownership. Recovered 1495 (no. 1034). Vigili, no. 70. 22* 70.4. Zonaras, 'History' (to 1081), 14c. Recovered 1495 (no. 1025). No evidence of ownership. Vigili, no. 7. 23* 71. 5. Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's 'Categoric', 4 August 1480. Perosa, Mostra, no. 52; Maier, p. 336; Moraux, pp. 227-8. Probably Politian's (but no ownership note). Annotated by Politian. Vigili, no. 91. 24* 71.30. Porphyry, commentary on 'Categorie' of Aristotle and other works, 15c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 53; Maier, p. 337. A few notes of Politian but no note of ownership. Probably a Medici ms. Vigili, no. 127. 25* 71.33. A collection of philosophical works starting with a Greek translation of excerpts from the 'Dialectic' of Petrus Hispanus, 14c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 73; Maier, p. 337. Purchase by Politian from Marsilio Ficino noted fo. 208. Recovered 1495 (no. 1007). Vigili, no. 133. 26* 74.8. Galen's commentaries on 'Aphorismi' and 'Prognostica' of Hippocrates, 15c. Bought by Politian from the heirs of Paolo Toscanelli, perhaps on behalf of the Medici whose arms it contains together with the initials of Piero di Lorenzo (fo. lr.). Vigili, no. 366. 27* 74.9 Galen, De usu partium corporis humani', 14c. Annotated by Politian. Vigili, no. 396. 28 74.10. Works of Galen, Dioscorides and other medicial writings, 14c. Diels, I, p. 130 and II, p. 32. Recovered 1495 (no. 1017). Vigili, no. 391. 29 74.18. Galen, 12c. (according to Dr. Nigel Wilson contains notes of Burgundio of Pisa). Recovered 1495 (no. 1021). Vigili, no. 382. 30 74.23. Dioscorides and Paulus Aegineta, 14c. Diels, II, pp. 29-30, 32, 78-9, 204. Recovered 1495 (no. 1027). Vigili, no. 370. 31 74.25. Galen, 'De composicione medicamentorum per genera', 12c. (according to Dr. Nigel Wilson contains notes of Burgundio of Pisa). Recovered 1495 (no. 1026). Vigili, no. 387. 32* 75.8. Aetius, Galen, 'De composicione medicamentorum', Dioscorides, mid - 15c., with additions of late 15c. or early 16c. Diels, II, pp. 23, 222; Perosa, Mostra, no. 67; Maier, pp. 337-8; Perosa, 'Galen' (1980), especially pp. 76-8. Bought by Politian from the heirs of Paolo Toscanelli by 1487 (fo. 398r). Recovered 1495 (no. 1019). Vigili, no. 376. 33* 75.9. or *75.16. Joannes Actuarius and other medical works (both mss. of 15c.). For 75.9 see Diels, I, p. 93 (Galen, Therapeutikos'), II, p. 5 (Actuarius), pp. 78-9 (Paulus Aegineta). Recovered 1495 (no. 1015). Vigili, nos. 377 or 379. 34* 75.12. Aetius, 'Epitome ... Oribasii' (books 1-3 only), 15c. Diels, II, p. 7. Recovered 1495 (no. 1012). Vigili, no. 372. 35 75.17. Galen, 'De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos', 12c. (by copyists of that period according to a suggestion of Dr. N. Wilson). Perosa, 'Galen' (1980), pp. 75-7. Acquired by Politian from the heirs of Paolo Toscanelli. Recovered 1495 (no. 1006). Vigili, no. 392. 36* 80.2. Theophilus, 'Institutions legales', lie. Bandini, cat. gr. HI, Coll. 172-3. Politian's ownership noted by Jean Matal in 1545, before this evidence was destroyed by rebinding. (Cf. A. Hobson, "The iter italicum of Jean Matal' in Studies in the Book Trade in Honour of Graham Pollard, Oxford, 1975, pp. 41, 52, 57, n. 63); Vigili, nos«411 or 415. 37* 81.6. Aristotle, 'Polities', 15c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 70. Politian's ownership note, fo. 169r. but not much annotated by him (except, perhaps, once fo. 145). Moraux, pp. 262-3. Recovered 1495 (no. 1036). Vigili, no. 168. 37a 85.1. The largest known collection of commentaries on Aristotle's works by various ancient and Byzantine scholars (nicknamed the 'Oceanus'), 13c. or early 14c. A. Diller, Tletho and Plutarch', Scriptorium, 8 (1954), p. 126, has conjectured that it may be identical with a manuscript seen in 1438 by Ambrogio Traversari in the possession of Emperor John VIII.

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

225

Moraux (1976), pp. 275-6. Bought by Janus Lascaris at Candia on Crete on 3 April 1492 (no. 1 in the contract, Legrand, Bibliographic Hellenique, tit. supra II, p. 326). Possibly used by Politian in Miscellanea, II, chapter 53 (commentary of Simplicius on 'De physico auditu' of Aristotle). Vigili, no. 420. See also above, section 4. 38* 85.4. Theodore Metochites, commentary on Aristotle's 'De physico auditu', 1490. (Commissioned by Lorenzo de' Medici). Not annotated by Politian but cited by him in Miscellanea II, chapter 53 (1978 ed., p. 101). Vigili, no. 100. 39* 86.22. George Pachymeres, 'compendium' of Aristotle,? 14c. Not annotated by Politian. Recovered 1495 (no. 1028). Vigili, no. 130. 40* 87.14. and *87.18. (still forming a single ms. in 1508-10, starting with Aristotle, 'De mundo' and ending with Aristotle, 'Metaphysica', now 87.18), 13c. Moraux, pp. 307-10, 318-19. Recovered 1495 (no. 1011). Vigili, no. 95. See also above, section 6. (b) Latin mss. (inventory in ms. Vat. lat. 7134). All are mss. Laurenziani except for no. 61. 41* 29.32. 'Gromatici veteres ... [fragment of] Statius, 'Silvae' (2, 7) and other works, 9c. Perosa, Mostra, pp. 15-16 and no. 46 (p. 54). K. Camber, Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores, I, pt. 2 (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1968), p. 529 for the date in 9 c. and not later (information from B. Bishoff). N. Rubinstein, 'II Poliziano e la questione delle origini di Firenze' in tt Poliziano e il suo Tempo, Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento (Florence, 1957), pp. 105-10; O. A. W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors (Newton Abbot, 1971), pp. 128-9, 185-7, 225. A Medici ms. used by Politian. Vigili, no. 124. 42* 35.10. Lucan, 'Pharsalia', 13c. Perosa, Mostra, no. 14; Ma" ier, p. 333. Purchased by Politian in March 1482 (fo. 1 r.) and his ownership note, fo. 100 r. One of eight Lucan mss. listed in Vigili (nos. 296-302, 543). 43* [35.29. Lucretius, 'De rerum natura', 15c. Awarded to San Marco, Florence, in compensation for books lent to Politian and never returned. Ms. of Politian and annotated by him. Perosa, Mostra, no. 77;Maier, pp. 3334;M. D. Reeve,'The Italian tradition of Lucretius', Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, 23 (1980), pp. 39-41. Not in Vigili]. 44 36.12. Ovid 'Metamorphoses', lie. Perosa, Mostra, no. 26. Not certain whether belonged to Politian or to the Medici. One of two mss. listed in Vigili (nos. 334, 336). 45* 36.24. Ovid, 'Fasti', 12c. or 13c. Ownership note of Politian opposite fo. 1 r. and much annotated by him. Vigili, no. 335 (Vetustus'). 46 38.24. Terence, 'Comoedie' and other works, lOc. or lie. copying a ms. of 6c. For date and provenance cf. F. Masai, Scriptorium, 30 (1976), pt. 2. Bulletin Codocologique, no. 508. Bandini, cat. lat. II, pp. 271-3. Ownership note of Lorenzo, fo. 175. Used by Politian in Miscellanea II (1978 ed.), no. 43, pp. 73-5. Used by Piero Vettori in his edition of Terence (1565), cf. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 16c. (1971), p. 58. One of the four mss. listed in Vigili (nos. 312-15). 47 38.27. Terence, Horace, [Persius], 12c. A ms. of Giuliano de' Medici lent to Politian on 6 June 1482 (Del Piazzo, p. 228). Vigili, no. 316. 48 ? 45.3. Commentaries of Servius on works of Virgil, lie. Possibly ms. recovered from Politian in 1495 (no. 1010); J. J. H. Savage, "The manuscripts of Servius's Commentary on Virgil', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 45 (1934), pp. 202-3. Perhaps Vigili no. 257 ('liber vetustus'). 49 [45.15. Donatus, 'Interpretationes Virgilianae' of 'Aeneid' books 1-5, late 8c. E.K. Rand, A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), no. 8 (pp. 90-91); B. Bishoff, Mittelalterliche Studien, II (1967), p. 14 and no. 20. It belonged to the Medici library under Lorenzo but was removed in or after 1494 and recovered only in the 16 c. from Antonio Petrei. Perosa, Mostra, no. 17 and Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, 16 c. (1971), p. 41. Used by Politian in Miscellanea I (1489), chapter 77. Not in Vigili]. 50 ? 45.24. Part of Seneca, Epistolae (from book 14 to the end), 13 c. Possibly identical with ms. used by Politian in Miscellanea, II, chapter 31 (cf. p. 31 of 1978 ed). Vigili, no. 76. 51* 47.2. Priscian 'de octo partibus orationis', 16 bks., 12 c. One of two old Priscians recovered from Politian (nos. 7022 and 1023). Annotated by Politian and belonged to Lorenzo.

226

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

One of three Priscians Vetusti' in Vigili (nos. 259, 261, 262). 52 49.9. Cicero, 'Epistolae ad familiares', probably first half of 9 c. Acquired by Lorenzo from Filelfo (supra, appendix 2, no. 28). Perosa, Mostra, no. 41. Used by Politian in Miscellanea I (1489), chapters 18, 25, 87. Vigili, no. 26. See also above, section 4. 53 50.45. Cicero, 'Rhetorica vetus' ('De Inventione') with commentary of Victorinus, 'De Amicitia'..., lie. Lent to Politian on 15 Sept. 1481 (Del Piazzo, p. 227). Vigili, no. 16. 54 55.2, Domizio Calderini, Commentary on Juvenal, 1474. Dedicatory copy for Giuliano de' Medici. E. Sandford in P. O. Kristeller, Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, I (Washington, D. C., 1960), p. 219; Perosa, Mostra, no. 19. According to Sandford contains two notes in Politian's hand but annotation by Politian denied by Perosa. Vigili, no. 280. 55* 63.4. Livy, 'First decade', 15 c. Book of Cosimo de' Medici. Allegedly 'emendatus a Politiano' (Bandini, cat. lat. II, 687). Probably annotated by Politian. One of four mss. of Livy's 'First decade' listed in Vigili (nos. 451-3, 459). 56* 64.8. Suetonius, 'Vitae Caesarum', 13 c. L. Cesarini-Martinelli, 'II Poliziano e Suetonio: osservationi su un recente contributo alia storia della filologia umanistica', Rinascimento, 3rd ser., 16 (1976), pp. 117-8 (confirmation that citations of Suetonius by Politian in Miinchen, Staatsbibliothek, ms. 754, appear to derive from ms. Laur. 64.8). Annotated by Politian and apparently belonged to him. Probably Vigili, no. 527 (Vetustus'). 57* 66.14. Justin 'Epitoma ex Pompeio Trogo'. Bandini, loc. cit., II, 788. Annotated by Politian. Probably Vigili, no. 555. 58* 67.3. Politian's Latin translation of Herodian's 'History', 1487. Perosa, Mostra, no. 92; Maier, p. 88. Politian's gift to Lorenzo, illuminated fo. 1 r. with Medici arms. Some of the marginal notes in Politian's hand. Vigili, no. 526. See above, chapter 4 in this volume. 59* 68.9. Caesar 'Commentaries' (Gallic and Civil Wars), 14 c. Bandini, cat. lat. II, 840-1. Note by Politian, fo. 2 v., of collation 'ex codice antiquissimo longobardis litteris scripto' (presumably ms. Laur. 68.6). V. Brown, The Teb ual Tradition of Caesar's Civil War (Leiden, 1972), p. 55. Much annotated by Politian and very probably his manuscript. One of three mss. in Vigili (nos. 488-9, 497). 60 73.1. Celsus, incip. with 'De arte medicinali libri 8' and other works, mid- 9 c. A. Beccaria, / codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano (secoli IX, X e XI) (Rome, 1966), pp. 277-81; M. Ferrari e G. Billanovich, 'La trasmissione dei testi nell' Italia nord-occidentale' in La cultura antica nell occidente latino dal VII all' XI secolo (Spoleto, 1975), pp. 311, 322-42. Perosa, Mostra, no. 57 (ms. in possession of Politian in 1490-91). Politian later gave it to the Medici library. Cf. V. Branca e M. Pastore Stocchi (eds.), Miscellaneorum Centuria Secunda (ed. crit.), Ill (Florence, 1972), p. 120: 'quern nos olim Medicae bibliothecae addidimus'. Vigili, no. 367. 61 [Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, ms. L. 85 sup. Columella, 'De re rustica' ..., 9 c. written at Fulda. Cosimo's ms. (A. de la Mare, The Handwriting of Italian Humanists, 1,1973, p. 48, n. 8) but lost in or after 1494. V. Brown, 'Columella', in P. O. Kristeller (ed.), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum III (Washington D. C., 1976), p. I14;lnventario Ceruti dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 4 (reprinted 1978), p. 51. Perosa, Mostra, p. 26 (citing Miscellanea I, chapter 35) for Politian's probable use of this ms. It is probably identical with 'Columella anticho, lettera longobarda', borrowed by Politian on 1 August 1482 (Del Piazzo, p. 229). Not in Vigili]. 62 [* Ms. Laur., San Marco 303. 'Etymologicon magnum' of Symeon, 13 c. Turyn, I, pp. 67-70, II, plates 49-51; Perosa, Mostra, no. 74. Ms. of Politian awarded to San Marco, Florence in compensation for books lent to him and never returned. Cf. Ullman and Stadter (1972), p. 265 (no. 1217). Not in Vigili]. 63 [Ms. Laur., San Marco 314. 'Elegantiae Lecapeni ... Catonis versus de constructione partium orationis', 15 c. A manuscript of Theodore Gaza and subsequently of Politian. It was awarded to San Marco, Florence in compensation for books lent to Politian and never returned. Cf. Ullman and Stadter (1972), p. 266. Not in Vigili].

The Library of Lorenzo de' Medici

227

(c) Greek mss. Laurenziani copied at Venice in 1491-92 for the Medici library on the instructions of Janus Lascaris and Politian. (Inventory in ms. Vat. Barb. lat. 3185). 64 Vigili, no. 361, consists of three texts copied from the manuscripts of Giorgio Valla [Cf. Lascaris I (1854), pp. 155, 160 and Lascaris II (1884), p. 383] by Joannes Rhosos and bound together, but today listed separately. (i)* 86.18. Vettius Valens, 'De natura planetarum', completed on 27 May 1491. Bandini. cat. gr., Ill, 361-2. (ii)* 75.14. 'Alexandri Aphrodisiensis de febribus', Galen 'de febribus, de quinque sensibus', completed on 20 Dec. 1491. Bandini, cat. gr., Ill, 161-2. (iii)*4.3. Athenagoras, 'De resurrectione', Stephanus Byzantius, 'De urbibus et populis', completed 31 March 1492. Bandini, cat. gr., I, 519. Cf. also for mss. copied by Joannes Rhosos, M. Vogel andV. Cardthausen,Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1909, reprinted Hildesheim, 1966), p. 190. 65 6.22. Miscellaneous works, some of which at least derived from manuscripts of Giorgio Valla [Lascaris I (1854), pp. 155, 160 and Lascaris II (1884), p. 383] copied by Joannes Rhosos between 23 April and 20 July 1491, incip. with Eusebius 'Contra Hieroclem qui ex Philostrati historia comparavit Apollonium Salvatori nostro ...' Bandini, cat. gr., I, pp. 142-7. Vigili, no. 324. 66* 28.4. 'Archimedis opera cum Eutocii commentariis', Hero Alexandrinus 'de mensuris', 1491-2. Copied by Joannes Skutariotes (cf. A. Biedl, 'Der Handschriftenschreiber Joannes Skutariotes', Byz. Zeitschrift, 38 (1938), p. 98. Now contains our oldest tradition of Archimedes derived from a ms. of ninth century which in 1491 belonged to Giorgio Valla at Venice and is now lost. J. L. Heiberg, 'Die Archimedes Handschrift Georg Vallas' Philologus, 42 (1884); J. L. Heiberg (ed.), Hero Alexandrinus, Opera, V. (Leipzig, 1914), p. V; Ch. Mugler (ed.), Archimede (Bude edition), IV (Paris, 1972), Commentaries d'Eutocius et Fragments, pp. 1-9 (introduction). J. L. Heiberg Beitrage zur Geschichte Georg Vallas und seiner Bibliothek (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 71-2; P. L. Rose, 'Humanist Culture and Renaissance mathematics: the Italian libraries of the Quattrocento', Studies in the Renaissance, 20 (1973), pp. 71-2, 96; G. Gardenal, 'Giorgio Valla e le scienze esatte' in V. Branca (ed.), Giorgio Valla tra Scienza e Sapienza (Florence, 1981), p. 68, n. 36. Vigili, no. 249. See also above, sections 4 and 5. 67 [* 58.13. Cornutus, 'De natura deorum', 'De cometis'. Completed by Joannes Rhosos on 28 June 1491. Apparently copied from a ms. that probably belonged to Giorgio Valla and later to Alberto Pio of Carpi (cf. Heiberg, op. cit., 1896, p. 128). Bandini, cat. gr., II, coll. 448-9; Olivieri, op. cit. (1898), no. 16 (p. 73); Perosa, Mostra, no. 60. Not in Vigili]. 68 70.35. Ms. of miscellaneous literary works, the last of which ('Musei de amore Heronis et Leandri poema') apparently copied for Lascaris [cf. Lascaris I (1854), p. 155]. Copied by Joannes Skutariotes (cf. Vogel und Gardthausen, op. cit., p. 198 and Biedl, loc. cit., p. 98). Vigili, no. 14. 69 86.23. Nicephorus Gregoras, 'Expositio in librum de insomniis Synesii'. Copied from a ms. of Giorgio Valla [Cf. Lascaris II (1884), p. 383] by Joannes Rhosos who completed it on 3 May 1491. Bandini, cat. gr., HI, 366-7. Vigili, no. 159.

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS CITED Cambridge, University Library Add. ms. 4414. (c. 1487-94), Herodian in Politian's Latin translation 110 Kk 4.2. (14524). Thucydides in Valla's

Latin translation 28-9, 95 Nn3. 18. Thucydides 25

Eton College Library ms. 141. (1446-7), Strabo 'Geography', books 1-10. 74

Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II.II. 129 and IV. IV. 169. Chronicle of PieroParenti 130

Florence, Laurenziana Acquisti e Doni 213. Diary of Fr. Gaddi 130-1 Ashburnham 1874. Book of Hours of Lorenzo de'Medici 173

Conv. Soppr. 164 (Herodian used for translation by Politian) 109 Conv. Soppr. 179 (Thucydides) 25

Mss. Laurenziani graeci 4. 3. (March 1492), Athenagoras; Stephanus Byzantius 213 4.14. St. Basil; St. Gregory Nazianzenus 206 5.3. Clement, 'Stromata' 187, 193,196 5.24. Clement 187, 196 5.38. Old Testament (Octateuch) 208 6.3. Commentaries on Psalms 222 6.6. Eusebius, 'De preparatione evangelica' 175 6.18. Gospels 207-8 6.22. (April-July 1491), miscellaneous, incip. Eusebius 'Contra Hieroclem' 6.23. Gospels 208 7.28. St. Gregory Nazianzenus 166 8.27. Part of the Old Testament (Octateuch). 198 9.22. (974), St. John Chrysostom 199 9.28. Cosmas Indicopleustes 199 28.3. Euclid 193, 196-8 28.4 (1491-92), Archimedes 189, 195 28.11. Manuel Bryennus 'Mousike' 175 28.13. Astrological miscellany 210 28.14. Astrological miscellany 210, 222 28.15. Strabo, 'Geography' 75

28.18. Theon; Pappus 193-4, 222 28.20. Porphyry; Ptolemy 210 28.26. Theon 194 28.32. Isaac Argyrus; Pollux 217 28.37. (January 1465), Aratus 222-3 28.44. Aratus 223 28.45. (1445). Aristotle, 'Mechanica'; Theophrastus 217-8 29.27. Miscellaneous, incip. Euclid, 'Elements' 213 31.1. (c. 1470). Euripedes; Sophocles; Aeschylos 218 31.32. Hesiod; Aratus 210, 223 32.1. Homer, 'Iliad' 218 32.2. Euripides; Sophocles; Aeschylos 218 32.3. Homer, 'Iliad' 204 32.4. Homer 173, 176 32.15. Homer,'Iliad'176, 204 32.16. (1280-83). A collection of Greek poets of Maxim us Planudes 179-81, 218, 223 32.20. Licophron218 32.23. Homer, 'Odyssey' 218 32.24. Homer, 'Odyssey' 204

230

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

32.45. Miscellany, of poets, incip. Apollonius Rhodius 'Argonautica; fin. Callimachus 180-1 32.46. Theocritus 210, 223 32.48. Theognis; Lucian 223 55.4. Miscellany of military treatises 186, 193,201-3 55.19. (1426-27), Xenophon 218 56.1. Miscellany including Pollux and Polyenus 190, 203, 218, 223 56.4. Plutarch 223 56.7. (1436), Plutarch 218 57.7. St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzenus 206 57.11. (1466), 'Etymologicon' 218 57.20. Libanius 180, 223 57.25. Grammatical miscellany 211 58.2. Josephus Rhacendytes; Socrates, 'Historia Ecclesiastica' 210 58.13. (June 1491),Cornutus 227 58.15. Filelfo, 'De generatione animae' 218 58.19. Grammatical miscellany, incip. Herodian 218 59. I.Plato 164-5 59.2. 'Eustathius on the 'Iliad' 204 59.3. Eustathius on the 'Iliad' 204 59.6. Eustathius on the 'Odyssey' 204 59.8. Demosthenes 166 59.9. Demosthenes 199-200 59.15. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 187, 205 59.19. Demosthenes 223 59.22. Dio Chrysostom 179, 218 59.30. Literary miscellany including Maxim us Planudes and Libanius 223 59.32. Miscellany of agricultural treatises 201-3 59.35. Synesius; Theodorus Lascaris 223 60.4. Epistolary miscellany, incip. Aeschines 166 60.5. Arrian 223 60.8. Aristides 60.14. Aristotle, 'Poetica' and other works 223 60.18. Aristotle, 'Rhetorica; Rhetorica ad Alexandrum'; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 179, 218 60.25. Apthonius and Hermogenes, 'Rhetorica' 210, 2234 60.26. Apollonius, 'De constructione' 170 69.2. Thucydides 25 69.5. 'Ecclesiastical Histories' of Socrates and of Evagrius 207 69.8. Procopius, 'Gothic Wars' 34, 87, 207, 218 69.9. (1435), Polybius 224 69.12. Xenophon 224

69.15. Xenophon 224 69.22. Josephus, 'De vetustate Judeorum' 166 69.30. Thucydides 25 70.4. Zonaras 224 70.5. Appian 105 70.6. (1318), Herodotus 91-2 70.7. 'Ecclesiastical Histories' of Eusebius and of Socrates 207 70.9. Diodorus 166 70.16. Diodorus 166 70.18. Diodorus 218 70.32. Herodotus 166 70.33. Appian 105 70.35. (1491-92), Miscellany of literary works, including Musaeus 227 71.5. Simplicius on Aristotle's 'Categories' 190,224 71.8. (c. 1489-92), Nikephorus Blemmydes 175 71.30. Porphyrius on Aristotle's 'Categories' and other philosophical works 224 71.33. Miscellany of philosophical works, incip. Petrus Hispanus 224 72.5. Logical works of Aristotle 200 72.24. Themistius, paraphrase of Aristotle's 'Posterior analytics' 214 72.25. Themistius, paraphrase of Aristotle's 'Posterior analytics' 214 74.1. Hippocrates 175 74.7. Hippocrates 193,198 74.8. Galen 175 74.9. Galen 224 74.10. Galen; Dioscorides 224 74.18. Galen 224 74.23. Dioscorides; Paulus Aeginetus 224 75.6. Miscellany, including military treatises 203 75.8. Aetius 224 75.9. Actuarius 224 75.11. Actuarius 210 75.12. Aetius 224 75.14. Pseudo Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 'Defebribus';Galen213 75.16. Actuarius 224 75.17. Galen 224 80.2. Theophilus, 'Institutiones legales' 224 80.7. Plato 218-9 80.9. Proclus on Plato's 'Republic' 169-70, 185, 196,212 80.22. Plutarch, 'Moralia'; 'Lives of Galba and Otho' 219 80.24. Miscellany of translations of Latin works by Maxim us Planudes 180, 219 81.4. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum' 219

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography 81.6. Aristotle, 'Polities' 224 81.7. Aristotle, 'Ethica Nicomachea' 211 81.8. Aristotle, 'Ethica Nicomachea' 211 81.10. Aristotle, 'Ethica Nicomachea' 211 81.11. Aristotle, 'Ethica Nicomachea'; 'Magna Moralia' 195 81.13. (1444), Aristotle, 'Magna Moralia'; pseudo Demetrius 'De interpretatione' 219 81.15. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum; Horapollon, 'Hieroglyphica' 180, 220 81.17. Aristotle, 'Ethica Nicomachea' 211 81.20. Aristotle, 'Ethica ad Eudemum' and miscellany of works by other authors 179,219 85.1. Collection of commentaries on Aristotle (called 'Oceanus'). 187, 191, 224-5 85.4. (1490). Commentary by Theodore Metochites on Aristotle, 'De physico auditu' 175, 191 85.6. (c. 1355). Plato 178 85.7. (1420). Plato 178

231

85.9. Plato 164 86.1. Incip. Olymipiodorus on Aristotle, 'Meteorologica' 175 86.5. Damascius, 'Dubitationes et soluliones' 175 86.9. Incip. Michael of Ephesus on various works of Aristotle 175 86.18. (1491), Vettius Valens, 'De natura planetarum' 213 86.22. Georgios Pachymeres, 'compendium' of Aristotle 225 86.23. (1491). Nikephoras Gregoras on Synesius, 'De insomniis' 227 86.28. (1491-92), Hiero Alexandrinus, 'Pneumatica' 189 87.11. Aristotle, various works, incip. 'De physico auditu' 210, 220 87.14. Miscellany, incip. pseudo-Aristotle, 'De mundo' 2134 87.18. Aristotle, 'Metaphysica' 2134 87.26. Aristotle, 'Metaphysica'; 'Meteorologica' 220

Mss. Laurenziani Italiani 41.10. Petrarch 'Canzoniere' 164

61.30. Summaries of Giovanni Villani and other Florentine chroniclers 120, 176 Mss. Laurenziani latini

12.10. (1489). St. Augustine 174 16.9. (1489-92). Bede 184 16.31. JohnCassian 164 17.22. (1489-92). pseudo-Dionysius 184 17.31. (1489-92). St. Gregory Nazianzenus, St. Basil 184 18.1. (1492). St. Gregory, pope, 'Moralia' 175 18.2. (1493). St. Gregory, pope, 'Moralia' 175 19.26. St. John Chrysostom, 'Homilies' 184 21.8. (1491), Ficino, Platonic translations and other works 184-5 21.9. Ficino, 'De Christiana religione' 179, 185 22.9. Origen, 'pros Archon' 184 23.15. (1490). Prudentius and other Christian poets 184 23.20. (1489-92). Letters of Paulinus of Nola 184 26.12. (1489-92). Tertullian 175 26.13. (1489-92). Tertullian 175 29.27. Incip. Euclid, 'Elements', partly with a Latin translation and miscellany of other Latin texts 213

29.32. Miscellaneous treatises on agriculture and land measurement 225 30.21. Pomponius Mela 164 33.33. Francesco Filelfo ('In praise of Francesco Sforza') 220 33.34. Francesco Filelfo, 'Carmina' 220 35.10. Lucan, 'Pharsalia' 225 35.21. Lucan, 'Pharsalia' 168 35.29. Lucretius, 'De rerum natura' 225 36.12. Ovid, 'Metamorphoses' 225 36.24. Ovid,'Fasti'225 36.28. Ovid 166 36.49. (c. 1380),Propertius 164 38.24. Terence 192 38.27. Terence, Horace, Persius 225 45.3. Commentary of Servius on Vergil 225 45.15. Commentary of Donatus on Vergil's 'Aeneid' 180, 225 45.24. Letters of Seneca 192 45.33. (1458). Letters of Seneca 176 46.7. Quintilian 1634 47.1. Priscian 174 47.2. Priscian 225-6 48.10. (1416). Cicero's speeches 163

232

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

48.27. Cicero, 'In Verrem' 166 49.3. Cicero, Letters 'ad Famfliares' 182 49.6. Cicero, Letters 'ad Famfliares' 182 49.7. Cicero, Letters 'ad Famfliares' 182 49.9. Cicero, Letters 'ad Famfliares' 177, 179,180,182 49.18. Cicero, Letters to Atticus 43, 53 50.45. Cicero, 'Rhetorica vetus' 226 51.11. (1476), Letters of Marsilio Ficino, book I 179 52.3 and 52.5. Works of Leonardo Bruni including the 'Life of Aristotle' 35 53.2. (1474). Commentary of Domizio Calderini on Juvenal 168-9 53.23. (1473). Commentary of Domizio Calderini on Martial 168 53.28. Landino, 'Questiones Camaldulenses' 167 54.10. (1470). Bart.Scala, 'Collectiones Cosmianae' 168 63.4. Livy, First decade 226 63.10. Livy, First decade 167 63.11. Livy, Third decade 167 63.12. Livy, Fourth decade 167 63.32. L. Bruni's translation of Herodotus 95 64.8. Suetonius, 'Vitae Caesarum' 226 65.11. L. Bruni, 'First Punic War' 34 65.21. A. Traversari's translation of Diogenes Laertius 59 65.26 and 65.27. Plutarch's 'Lives' 167 66.14. Justinus 226 66.21. Justinus 163 67.3. (1487). Politian's translation of Herodian 110-12,226

67.21. (1475). Al. Rinuccini's translation of Philostratus 168 68.9. Caesar, 'Civil Wars' 110 73.1. Celsus 177, 191 73.39. Ficino, 'Libri tres de vita' 185 73.41. 'Herbarium' 177 76.1. (1408 with additions in 1456), Cicero's dialogues 167 82.6 and 82.7. Ficino's translation of Plato's dialogues 185 82.8. Translations of Leonardo Bruni, including the speeches of Demosthenes 38 82.10 and 82.11. (1492). Ficino's translation of Plotinus 185 82.15. Ficino's translation of Neoplationist works 185 83.10. Ficino, Theologia Platonica' 185 83.11. Ficino, 'Opuscula theologica' 185 89 inf. 4. P. Candido Decembrio's translation of Appian, 'Roman History' 105-7 Redi 158. P.C. Decembrio, Italian translation of Caesar 'Commentaries' 70 Rinuccini 20. Politian's draft translation of Herodian 109-10,112 San Marco 303. Symeon, 'Etymologicon' 226 San Marco 314. Miscellany of grammatical writings 226 San Marco 330. Xenophon, 'Hellenica' 35 Strozzi 44. Cicero, Speeches 'in Verrem' 42, 53 Strozzi 64. A. Traverari's translation of Diogenes Laertius (autograph) 86

Florence, Riccardiana gr. 46. Aristotle, 'Nicomachean Ethics' 211 70. Proclus used by Ficino 169 120. Works of J. Argyropoulos 63 136. Works of Leonardo Bruni, including 'Cicero Novus' 36, 43-5,49, 51 143. A. Traversari's draft translation of Diogenes Laertius 86-7 166. (1442). L. Bruni's translation of Aristotle's 'Polities' 53 681. Miscellany including notes of lectures

of Battista Guarini 51 690. L. Bruni, 'First Punic War' 34 827. Correspondence of P.C. Decembrio 38 834. Correspondence of Nicodemo Tranchedini 179 882. L. Bruni, 'First Punic War' 34 2726. Lorenzo de' Medici, 'Com en to' 123, 140 Morenianus, Fullani 22. L. Bruni, 'Life of Aristotle' 35

London, British Library Additional 11701 (1443). L. Bruni, 'Gothic Wars' 86 Add. 11727. Thucydides 25 Add. 14777. L. Bruni, 'First Punic War' 34

Add. 21187. Tertullian 183 Add. 22318. Latin translations of Plutarch's 'Lives', including L. Bruni, 'Cicero Novus' 36

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography Add. 22773. Politian's translation of Herodian 110 Add. 27491. L. Bruni, 'Life of Aristotle' 35 Burney 107. Guarino's draft translation of Strabo 'Geography' 57, 82 Cotton Julius F. VII. Miscellaneous memoranda of William Worcester 51 Egerton 3764. Fr. Gaddi's 'Priorista' 131 Harley 2493. Petrarch's and L. Valla's 'Livy' 18,88 Harley 2522. M. Filelfo, 'Laurenziad' 168

233

Harley 3276. (1449), L. Bruni's 'Gothic Wars' 86 Harley 3293. N. Perotti's translation of Polybius, books 1-5 19, 100-2 Harley 3426. Miscellaneous writings of L. Bruni, including 'Cicero Novus' 36-7, 45-50 Harley 4916. (1453). Jacopo Cremonini, translation of books 11-13 of Diodorus 87

Milan, Biblioteca Ambriosana G.72. (1461) Thucydides 25

L.85. sup. Writers on agriculture including Columella 180, 226

Moscow, State Historical Museum Moscoviensisgr. 204 Strabo 'Geography' 75

Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale III. B.10. Thucydides (used by Valla) 25, 89

Oxford, Balliol College 124. Miscellany including Poggio's translation of a part of Diodorus 85 135. Guarino, Letters and speeches 60-1, 71 242. L. Bruni's translations of Aristotle's 'Nicomachean 'Ethics' and 'Polities' 67 286. (c. 1453-4), F. Biondo, 'Italia Illustrata' 20

290. (c. 14534). G. Tortelli, 'De ortographia' 27, 64 310 (1449). Letters of L. Bruni 14, 16, 38 315. (1442) 'Opuscula humanistica' including L. Bruni 'De origine urbis Mantuae' 22, 61

Oxford, Bodleian Library Canonici gr. 47. Thucydides 25 Can. gr. 48. Thucydides 25 Can. lat. class. 301. Guarino's draft translation of Strabo's 'Geography' 70-1, 30, 57-8, 61-2, 76, 78-82 Can. lat. class. 304. Works of L. Bruni

including translations of the speeches of Demosthenes 38 D'Orville 301. (c. 888). Euclid 197-8 Magdalen Coll lat. 39. (c. 1440). Miscellany including Guarino's 'Life of Plato' 51, 62-9

Oxford, Corpus Christi College 80. Thucydides 25

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale gr. 451. (914). Clement of Alexandria 196 gr. 1394. (c. 1485). Strabo, 'Geography' 210 gr. 1638. Thucydides 89 gr. 1734. Thucydides 25, 89-90

gr. 1807. Plato 195 gr. 1853. Non-logical works of Aristotle 193,200-1, 210 gr. 1962. Maxim us of Tyre, Albinus 193, 196,210

234

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

gr. 2702. Commentary of Eustathius on Homer 204, 210 gr. 2833. Theocritus, Theognis 210 suppl. gr. 97. Aristophanes, Euripides 210 ital. 548. Petrarch, 'Trionfi' 176

lat. 1757. St. Ambrose of Petrarch 15 lat. 2923. Peter Abelard, 'Historia Calamitatum' of Petrarch 16 lat. 7723. Quimtilian of L. Valla 96

Piacenza, Biblioteca Placentina ms. Landianus. Cicero, 'Letters to Atticus' 43

Rome, Biblioteca Vaticana Mss. Vaticani graeci 122. Herodotus used by L. Valla 29, 91-2 126. Thucydides 25, 89-90 134. Appian 104 138. Plutarch's 'Lives' used by L. Bruni 38 174. Strabo, 'Geography' 75 218. Pappus, 'Collectio mathematica' 179-80,193,196-8 1005. Polybius, books 1-5 99

1164. Military treatises 193, 203 1293. (1479). Thucydides 25 1353. Thucydides 25 1614. Alexander of Aphrodisias 175 1698. Astrological works 210 2197. Proclus 212 2669. Herodotus used by L. Valla 91-2

Mss. Vaticani latini 918 and 919. Translations of Plutarch's 'Lives' 56 1797. L. Valla's translation of Herodotus 92 1801 (1452). The master copy of L. Valla's translation of Thucydides 88-9, 93-8. 1810: N. Perotti's translation of Polybius, books 1-5 100 1873. Ammianus Marcellinus 59 7134. (1508-10), Fabio Vigili, Inventory of the Latin mss. of Cardinal Giov. de' Medici 138, 160-1, 220-21, 225-6 Barber, gr. 95. Thucydides 25 Barber lat. 3185. (1508-10). Fabio Vigili,

Inventory of the Greek mss. of Cardinal Giov. de' Medici 105, 138, 160-1, 197, 200-1, 204, 206-8, 212-3, 217-20, 222-5, 227 Chigian. J.VIII. 275. L. Valla's translation of Herodotus 92. Ottobon. lat. 2075. L. Valla's speech on 'Due Siciliae' 98 Palat. gr. 185. Thucydides 25 Urbin. gr. 89 and 90. Thucydides 25 Urb. gr. 91. (c. 1491), Thucydides 25 Urb. gr. 92 and 131. Thucydides 25

Venice, Biblioteca Marciana gr. 364. and cl. 7, col. 5. Thucydides 25 gr. 371. Polybius, books 1-5 99-100 gr. 460. Commentary of Eustathius on Homer, 'Odyssey' 204 lat. 1847. Tacitus of Cardinal Bessarion 99 lat. 3230. L. Valla's translation of

Herodotus 77, 92, 94-5, 98 3785. L. Valla's translation of Thucydides 77, 95 lat. 4142. Letters of Francesco Barbaro 56 lat. 4711. L. Bruni, translations of the speeches of Demosthenes 38 lat.

Wroclaw (Poland), City and University Library ms. Rhedigeranus 14. Appian 105

INDEX Abelard, Peter (fll42) 16; 'Historia Calamitatum' 16 Acciaiuoli, Zanobi (fl519) 170, 208-11 Ady, Constance M. 121 Aelianus, 'Tactica Theoria' (c. 103 A.D.) 202-3 Aemilius Paulus (c. 229-160 B.C.) 38 Aeneas (4c. B.C.), 'Book on Siegecraft' 202 Agis II, king of Sparta (late 5c. B.C.) 95 Aigospotami, battle of (470-69 B.C.) 101; battle of (406-5 B.C.) 101 Alaric, king of the Visigoths (f410) 8 Alberti, G. B.91-2 Albertini, Francesco (f c. 1517-21), 'Memoriale di molte statue e pitture della citta di Firenze 146, 214 Albinus (2c. A.D.), epitome of Plato 196 Albinus, enemy of Emperor Septimius Severus (late 2c. A.D.) 108 Alcibiades (c. 450-404 B.C.) 95, 97 Alexander of Aphrodisias (3c. A.D.) 201; See also under Aristotle Alexandria, city of (Egypt), centre of learning at 79 Alfonso V (1396-1458), king of Aragon and of Sicily and Naples 17, 31, 97-8, 102 Allen, T.W. 196 Amaseia, town of (Cappadocia, Asia Minor), birthplace of Strabo 78 Ambrose, St., bishop of Milan (f397 A.D.) 15, 184 Ames-Lewis, F. 174 Ammianus Marcellinus (2nd half of 4c. A.D.) 59, 73 Amphipolis, siege of (424 B.C.) 94 Ancona, P. d' 173 Andronicus of Rhodes (1st. c. B.C.) 73 Angeli, Jacopo (late 14c-early 15c.) 39 Anthemius (6c. A.D.), architect of St. Sophia at Constantinople 197 Antiochus III, king of Syria (242-187 B.C.) 102 Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor (138-161) 103 Antonio, Francesco d'(15c.) 173

Antony (Marcus Antonius) (f30 B.C.) 37, 49-50; Caius, his brother 50 Anytos, prosecutor of Socrates (399 B.C.) 64 Apostolis, Michael (15c.) 25 Appian (2nd. c. A.D.) 102-3, 107; 'Roman Histories'28, 86, 93, 102-7 Archimedes (287-212 B.C.) 87, 189; commentary of Eutocius on 189 Arethas, archbishop of Cesarea (f c.935) 74, 196-8 Argyropoulos, Joannes (c. 1415-87) 63 Aristophanes (c. 450-c. 388 B.C.) 63, 210 Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) 14, 16, 24, 34,51, 53, 59, 62-3, 66-7, 72, 80, 187, 190-1, 194-5; birthplace of (Stagira) 97; writings 14, 51, 53, 67, 200-1, 213-4: on logic 170, 190-1, 200, 214; 'De caelo' 191, 200-1; 'De physico auditu' 191, 2001; 'Eudemian Ethics' 180; 'Magna M or alia' 195, 201; 'Metaphysica' 201, 213-4; 'Nicomachean Ethics' 195, 201, 210-11; Commentaries on 187-8: of Alexander of Aphrodisias (3c. A.D.) 201; of David 213; of Simplicius (6c. A.D.) 190-1; Paraphrases of, by Themistius (4c. A.D.) 214 Arrian (Flavius Arrianus) (f by 180 A.D.), 'Ars tactica' (137 A.D.) 202 Asclepiodotes (1st. c. B.C.) 202 Attavante di Attavanti (1452- | by 1525) 173-5, 182-3, 185 Atticus, Titus Pomponius (109-32 B.C.), Cicero's letters to 42-3, 46,49 Attila, king of the Huns (f454) 22 Augustine, St. (354431) 19, 67-69, 1834; writings of: 'City of God' 19, 68; 'De doctrina Christiana' 68 Aurispa, Giovanni (1376-1459) 25

Badia at Fiesole, library of 163 Baldini, Baccio, librarian of the Medici library (since 1555) 162 Barbaro, Ermolao (1453-93) 6, 25, 84;

236

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Francesco (1390-1454) 25, 99 Baron, Hans 33, 35-7, 50 Basil, St. (c. 330-79) 206 Basle, church council of 17 Batrachomyomachia (of pseudo-Homer) 204 Baudouin, Francois (1520-73) 3 Becchi, Gentile, bishop of Arezzo (f!497) 167 Belisarius (c. 505-65) 20 Bembo, Pietro (1470-1547) 189-90, 192 Beneventan script 177; See also under 'Lombard' script Bernardinello, Silvio 214 Bertalot, Ludwig 37 Bessarion, Cardinal (1403-72) 19, 25, 28-9 59, 66, 84, 92-3, 98-9, 102, 159, 188 204 Bible: Old Testament 68, 98, 198, 208 Genesis 68; New Testament 88, 98-9, 207-8;Septuagint68 Biondo, Flavio (1392-1463) 8-9, 11-12, 14, 19-23, 25, 31, 57, 121; historical scholarship of 8, 11-12, 14, 19, 22; writings of: 'Decades' of History 410-1441 (143944) 8-9, 11, 14,19, 22, critical attitude to sources 22, hostility to Byzantium 8-9, 19; 'Roma Instaurata' (1444-6) 11; 'Italia Illustrata' (1448-62) 20, 22; 'Roma Triumphans' (1456-60) 11, 19, sympathetic understanding of ancient Rome 12, 19; 'The Origins of Venice' (1460-63) 22-3 Bisticci see Vespasiano Bizzarri, E. 121 Boethus, teacher of Strabo (1st. c. B.C.) 73 Bologna, city of 187 Brancacci, Rinaldo, Cardinal (early 15c.), tomb of at Naples 135 Brescia, city of (Lombardy) 81 Bruni, Leonardo (c. 1370-1444) 5-6, 8-9, 13-15, 21-2, 24-6, 33-53, 56-7, 59, 63, 66-8, 71, 83, 86-7; chancellor of Florence (1427-44) 9; handwriting of 34-5, 42-3, 53, 87; historical scholarship of 9, 13-15, 21-2, 40-52; manuscripts used by 34-5, 42-3, 53, 86-7; textual scholarship of 42-3, 53, 86-7; translations of: Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Etics' 51, 67; Aristotle's 'Polities' 14, 53, 67; Demosthenes' speeches 37-8; Plato's 'Phaedo' 67-8; Plutarch's 'Lives' 37-9; Xenophon's 'Hellenica' (1439) 34-5; writings of: 'Cicero Novus' (1415-16) 14, 33, 35-7,

39-52, 71; 'Commentaries' (1440-41) 35; 'First Punic War' (1418-19) 26-34; 'Gothic Wars' (1441) 34, 53, 85-7, 207; 'History of the Florentine People' (141544) 5-6, 8, 13-15, 21, 26, 35, 39-40, 47-8; Letter on the origins of Mantua 21-2; 'Life of Aristotle' 14, 24, 34-5,51-2,66-7 Brutus, Marcus lunius (85-42 B.C.) 49, 107 Burckhardt, Jacob, 'Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy' 116 Bussi, Andrea (1417-75), bishop of Aleria 77,92 Byzantine manuscript illumination 198, 207-8,213 Caesar, Caius lulius (100-44 B.C.) 5, 10, 13, 42, 48-9, 71-2; his 'Commentaries' 5, 35,69-70, 110 Calco, Bartolomeo, of Milan (later 15c.) 169; Tristan (c. 1450-c. 1515) 183 Calderini, Domizio (1446-78) 169 Calixtus III, pope (1455-58) 25 Callimachus, Alexandrian poet (3c. B.C.) 181 Callisto, Andronico (later 15c.) 168 Cannae, battle of (216 B.C.) 101-2 Capra, Bartolomeo, bishop of Cremona (f 1433) 43 Caracalla, Roman emperor (210-217) 112 Carbone, Ludovico (f c. 1482) 69 Carthage, destruction of (146 B.C.) 103, 105 Cassiodorus (f c. 580 A.D.) 184 Cassius, Caius Longinus (f42 B.C.) 49, 106-7 Casaubon, Isaac (1559-1614) 30, 58, 78, 100-1 Castellio, Sebastian (1515-63) 93 Catilina, Lucius Sergius (101-62 B.C.) 45-8, 71 Cato (the Younger), Marcus Portius (f46 B.C.) 37,48, 107 Cavallo, G. 90 Celsus, writer on medicine 191 Celsus, lulius Constantinus 69 Centurioni, bankers of Genoa 155-6 Chalcondyles, Demetrius (1423-1511) 116, 169, 171, 186-7 Charles IV (Emperor 1346-78) 13 Charles VIII, king of France (1483-98) 117 Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily (1266-82) 194 Chastel, Andre 144 Cherico, Antonio del (f!484) 173

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography Choniates, Nicetas (f 1213) 9 Chrysoloras, Manuel (fl415) 23-6, 38-9, 51, 56, 65, 179; scholarship of 24, 51, 65 Ciai, Bartolomeo (late 15c.) 209 Cibo, Lorenzo, Cardinal (later 15c.) 112 Cicero, Marcus Tullius (10643 B.C.) 5, 14, 33-4, 37, 39-52, 56, 61, 71, 106, 112, 177, 179; Letters to Atticus of 20, 42-3; speeches of: 'In Verrem' 53; 'Philippics' 107; writings of: 'De Oratore' 42 Cimon (c. 510-c. 450 B.C.) 101 Cincinnatus, L. Quinctius, Roman dictator (5c. B.C.) 18 Ciriaco (Pizzicolli d'Ancona) (1391- c. 1457)25,74 Ciriagio, Girardo del (15c.) 167 Clark, Kenneth, lord 146 Clement of Alexandria (c. 160-c. 217) 187, 196 Clement VII, pope (1523-34) see Medici, Giulio de, cardinal Cleon (f 422 B.C.) 29 Clodius,P. (f52B.C.)71 Collenuccio, Pandolfo (later 15c.), envoy of the lord of Pesaro at Florence 169 Columbus, Cristoforo (1451-1506) 82; his son, Fernando 82 Commynes, Philippe de (f!508) 157 Constance, Council of (1414-18) 39 Constantine I, Roman emperor (311-37) 17 Constantine VII, Eastern emperor (912-59) 201-3 Constantinople, city of 25,171, 179, 185-7, 194-9, 205; scriptorium of the imperial palace 193, 201-2; siege and capture of by the Fourth Crusade (1204) 9, 192, 202; siege and capture of by the Turks (1453)115 Corbinelli, Antonio Of 1425) 25 Corcyra, island of 97-8 Cornelius, Caius 46 Cosimo I, duke of Tuscany (ruler of Florence 1537-74) 118, 132 Cosmas, Indicopleustes (6c. A.D.), 'Christian Topography' of 199 Crasinius (or Crasinus), Roman general (48 B.C.) 107 Cremonini, Jacopo (da Santo Cassiano) (f c. 1453) 83, 86-7 Curio, Coelius Secundus, editor of Appian 93,105 Curius, Quintus 46 Cusanus, Nicholas (f 1464) 17 Cydones, Demetrius (c. 1324- c. 1400) 25 Cyprian, St. (c. 200-255) 69

237

Dandolo, Andrea, doge of Venice (f 1205) 20 Dante, Alighieri (1265-1321) 17, 34,163 David of Alexandria (6c. A.D.), Commentary on Porphyry's introduction to the logical works of Aristotle 213 Decembrio, Pier Candido (1399-1477) 28, 38, 69-70, 86, 93, 102-7; translation of Appian, 'Roman Histories' 93, 102-7; manuscripts used by 104-5 Deeds of the Romans (Li Fet des Remains) (13c.)9, 10 Demosthenes (c. 384-328 B.C.) 37-9, 199-200 Diller, Aubrey 75, 80, 82 Dinarchus (later 4c.-«arly 3c. B.C.) 205 Dio Cassius Cocceianus (born c. 162- f after 230), 'Roman History' of 40-1, 71-2, 102, 112 Diodorus Siculus (late 1st c. B.C.) 27, 85, 87 Diodotus, of Athens (late 5c. B.C.) 29, 96-7 Diogenes Laertius (? 3c. A.D.) 40, 51, 59, 63-6, 86 Dionysius the Elder, tyrant of Syracuse (t367 B.C.) 101 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (late 1st. c. B.C.) 26, 187, 205-6 Dionysius (pseudo-), Areopagite 184 Ditt,E. 106 Donatello(fl466) 135 During, Ingemar 35, 51 Eneas of Corinth 98 Ephraim, the Monk, Byzantine copyist (active in the mid lOc. A.D.) 199-200 Epictetus (c. 55-c. 135 A.D.) 109 Eratosthenes (c. 276- c. 194 B.C.) 79-80, 82 Euclid of Alexandria (3c. B.C.) 197-8, 213 Eugenius IV, pope (143147) 14, 17, 67, 98 Euripides (5c. B.C.) 210 Eusebius (c. 265-339), bishop of Cesarea 186; 'De Temporibus' 44 Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica (1175-c. 1192)204-5 Evagrius (late 6c. A.D.), 'Ecclesiastical History' (c. 5934) 207 Fabius Pictor (late 2c. B.C.) 44, 93 Fabius Sanga (mid. 1st. c. B.C.) 46 Fabroni,A. (late 18c.) 132-3 Farnese 'tazza' 150 Ferrante, king of Naples (1458-92) 124-5, 151

238

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Ferrara, city of 51, 69-70, 187 Ficino, Marsilio (1433-99) 64, 116, 137-8, 164, 178, 184-5, 196; his translation of Platonic dialogues 64, 138, 178, 185 Fiesole, town of (Tuscany) 47, 48 Filelfo, Francesco (1398-1481) 170, 177, 179-80, 197, 217-21 Finley, M.I. 3 Florence, city of (Tuscany) 9, 31, 39, 109, 117-21, 124-5, 127, 130-2, 135-6, 143, 148, 151, 154-7; artistic centre 115-16, 135-7, 156-7; history of of the origins of 13-14, 37, 47-8; humanistic centre 37, 115-6, 131, 137-40; siege of (1530) 139, 146; university of 168-9 Fonzio, Niccolb (15c.) 95 Free, John (mid-15c.) 85 Freret, Nicholas (1680-1749) 22 Froben (publisher at Basle) 105 Fueter, Edward 36 Fulvia (mid-lst. c. B.C.) 46 Gabba, Emilio 103 Gaddi, Francesco (late 15c.) 130-1 Galen (2c. A.D.) 188 Gelenius, Sigismund, translation of Appian, 'Roman Histories' by (1554) Gellius, Aulus (2c. A.D.), writings of: 'Attic Nights'10, 45, 57-8, 69 Genoa, city of 20 Geoffrey of Monmouth (fH54) 22; 'History of the Kings of Britain' 22 Ghirlandaio, Domenico (1449-94) 157 Giambullari, Francesco, librarian of the Medici library (until 1555) 162 Gianotti, Donato (16c.) 128 Gibbon, Edward (1737-94) 115-6 Giovio, Paolo (1483-1552) 116, 136 Gombrich, E. H. 136-7, 144-5 Gonzaga, rulers of Mantua: Federico (marchese since 1478) 151; Francesco (marchese in first quarter of 15c.) 21; Francesco (f!483), cardinal 153 Gracchus, Caius (f!23 B.C.) 38; Tiberius (f 133 B.C.) 38, 103, 106 Grafton, A. T. 84 Gray, William, bishop of Ely (1454-78) 16, 20,22,27,64,89,95 Greek capital scripts 192, 194 Greek minuscule scripts 180, 192-6, 198, 202 Gregory I (the Great), pope (590-604) 184 Gregory Nazianzenus, St. (c. 329- c. 390) 206 Guarino Guarini, of Verona (c. 1374-1460)

10, 25-7, 30-1, 55-82; historical interests of 26-7, 56-62, 70-2, 78-9, 81; religious approach to ancient philosophy of 67-9; textual scholarship of 56-8, 69-70, 75-7, 80; translating methods of 30, 75-7; writings of: 'Life of Plato' (1430) 51, 57, 59, 62-9; 'How to Write History' (1446) 61; translation of the 'Geography' of Strabo (1453-58) 10, 30, 57, 61-2, 73-82, 85, 93, its value and influence 734, 82, 86 Guarini, Battista di Guarino 51,61 Guicciardini, Francesco (1483-1540) 31, 117-19, 126-7; his 'History of Italy' 31; his 'Storie Florentine' (c. 1508) 117, 119-21, 125-7, 132-3, 145, 151-2; Jacopo (grandfather of Francesco) 126; Piero (father of Francesco) 126 Guthrie, W. K. C. 65,72 Hadrian, Roman emperor (117-38) 107 Hannibal (247-182 B.C.) 19 Haury, J. 87 Hay, Denys 20 Heath, Sir Thomas 197 Hermippus of Alexandria (3c. B.C.) 90, 94 Hero of Alexandria 189 Herodian (f c. mid-3 c. A.D.) 111-12; 'Roman History' (180-238 A.D.) of 84, 107-13 Herodotus (5c. B.C.) 23-7, 29, 76, 83, 93-5, 98, 102; manuscripts of 91-2 Hipparchos (f514 B.C.) 89, 94 Hippocrates (c. 460- c. 377 B.C.) 171, 198-9 Hirtius, A. (|43 B.C.) 70 'Historia Augusta' 111 Homer 141, 203-4; 'Iliad' 204-5; 'Odyssey' 77, 80,204 Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (fllO A.D.) 206 Innocent VII, pope (1404-6) 67-8 Innocent VIII, pope (1484-92) 107, 111, 134,155 Isidore, Cardinal Rutenus (c. 1385-1463) 25,75,104 Isocrates (436-338) 169,213 Jeremiah, Hebrew prophet (c. 650- c. 570 B.C.) 68 Jerome, St. (f420 A.D.) 16, 44, 69, 98, 183-4; Vulgate Bible of 16 John Chrysostom, St. (c. 347-407) 199 John the Grammarian, patriarch of Constantinople (837-43) 194

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography John XXIII, pope (1410-15) 31 Jonas, Hebrew prophet 98 Josiah, king of Israel (f609 B.C.) 98 Justinian, Eastern emperor (527-65) 20, 34, 197, 207 Juvenal (later Ist-early 2c. A.D.) 56 Kenney, E.J. 84 Knossos (Crete) 10, 78 Kristeller, P. O. 33, 137 Lactantius (f c. 340 A.D.) 69, 1834 Landino, Cristoforo (15c.) 132 La Penna, Antonio 33 Lascaris, Joannes (Janus) (c. 1445-1535) 105, 116, 165-6, 169-71, 177, 182, 185-91, 199, 202-3, 207, 209, 211, 226-7; lists of manuscripts of 166, 171-2, 177; voyages of in Greece and southern Italy 170-2, 182.J185-7,190-1; purchases at Candia (Crete) 171, 187, 190-1; purchases at Constantinople 186-7, 205; purchases in Greece 186-7, 202; writings of: edition of the 'Greek Anthology' 182; activities after 1494: supervision of the inventory of the Medici collection 209; illegal acquisition of Medici books 209-10 Lentulus, Publius 106 Leo I, pope (440-61) 184 Leo X, pope (1513-21) see Medici, Giovanni de' Leo the Philosopher, archbishop of Thessalonica (840-3) (f after 869) 195 Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) 116 Leonello d'Este, marchese of Ferrara (|1449)58,69-71 Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius (| c. 12 B.C.) 50 Libanius (4c. A.D.) 200, 206 Ligarius, Quintus (1st c. B.C.) 42 Lippi, Filippino (1457-1504) 157 Livy (Livius, Titus) (59 B.C.- 17 A.D.) 5-6, 8, 18-19, 21, 30, 34, 44, 88, 102, 106 'Lombard' script 110, 163, 177 Louis the Pious, emperor (814-40), palace 'scriptorium of 177 Louis XI, king of France (1461-83) 123 Louis XIV, king of France (1643-1715) 22 Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus) (1st. c. A.D.) 21, 107; his 'Pharsalia' 107 Lucian(2c. A.D.) 61 Lupfen, Johann, count of 178 Lycurgus of Sparta 96 Machiavelli, Niccolo (1469-1527)

118-9;

239

Bernardo, his father 129; 'Istorie Florentine' 125, 127-9 Maffei, Antonio (f!478) 131;Raffaele 131, 140 Maier, Bruno 121 Manetti, Gianozzo (1396-1459) 25 Manlius, Caius (f62 B.C.) 46-7 Mantegna, Andrea (1431-1504) 76 'Mantos' 21-2 Mantua, city of 21, 81; origins of 21-2 Manuzio, Aldo (|1515) 117-8 Marcellinus, 'Life of Thucydides' by 90, 94 Marcello, Jacopo Antonio (15c.) 75 Mare, A. de la 173 Marius, Caius (c. 157-86 B.C.) 71 Marsiglio of Padua (f 1342-3) 17 Martelli, Mario 121, 124 Marzagaia of Verona (f c. 1430) 60 Massinissa, king of Numidia (3c.-2c. B.C.) 106 Matociis, Giovanni de (f!337) 12 Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary (f!490) 174 Maxim us of Tyre (2c. A.D.) 196 Medici bank, branches of: Avignon 152; Bruges 148-9; Florence 135; London 149; Lyons 148; Milan 152;Montpellier 152; Naples 155; Rome 136, 148-50; Venice 157; managers of 135-6, 147-9; records of 134-5, 145; under Cosimo (1429-64) 120, 134, 136, 147-8; under Piero (1464-9) 147-8; under Lorenzo (1469-92) 123, 133, 135, 145, 147-57; under Piero di Lorenzo (1492-4) 157 Medici, Cosimo de' (1389-1464) 28, 59, 104, 115-6, 118-20, 122, 127, 129, 132, 143-4, 147, 162-7 Medici, Cosimo I de' see Cosimo I, duke of Tuscany Medici family devices 161, 165, 173-7; of Lorenzo 165, 174-5; of Piero di Lorenzo 174-5; of Giovanni di Lorenzo 174-5 Medici, Giovanni di Cosimo de' (f!463) 136, 166-8 Medici, Giovanni de', cardinal (later Pope Leo X) 117, 123, 134, 136, 138, 155, 160-1, 164-5, 189, 174-6, 208, 211-2, 214-6 Medici, Giovanni di Bicci (f!429) 122, 162 Medici, Giovanni and Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' (later 15c.) 151-3, 164-6, 216 Medici, Giuliano de' (11478) 122-3, 150, 167-9, 178-9 Medici, Giulio de', cardinal (1478-1534)

240

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

(later Pope Clement VII [1523-34]) 128-9, 162 Medici library: inventory (1418) 162-4; inventories of Piero di Cosimo 167; inventory (1492) 122, 175-6; inventory (1495) 160, 163, 166, 170-2, 175-7; inventory of Fabio Vigilio (1508-10) 105, 138, 160-5, 168-9, 175-7, 179, 181-7, 193-207; loan registers (1480-94) 168-70, 178, 180; manuscripts: Greek 159, 61, 166-73, 175, 177, 180-3, 212, 215-6; illuminated 147, 166-7, 169, 172-3, 175, 182-3, 185, 210, 216; Italian 160, 163, 175-6, 183, 215-6; Latin 138, 160-3, 167,170,175, 182-3, 212, 215-6; religious 162-3, 172-3, 175-6, 179, 183-4; printed books in 138, 172; size of 159, 162, 167, 182-3, 212, 215; under Cosimo (1418-64) 162-5; under Piero (1464-9) 166-7; under Lorenzo (1469-92) 122, 138, 159-62, 167-80, 182-6, 188, 191-3; under Piero di Lorenzo (14924) 170, 172, 192, 215-6; under anti-Medici government (1494-1512) 165,170, 172, 175-6, 208-12, 215-6; under Giovanni di Lorenzo (later Pope Leo X) 138, 160-1, 164-5, 174-6, 189, 211-12, 214-16; under Duke Cosimo I (1537-74) 162, 166, 179, introduction of the modern numbering 162, rebinding of manuscripts 162,172 Medici, Lorenzo di Giovanni de' (f!440) 166 Medici, Lorenzo de' (1449-92) 109, 113, 115-41, 143-57, 209; appearance of 126, 131; artistic patronage 118, 125-6, 131-2, 136-7, 139, 143, 146-7, 149-50; biographies of 117, 121, 124-32,1434; correspondence 1334, 145; economic policies 120; family 122-3, 129, 138; finances (see also Medici bank) 120, 135, 145-57; palace of (at Florence) 176; villas of: at Agnano (near Pisa) 154; at Caffagiolo 153; at Careggi 122, 176; at Poggio a Caiano 139, 1524; at Spedaletto 146, 153; at Vico Pisano 154; myths about 117-18, 129, 132, 144; poetry 121, 13940, 143; political position 119-20, 124-5, 127, 132-3; scholarly patronage 116, 118, 131-2, 13741, 143, 178, 182-9; statesmanship 115, 117-18, 120, 124-5, 143; writings 121, 140; 'Aragonese Anthology' 141; 'Comento dei Sonetti' 123, 140; 'Nencia

da Barberino' 153;'Ricordi' 120, 1224, 149 Medici, Lucrezia (nee Tornabuoni), mother of Lorenzo de' Medici 138, 169-70 Medici, Niccola de' 53 Medici, Piero di Cosimo de' (1416-69) 119, 125, 129-30, 165-7,172 Medici, Piero di Lorenzo de' (f!503) 157, 160, 170, 172, 192, 208, 215-16 Melis, Federigo 134,144 Mercati, Giovanni, Cardinal 172 Metochites, Theodore (c. 1260-1332) 191 Miani, Piero, bishop of Vicenza (1409) 25-6 Michelozzo, Bernardo (later 15c.) 169 Milan, city of (Lombardy) 104, 177; Ambrosian Republic at (1447-50) 104 Millar, F. 40-1, 111 Mistra, town of (Greece) 74 Mithridates, king of Pontus 79, 104 Momigliano, Arnaldo 6, 11, 25, 29, 40, 93, 109 Modena (Mutina), city of, siege of (4443 B.C.) 49 Monacis, Lorenzo de (1351-1428) 9, 56 Monte, Piero del 56 Monte Cassino, abbey of, library of 163 Morandi, Benedetto 18 Moraux, P. 200-1, 214 Mount Athos, monasteries of 187 Miiller, K. K. 166 Muntz,E. 136 Muratori, Ludovico Antonio (f!750) 117 Mytilene on Lesbos, town of 96-7 Nassau, Count Wilhelm Ludwig of (later 16c.) 101 Necao (Necho) II, king of Egypt (610-595 B.C.) 98 Nepos, Cornelius (1st c. B.C.) 45 Nero, Roman emperor (54-69) 13 Niccoli, Niccolo (f!437) 25, 40, 43, 59 Niccolo III, marchese of Ferrara (1st half of 15c.) 69 Nicholas V, pope (1447-55) 18-19, 25, 27-30, 75, 84-5, 87-8, 92-3, 99, 102, 108; translations from Greek commissioned by 19, 25, 27-30, 74-6, 84-5,87-8,92-3,99-102,108 Nineveh, capital of Assyria 98 Nonnus (5c. A.D.), 'Dionysiaca' by 181 Octavius, Caius (Emperor Augustus) (f!4 A.D.) 49 Onosander (1st c. A.D.), 'Strategicus' 202-3 Oppius,C.(lstc. B.C.) 70

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography Origen (186-25 3) 184 Ostia (Antiqua), harbour of 136, 145 Otto, bishop of Freising (fl 158) 17 Padua, city of 187 Palmarocchi, Roberto 133 Panormita, Antonio (Becadelli) (fl471) 88 Pappus of Alexandria (early 4c. A.D.) 180, 197-8 Parenti, Piero (late 15c.-early 16c.) 118, 121,130,156 Paul II, pope (1464-71) 149-50 Pazzi, conspiracy of (1478) 1224, 130-1, 135, 138, 147, 150-2, 178; family of 150; Renato de' 150 Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens (f527 B.C.) 89-90, 94,141 Pellicioni, Filippo, physician of Marchese Niccolo III of Ferrara (1st half of 15c.) 62 Penna, Luca (c.!320-c. 1390)60 Pericles (f429 B.C.) 96 Perotti, Niccolo (1429-80), translation of Polybius (c, 1452-4) 19, 25, 29-30, 99-102, 113; manuscripts used by 99-100 Petrarca, Francesco (1304-74) 5, 13,15-16, 18, 20, 34, 55, 68, 163; manuscript notes of : on Abelard 16; on St. Ambrose 15-16; textual scholarship of: on Cicero 20; on Livy 18, 88; writings of: 'De Vita Solitaria' (1346-71) 16; 'Forgeries of Rudolph IV of Austria' (1361) 13 Pfeiffer, Rudolf 108, 181 Pharsalus, battle of (48 B.C.) 42 Philinus (3c. B.C.) 44 Philitas of Kos (late 4c.-early 3c. B.C.) 108 Pico, Giovanni della Mirandola (1463-94) 109, 140, 169, 183-4, 188 Piccolomini, E. 160, 170, 178, 208, 216 Pio, Alberto, of Carpi (late 15c.-lst half of 16c.) 172, 188 Pisa, city of (Tuscany), Medici estates around 154; university at 131 Pistoia, city of (Tuscany) 156-7, 211; battle of (62 B.C.) 48 Pius II (Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini), pope (1458-64) 82, 149, 178 Planudes, Maxim us (f c. 1305) 180-1 Plato (427-348 or 347 B.C.) 14, 24, 35, 51, 57, 59, 62-9, 116-17, 164-5, 169, 185, 194-6, 211; writings: 'Apology for Socrates' 63; 'Laws' 195; 'Phaedo' 66-7; 'Republic' 169, 185, 196, 211-2;

241

Timaeus' 68; Platonic Academy (so-called) at Florence 116,137 Pletho, Gemistus (f c. 1450) 74 Pliny, the Elder (Caius Plinius Secundus) (c. 23-79 A.D.) 12; 'Natural History' 12, 69 Pliny, the Younger (Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus) (c. 62-112 A.D.) 12, 56 Plutarch (c. 46-120 A.D.) 24, 34, 36-7, 41, 56, 62, 107, 112; writings of: 'Life of Aemflius Paullus' 38; 'Life of Mark Antony' 37, 49; 'Life of Caesar' 70; 'Life of M. Cato, the Younger' 37; 'Life of Cicero' 33, 38, 41-52; 'Life of Demosthenes' 38; 'Life of Dion' 64; 'Lives of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus' 38; 'Life of Pyrrhus' 37-8; 'Life of Sertorius' 37-8; 'Life of Sulla' 73 Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) 27-8, 56, 58, 63, 70-2, 163, 167; translations of Greek historians by 27-8, 84 Polenton, Sicco (c. 1375-1447) 36 Politian, Angelo (really Ambrogini, called Poliziano) (1454-94) 18, 73, 77, 107-13, 123, 138, 165, 169-71, 183, 186-93, 216, 221-7; letters of 110, 112, 183, 187-8; problems of research on 84; relations with Lorenzo de' Medici 112, 116, 123,138-9, 141, 160, 169-70,180, 183, 187-9; voyages of 183, 186-90; scholarship of: historical approach to the study of manuscripts 109, 181-2; influence of Byzantine scholars on 84, 111, 181; manuscripts used by 108-9, 177, 179-82, 188-90; methods of translation of 108, 110; textual scholarship of 77, 84, 108-10, 112-13, 177, 179-82, 189-90; rediscovery of Callimachus 181; rediscovery of Nonnus 181; study of Aristotle 190-1; textual reconstruction of Cicero's letters 'ad famfliares' 179, 182; textual study of Terence 189-90; writings of: 'Aragonese Anthology' 141; 'Conspiracy of the Pazzi' (1478) 123; Miscellanea I (1489) 111, 177, 180-2, 190; Miscellanea II (partly finished by 1494) 139, 190-2; translation of 'Enchiridion' of Epictetus (c. 1479) 109; translation of 'Roman History' of Herodian (1487) 84, 107-13 Pollaiolo, Piero del 156-7 Pollio, Asinius (76-5 B.C.), 'Roman History' of 103,105 Polybius (2c. B.C.) 6, 15, 19, 23-6, 29-30, 34, 40, 44, 72, 80-1, 93, 99-103 Polyenus, 'Strategemata' (162 A.D.) 203

242

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Pompeius, Gnaeus (f48 B.C.) 49, 79, 106; Sextus 103 Pontano, Giovanni (f!503) 91-2 Populonia (Grosseto), town of (Tuscany) 11,79 Porphyry (c. 234- c. 305) 213 Portinari, Tommaso (late 15c.-early 16c.), manager of Medici branch at Bruges (until 1478) 148-9 Posidonius (c. 135- c. 60 B.C.) 79-80, 82, 202 Proclus (410-85) 169,185,196-8, 211-3 Procopius (c. 500- c. 560) 20-1, 23, 25-7, 34, 40, 87, 130, 207; 'Gothic War' 20-1, 34, 53, 86-7, 207; 'Secret History' 21 Ptolemy of Alexandria (2c. A.D.) 194, 213 Punic Wars (3c.-2c. B.C.), First 34; Second 19,103, 106; Third 103 Pyrrhus, king of Epirus (319-272 B.C.) 37-8 Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius (c. 30- c. 96 A.D.)56,96, 163 Ramsay, Sir William, on the geography of Asia Minor 79 Ravenna, city of 21; battle of (1512) 161, 177,212 Reardon,B.P.41,108 Renaudet, Augustin 16,120 Rene, king of Naples and count of Anjou and Provence 75-6 Reumont, A. von 120 Reynolds, Beatrice 34 Reynolds, L. D. 89 Rhegium, Syracusan siege of 101 Rhosos, Joannes (15c.) 25, 189-90, 213, 227 Riario, Girolamo, lord of Forli and Imola, nephew of Pope Sixtus IV 150 Richards, D. C., on Strabo 73 Ridolfi, Niccolo, Cardinal (fl550) 209; Roberto 121,143 Rinuccini, Alamanno 121, 130 Robbia, della, workshop at Florence of 152 Romanus II, Eastern emperor (959-63) 203 Rome, city of 212; antiquities of 11, 136, 145; capture by the Gauls (387-86 B.C.) 101; capture by the Goths (410 A.D.) 8, 11; destruction by Totila (541 A.D.) 34; sack by Emperor Charles V's army (1527)31 Roover, Raymond de 135,145,155,157 Rossi, Lionetto de', manager of the Medici bank branch at Lyons (until 1485) 148 Rostagno, E. 176, 199

Rubinstein, Nicolai 133, 145 Rudolph IV, archduke of Austria (1358-65) 13 Rufmus (c. 345410 or 411) 184 Sabbadini, Remigio 30, 53, 57, 60, 71, 77, 81 Sallust (Caius Sallustius Crispus) (86-35 B.C.) 6, 13-14, 21, 28-9, 34, 48, 96; writings: 'Bellum lugurthinum' 6, 81, 106; 'De Catilinae Coniuratione' 6, 33, 42,44-7,106,123 Salutati, Coluccio (f!406), chancellor of Florence (1375-1406) 13, 37, 43, 47, 69, 164 Salviati, family (of Florence), Medici books in possession of 211-12, 215 San Gallo, Giuliano da 139, 1534,157 San Gallo, monastery of, at Florence 139, 146 San Lorenzo, church of, at Florence 135, 172 San Marco, Dominican convent at Florence, library of 25, 104-5, 159, 163-6, 170, 179, 209-12, 216 San Spirito, monastery of, at Florence 157 Santini, E. 35 Sarzana, town of, Florentine capture of (1487)132 Sassetti, Francesco (1421-90) 34, 95, 148, 170-2, 183, 216 Savonarola, Girolamo (f!498) 209 Scarperia, town of (Tuscany), defence of by a Medici (1351) 122 Scipio, Cornelius Publius (the Elder) (236-184 or 183 B.C.) 70 Scutariotes, Joannes (15c.) 189, 227 Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (f 65 A.D.) 192 'Septuagint' (Old Testament) 68 Serra, Giovanni (15c.) 15 Sertorius (f72 B.C.) 37-8 Settimo, abbey of (Tuscany) 166 Severus, Septimius, Roman emperor (193-210) 108,112 Sforza, Francesco, duke of Milan (1450-66) 104 Shackleton-Bailey, D. R. 39,41 Sicherl, Martin 164 Sidon, town of (Syria) 13 Simonetta, Cicco, secretary to the dukes of Milan (f 1479) 124 Simplicius (6c. A.D.) 109, 190; See also Aristotle Sixtus IV, pope (1471-84) 122-3, 135, 149-51

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography Skepsis (Tread, Asia Minor), Aristotle's works at 73 Socrates (f399 B.C.) 59, 63, 65, 67 Socrates (c. 380450 A.D.), 'Ecclesiastical History' 206-7 Soderini, Paolantonio di Tommaso (fl498) 124-5; Piero di.Tommaso (1452-1522) 129; Tommaso, their father (15c.) 129 Sotopater, rhetorician 190 Statius, Publius Papinius (1st c. A.D.) Ill Stephanus Byzantius (6c. A.D.) 73 Strabo (c. 63 B.C.- c. 24 A.D.) 10-11, 23, 78-9; writings of: 'History', 144-27 B.C. (by c. 25 B.C.) 72-3; 'Geography' (after 14 A.D.) 10, 30, 57-62, 72, 85, 93, 210; on mythology in Homer 80; on the transmission of Aristotle's works 72-3; on Eratosthenes 79-80, 82; on Posidonius 79-82; manuscripts of the 'Geography'74-6, 81, 86 Strozzi, Filippo (fl491) 155; Nanni degli (early 15c.) 26; Palla (late 14c.-15c.) 25 Strozzi, Piero (1416-after 1492) 167 Suetonius (later 1st c.-early 2c. A.D.) 10, 12;'Life of Caesar'70 Sulla, Lucius Cornelius (138-78 B.C.) 13, 47-8,71,73 Sylvester I, pope (314-35) 17 Syphax, king of Numidia 106; his son Vernas (or Vermina) 106 Syracuse, siege of (416 B.C.) 97 Tacitus (f after 117 A.D.) 5-6, 12, 99; writings: 'Annals' and 'Histories' 6, 99 Tani, Angelo(tl478) 148 Tarquinius, Priscus and Superbus, kings of Rome (6c. B.C.) 18 Terence (2c. B.C.) 189-90, 192 Teronda, Leonardo (15c.) 17 Tertullian (f c. 230 A.D.) 1834 Themistius (4c. A.D.) 214; See also Aristotle Theocritus (3c. B.C.) 210 Theodosius II, Eastern emperor (408-50) 207 Theognis of Megara (6c. B.C.) 210 Theon of Alexandria (4c. A.D.) 194, 197 Theophrastus (late 4c. B.C.) 72 Thermopylae, battle of (480 B.C.) 95 Thucydides (5c. B.C.) 6, 15-16, 23-6, 28-9, 34, 76, 81, 83, 89-90, 93-8, 102; manuscripts of 'History of the Peloponesian War' 24-6, 89-90 Tibur, town of (Latium, Italy) 77 Tifernate, Gregorio (15c.), translation of

243

Strabo's 'Geography' 75, 77-8, 84-5, 93 Tornabuoni, Giovanni, manager of the Medici branch at Rome (15c.) 148-50 Tortelli, Giovanni (f!466) 18, 25, 27-8, 64, 75-6, 80, 93, 96, 99-102; 'De Orthographia' 64 Totila, king of the Goths (f552 A.D.) 34, 86-7 Tranchedino, Nicodemo, Milanese envoy at Florence (3rd. quarter of 15c.) 179 Transliteration of Greek texts in minuscule scripts 192-4, 202 Traversari, Ambrogio (1386-1439) 59, 83, 86-7 Trebizond, George of 84, 86 Trebonius, Caius (f43 B.C.) 105-6 Treweek, A. P. 196-7 Tyrannion (1st c. B.C.) 10, 73, 79 Ullman, B.L. 36 Uncial script (in ms. of Orosius, ms. Laur. 65.1) 177 Urbino, city of 25; ducal library 159 Valla, Giorgio (f!500) 172, 188-9 Valla, Lorenzo (1407-57) 11, 14-18, 25, 28-9, 31, 38, 57, 85, 88, 98; historical interests 15-18, 31, 89, 93-8; manuscripts used by 85, 88-91; researches on Livy 18, 88-9; researches on Quintilian 96; researches on Sallust 96; study of the Bible 16, 88, 98-9; textual scholarship 17-18, 83, 88-92; translations of: Herodotus (1452-5) 76, 83, 87-9, 91-2, 94-5, 98, 113; Thucydides (1448-52) 76-7, 83, 85, 87-92, 94-9, 113, 122; writings of: 'De Constantini Donatione' (1440) 16-18, 98; 'Dialectical Disputations' (1439) 7, 9; 'Gesta Ferdinand! regis Aragonum' (1445-6) 11, 15,97 Valerius Maximus (late 1st c. B.C.-early 1st c. A.D.) 60-1,106 Valori, Niccolo, 'Life of Lorenzo de' Medici' 117, 124-6,132,144,151 Vargunteius, Lucius 46 Varro, Marcus Terentius (116-27 B.C.) 5 Vasari, Giorgio (16c.), 'Lives of the Artists' 118,132 Vatican Library 104,159,179, 193, 210 Velestimon, town of (Thessaly) 186, 202 Venice, city of 9-10, 20, 22, 183, 186-9, 195, 213; centre of humanistic scholarship 171-2, 186-90, 195, 213; origins of 22-3

244

Humanism and Renaissance Historiography

Vergerio, Pier Paolo (fl428) 26 Verona, city of (Lombardy) 81-2 Verrocchio, Andrea (fl488) 156-7; Tommaso, his brother 156 Vespasiano da Bisticci (1421-98) 5, 85, 118, 143, 167-9 Vespucci, Giorgantonio (15c.) 169 Vettori, Piero (1499-1585) 138-9,190 Vigili, Fabio (late 15c., early 16c.) 161, 181, 2034, 212, 214; insertion of catalogue serial numbers in Greek manuscripts of the Medici by 161; cataloguing of the library of Pope Julius II by 161 Villani, Giovanni (f!348) 21, 122, 176; 'Chronicle' of 21; Matteo 122 Virgil (Vergil) (Publius Vergilius Maro) (1st c. B.C.) 21, 132 Vitruvius (late 1st. c. B.C.), 'De

Architectura' of 190 Voltaire (Franqois-Marie Arouet) (1694-1778)115 Volterra, city of (Tuscany), capture and sack of (1472) 131 Vulturcius, Titus 46 Weitzmann, K. 208 Worcester, William (1415- c. 1482) 51, 85 Xenophon (c. 430- c. 359 B.C.) 24, 37, 40; 'Hellenica' 34; 'Memorabilia' 65 Xerxes, king of Persia (486-65 B.C.) 101 Xiphilinus, epitomizer of the 'History' of Dio Cassius (lie. A.D.) 102, 111 Xylander (Wilhelm Holtzmann) (1532-76) 58, 78, 80; edition of Strabo 58, 78, 80 Zosimus (early 6c. A.D.) I l l