The Past and Present Society

Leonardo Bruni: "Professional Rhetorician" or "Civic Humanist"?

Author(s): Hans Baron
Source: Past & Present, No. 36 (Apr., 1967), pp. 21-37
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/649913 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 02:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI: "PROFESSIONAL
RHETORICIAN" OR "CIVIC HUMANIST"?
IN A PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE JULY 1966 ISSUE OF PAST AND PRESENT
withthe acknowledged help of some otherscholars,ProfessorJ. E.
Seigel makes a startlingclaim. The chronologyof Bruni's early
worksthat I proposedin 1955,' he thinks,is totallyfalse: Bruni's
writings, contrary to whatI said, precededthe decisiveyearsof the
Florentinewars with GiangaleazzoViscontiand, therefore, cannot
reflectthe impactof Florence's strugglefor existence. Yet - so
Seigelargues- demonstration thattheworkswhichsetforthBruni's
ideasforthefirst timeoriginated afterFlorence'strialis a precondition
forinterpreting fifteenth-century Florentinehumanismas an intel-
lectualmovement shapedbypoliticalconditions;we would,therefore,
do well to drop the concept of Renaissance"Civic Humanism"
altogetherand to look ratherupon Bruni and his contemporaries
in the lightof Paul O. Kristeller'sthesisthatthe Italianhumanists
wereessentially "professional rhetoricians".2
This is clearlya nonsequitur, whateverthe dates of Bruni'searly
writingsmay be. Florentinehumanistsduringthe earlyfifteenth
centuryheldveryparticular viewsand convictions oftheirown,such
as are not foundelsewhereor onlyat a muchlatertime,on ethical
values, on the need for active participationin communallife, on
republicanlibertyand "popular" government, on historyand the
equality of "modern" Florence with ancient Rome, and on the
potentialof the Florentinevernacular. All this would not simply
disappear,evenifit could be shownthatBrunicomposedthe works
which firstexpressedsome of these ideas before the war with
Giangaleazzoreachedits climaxin 1402.
The majorprovocation of Seigel'sclaimsis, however,his assertion
that as far as the chronologicalcriticismof Bruni's writingsis
concernedtheclockmaysimplybe putback. In theordinary course
ofthings,a scholarly theory,afterit has withstood thefirsttests,may
1In The CrisisoftheEarly Italian Renaissance:Civic Humanismand Republican
Libertyin an Age ofClassicismand Tyranny,2 vols. (Princeton,N.J., 1955) (rev.
edn., I vol., Princeton,N.J., 1966), hereafterreferredto as Crisis,Ist edn. and
rev. edn.; and Humanisticand Political Literaturein Florence and Venice at the
Beginningof the Quattrocento(Cambridge, Mass., 1955).
2
J. E. Seigel, " 'Civic Humanism' or Ciceronian Rhetoric? The Culture of
Petrarch and Bruni", Past and Present,no. 34 (July, 1966), pp. 3-48; esp.
pp. 9 if., 25 ff.,30, 43 f. (hereafterreferredto as "Ciceronian Rhetoric?").

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

laterproveto be in need of modification

becauseofnew evidenceor
new criteria. Seigel does not produce any new evidence; neither
does he systematically
reviewthetheorywhichhe rejects. He simply
needsto rap at a fewstonesoftheedifice,so he thinks:thestonesfall,
the walls crumble,and he decidesthatno new edificehad everbeen
required. We needonlymovebackintotheone thathad stoodthere
from 1899 to 1955. A dramaticreversal,to be sure; but is it
believable?
I
My proposal in 1955 to change drasticallythe chronological
sequenceof Bruni'searlyworksdid notspringfroma suddenwhim.
It was the outcomeof a long-considered effortto escape froma
quandaryin whichstudentshad foundthemselves sincethebeginning
of modern criticism:Bruni's Laudatio FlorentinaeUrbis,which
mentionsthe "occupation" of Bologna by GiangaleazzoVisconti
(June1402) and presupposesthatGiangaleazzono longerdominates
thepoliticalscene(he died2 September1402),is analysedin detailin
thesecondofBruni'sDialogi,a workwhich,accordingto indications
in its Prooemium and in the firstdialogue,was writtenshortlyafter
Easter1401. In 1899,drivento despairby thispuzzle,a studentof
Italianliterature,F. P. Luiso, suggesteda short-cut - one thathe
apparentlylater abandoned. Bruni's mentionof Bologna, so he
conjectured,does not referto the actual occupationof the cityby
Giangaleazzothatoccurredin June1402,butto a rumouroftheyear
1399 whena falsereportcirculatedin Florence- not,indeed,that
Bolognahad been "occupied" by Milanesetroops,but thatBologna
had enteredintoa secretunderstanding withGiangaleazzo.
Quite apart from the sheerwilfulness ofequatingfactand rumour,
"occupation"and the makingof secretcontacts,thistheoryentirely
ignoresthe contextof the passage in the Laudatio whichmakesit
crystalclearthatBruniwas talkingof 1402and notofan earlierdate.
The passagereads: "In Tuscany,he [Giangaleazzo]held Pisa, Siena,
Perugia,and Assisiin his grip,and eventually he had even occupied
Bologna".3 This is a list of Giangaleazzo'sconqueststhatproceeds
chronologically, Pisa havingfallenin early1399, Siena duringthat
summer,Perugiaat thebeginning of 1400,Assisiin May. Assuming
withLuiso thatthepassagewas written duringtheautumn-winter of
1400-1 and thatthe of
"occupation" Bologna meant an event of 1399,
Bruniwould,necessarily, have mentioned it beforePerugia. In this
3 "... in Etruriavero Pisas, Senas, Perusiam,Assisium tenebat,tandem etiam
Bononiam occuparat". Cf. Crisis,Ist edn., p. 524.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 23

case,he couldnotpossiblyhaveputit at theend ofthelistand stated

thatittookplaceafterthefallofAssisi;forthisis whatthewords"and
eventually he had even occupied Bologna (tandemetiamBononiam
occuparat)"expresslysay.
To any readerof the Laudatiothis should be self-evident, and I
would have wastedtimeand space if,in my studiesof 1955, I had
seriouslydiscussedand quotedthesourcesconcerning the1399event.
Mr. Seigel, however,thinksthat if I had done so I would have
recognizedLuiso's "excellentreasons for believingthat Bruni's
mentionofBolognain theLaudatioreferred to therumoursofI399".
This, then, is the crucial
first achievement of Seigel'sreappraisal-
"crucial" because, since it is entirelychimericaland the Laudatio
remainsa workcomposedafterthe occupationof Bolognain June
1402, all consequencesdrawnfromthe beliefthatthe Laudatio is
earlier,and virtuallyeverything Seigeltellsus aboutthefailureofthe
year1402to influence Bruni'sideas,arelikewisebuilton air.
Since the one piece of evidencewhichwe have discussedis by
itselfstrongenoughto preventanyremovaloftheLaudatiofromthe
period after1402, I need not discuss here any furtherproofnor
considerthe implications,5 but may referthe readerto my other
publications.6
II
Given the post-I402 date of the Laudatio and the fact that the
Laudatiois citedand discussedin DialogusII although,accordingto
internalevidence,the Prooemium and DialogusI were composedin
1401, we must acknowledge the of a chronological
existence puzzle.
Are we sure it can be solved by assumingthattheseconddialogue
was addedto thefirstat a latertime?
To beginwith,we mayand shoulddispensewithanyspeculations
regardingthe presumed"unity" of the two dialogues and their
affinityin structurewith Cicero's De Oratore. The meaningand
purposeofthetwodialogueshavebeensubjectto endlesscontroversy,
as is wellknown,and manystudentswillentirely disagreewithwhat
Seigel contendsare the importantpoints. In my opinion,he also
4 Seigel, "Ciceronian Rhetoric?", p. 21.

5 For instance,thatwe can be sure the passage dealing with Bologna is not an
insertionin the text.
6
Those of 1955 (Humanisticand Political Literaturein Florenceand Venice
and volume ii of the firstedition of The Crisisof theEarly Italian Renaissance),
as well as the chapter "Chronology and Historical Certainty: The Dates of
Bruni's Laudatio and Dialogi" in my forthcomingFrom Petrarchto Leonardo
Bruni: Studiesin Humanisticand Political Literature.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

failsto focuson the relevantaspectsof De Oratore. But even if it

were correctthatBrunimade use of De Oratorenot onlyin many
formaldetailsbutalso byimitating theunderlying, generalpattern-
an outline of rhetoricalculturefollowedby a recantationwhich
vindicatessomething ignoredin the firstpart- the questionwould
be to whatextentand when. There is no reasonwhyBruni,while
intending to writeonedialogueand finding thefirstpartofDe Oratore
a suitablemodel,shouldnothave used it in 1401, and then,having
decideda fewyearslaterthatthe latterhalfof the Ciceronianwork
could serveas inspiration fora sequel,have used it again. Thus, if
we want resultsthat can be tested and agreed upon, we cannot
ultimately relyon assertionsor doubts- suchas thoseofthe"unity"
of Bruni'swork- whichwe cannotmeasureexactly. Instead we
have to listento the authorhimself,who in his Prooemium tells us
aboutthenatureofthereportedconversations in statementsthatcan
be testedagainstthe workitself.7
In thefirstplace,Brunistatesin hisProoemium thatthediscussions
whichhe describestookplace apud Colucium,thatis, "in Coluccio
Salutati'shouse". Now thisis trueof the firstdialogueonly; the
secondis setin someoneelse's house.
Secondly,Brunitalksof one disputatio and calls his worka liber
(not libriin the plural). In the titlesand prefacesof all his other
writings he choosesthewordingstrictly accordingto whetherhe has
in hand a liber,commentarium, etc.,meaninga workcomposedofone
unit,orelseseverallibri,commentaria, etc.,meaninga workcomposed
ofseveralunits. (This is preciselythepracticeofCicerohimself, who
wrotethe Laelius sive de amicitiadialogus,but De oratorelibritres,
etc.) I knowonlyone exceptionin Bruni'susage,and thisexception
finallyprovestherule: in thecase ofBruni'sannotatedtranslation of
the pseudo-Aristotelian Economics, whichis composedof two books,
thededicationletterspeaksofa libellus,justas thededicationletterto
the Dialogi speaksof a liber. When I followedup thisclue I found
that,at thetimeof the dedication,in fact,onlythefirstbook of the
Economicshad been circulated;the second book was added later.8
Thereis, then,goodreasonto supposethatthisis also whathappened
in thecase oftheDialogi.
Thirdly,in accordwiththe conditionsthusto be expectedwithin
7 The best edition of the two Dialogi is in ProsatoriLatini del Quattrocento,
ed. E. Garin ("La LetteraturaItaliana. Storia e Testi", vol. xiii, Milan, 1952),
used in all followingquotations. The Laudatio FlorentinaeUrbishas not yet
been printedin extenso,but will be fullyedited in my just cited From Petrarch
to LeonardoBruni.
8
Humanisticand Political Literature,pp. 166 ff.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 25

the contextof the work,Brunifailsat the end of DialogusI to make

any provisionforthe participantsin the discussionto meet for a
second round, even though Cicero in the models which Bruni
followedalwaysprovidedcarefuladvancemotivation fora resumption
of the debatewhenevera discussionextendedoverseveraldialogues
or books- eitherby makingthe participants stayovernight, or by
having them receive a new invitation. Instead, the author of
DialogusI lets his figuresseparatewithouta hintthattheywill re-
assembleon thefollowing day.
Finally, if the plural title Dialogi seems to argue against the
assumptionof an initialseparatepublicationof only one dialogue,
a nihilobstatis easilyestablished. As I was able to showin 1955,the
titleDialogi was not coineduntilaboutthetimeof Bruni'sdeath-
some fortyyearsafterthe workwas written. It had previouslynot
had an author'stitleand had been variouslynamedby the scribes,
who oftendid not use the term"dialogue" at all, but ratherliber,
collatio,or somethingsimilar,or even no titleat all. If the term
employedwas "dialogue",it was a Dialogus(dividedinto two libri),
neverDialogi. Also,manuscripts whichcomprisetheProoemium and
DialogusI aloneand have a titlefitting onlyDialogusI - De utilitate
disputationis,or similar- do exist. Though it is onlytentatively
possible to trace this group back to the text of 1401, groupsof
one-unitmanuscripts arenotfoundforotherworksofBruni's,except
in the case of the Economics, wheretheyare evidenceof the initial
separatepublication of the book.
first
Whenthesefourcomplementary linesof observationare followed
up and compared,9 I doubtthatanyreadercould thinkof anyother
possibleexplanationthantheobviousone thatDialogusII did notyet
existin 1401, but was composedand added to DialogusI a fewyears
later- aftertheLaudatiohad appeared. Yet Seigeltellsus thatthis
reasoningis a dismalfailure,essentiallyon thefollowing grounds:"10
Ad I-apud Colucium. Seigelobjectsthatapudmightsimplymean
"in Salutati'spresence",and Salutatiis presentin both dialogues.
Answer:Leavingasidethefactthatthisusageis notpossibleunderthe
conditionspresupposedin the Dialogi (I may referto the cited
chapterin FromPetrarchto LeonardoBruni),I need onlypointout
that Bruni, who was followingthe patternof Cicero's dialogues,
9 There are otherapproacheswithconsonantresults(forinstance,observations
of the different r6les of Niccoli in the two dialogues, a mattertotallymisunder-
stood by Seigel) forwhich I must referthe interestedreader to my publications
of 1955 and to the quoted chapter of my forthcomingbook, From Petrarchto
LeonardoBruni.
Seigel, "Ciceronian Rhetoric?", pp. 44 ff.
10

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

imitatedat this pointDe naturadeorum,

where,I. vi. 15, we read:
"... apud C. Cottam familiaremmeum... disputatum est" during
a Romanholiday. WiththisphrasecompareBruni's"nuper,cum
est apud Coluciumdisputatum"duringan Easterholiday. Nobody
has yetsuggestedthatapud C. Cottamcould meananything but "in
Cotta'shouse". The meaningof Bruni'sapud Colucium, therefore,
is clear.
Ad 2-liber, not libri. Seigel (who remainssilentabout the fact
thatBruni'sEconomics can serveas a kindoftestcase forthevalidity
of the theoryof successivecomposition)objects: since Bruni,when
mentioningPetrarch'sAfricaor the AristotelianMagna Moralia,
does not call themlibribut liberalthoughtheyhave nine and two
booksrespectively, the apparentconsistency of his usage in his own
titlesand prefaces"can tellus nothing". No answeris neededhere.
Ad 3-Bruni's failureto arrangefora secondgathering at the end
ofthefirst. Seigelseemsto thinkthatno comment is required. Yet
thisstrikingomissionaloneis enoughto raisegravedoubtsagainstthe
assumption thatBrunihad conceiveda seconddialoguewhenthefirst
was written.
Ad 4-the titleof the work. Seigelagainsays nothingabout the
essentialpoints,namelythat the two dialogues did not have an
author'stitleduringBruni'slifetimeand thatthe formDialogiis of
laterorigin. His onlycommentconcernsa matterwhichis notvital
to the finalthesis; moreover,it is based on a blunder. He asserts
that my contentionthat the title-form De utilitatedisputationis is
indicativeofone-dialoguemanuscripts "can be refutedbymanuscript
evidence". For, he thinks,an equivalent of this title - De
disputationis...usu - is foundin a fifteenth-century manuscript
(Cod. Bibl. Laur., LII 3) of the Medici Librarythatcontainsboth
dialogues. Answer:The allegedwordsare not a partof the manu-
script,whichis untitled. The titleto whichSeigelreferswas added
foridentification
byA. M. Bandini,theeighteenth-century compilerof
the catalogueof the BibliotecaLaurenziana,who tookit, withslight
changes,fromthe thenonlyextantprintededitionof Bruni'swork,
publishedat Basel in 1536 (or fromits exact reprint,Nuremberg,
1734). That edition,whose fulltitlebeginswiththeword Libellus
(changedby Bandinito Dialogiduo),containsmerelythe Prooemium
and Dialogus I. Since I was carefulto note all these facts in
Humanistic and PoliticalLiteraturein 1955,theconfusion wroughtby
Seigel on his unsuspecting readerswas totallyunnecessary.
Ad 1-4. What,then,remainsof Seigel'sobjectionsto mydemon-
strationof the successivecompositionof the two dialogues? Not

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 27

a singlefact,not a singlemodification;
nothingbut the creationof
misleadingerrorsin a fieldin which conclusiveresultshad been
achieved.

III
How does Seigel make Bruni appear as a "professionaland
practisingrhetorician"? "It is curious",he says, "that... Baron
has readilyseenthe connectionbetweenthepossibility of succeeding
Salutatianda writingofVergerio[thehumanisttowhomDialogusI was
dedicated] about the Florentinerepublic . . ., but never makes similar
observations abouttheLaudatioorthecomments [onthemeritsofthe
Laudatio] in the Dialogi". In other since
words, Vergeriocomposed
a workon theFlorentinerepublicin orderto recommend himselffor
Salutati'soffice,whyshouldit not be assumedthatBruniwrotehis
Laudatio with the same purpose? And then Seigel proposeshis
picture of Bruni's professionalmotivationthat is to replace the
conceptionof Bruni the civic humanistand politicallyminded
Florentine:
One purposeoftheLaudatioFlorentinae Urbismusthavebeento further
his candidacyforthepost[ofFlorerrtine chancellor]
...
[Baron]ignoresBruni'sobviousunderlying hope thatboththe Laudatio
andtheDialogiwouldhelpto advancehis careerin theChancery.
His careerwas thatof a practisingrhetorician, and his associationwith
Florencewas formed in termsofit. Therecan be littledoubtthathe hoped
to succeed Salutati as chancellor .... When he was passed over.. . ,
Bruni'sinterestin Florencewaned. He founda job (withSalutati'shelp)in
thepapal curia,and quicklybecameabsorbedin its concerns.
Is itlikelythatan attachment whichfadedoutso easilyhadonlya fewyears
beforebeenable to effect ofBruni'soutlook?
a totaltransformation
Clearlyhe had not been deeplytouchedduringthe precedingperiodby
"Florentinecivicsentiment"."
This is thetexttakenfromSeigel'sgospelof"rhetorical" humanism,
buteverysinglewordofit distorts orcontradicts plainfact. To begin
withan explanationofwhyI failedso "curiously"to drawa parallel
betweenVergerio'sand Bruni'sprofessional endeavours. The reason
is that, despite Seigel's contentions,neitherVergerionor Bruni
composedtheworksin questionat a timewhentheycouldbe potential
candidatesfortheFlorentinechancellor'sposition. We do notreally
knowenoughaboutVergerio'sDe RepublicaFlorentina, whichseems
not to have been preserved,but he tellsus clearlythatthe workwas
not newlywritten, but merelytakenout of a drawerforpolishing,at
thetimewhen(as I suggested)he mayhaveplayedfora momentwith
the idea of applyingfor the Florentinechancellorshipduringits
11 Seigel, "Ciceronian Rhetoric?", pp. 26 (n. 59), 16 (n. 33), and 25 f.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

vacancyin December1406.12 Andit wasonlyfora moment, because

in theend he did notapplyat all and,probably,did notroundouthis
old draft. Presumably thisdrafthad beenwritten before1401,when
Vergerio was teachingand studyingin Florence.13 There was no
vacancyin the chancellor'spost before1406,nor could Vergerioas
a young,non-Tuscanstranger haveevendreamedthenofsucceeding
Salutati. It would be equallyfitting to arguethat,since Vergerio
also wrotea De RepublicaVenetorum, probablyduringthesameearly
years,he musthave done so in the hope of findingemployment in
theVenetianchancellery, althoughhe neverlivedin Venice.
The factsof Vergerio'slife,then,do not fitthe claimof "profes-
sional" motivation of his workon Florence. Do thefactsof Bruni's
lifefittheclaimofhis"professional" motivation? Seigelreproaches
me forignoringthosefacts. To him,Bruni'sconductafterwriting
theLaudatiosuggeststhathe musthavebeenimpelledbyprofessional
considerations.For afterthe compositionof the Laudatio,"when
he was passed over" in his candidacyfor the chancellery,14 "he
founda job ... in thepapal curia,and quicklybecameabsorbedin its
concerns".'5 In otherwords, Seigel suggestsa causal sequence:
writingthe Laudatio as a way of gettinginto office,failingin that
attempt,and becomingalienatedfromFlorence. But,again,reality
was different.
Bruni'smoveto theCuriadid nottakeplace at thetimedemanded
by Seigel'stheory. The relevantdatesin Bruni'slifeare these: he
wrotehis Laudatioin 1403/4(in 1400 accordingto Seigel); he left
Florenceforthe Curia in March 1405; and he was an unsuccessful
candidateforthe Florentinechancellorship (afterSalutati'sdeath)in
May 1406. Consequently,therewas no sequence of eventsthat
mightbe used to bringthe compositionof the Laudatio and the
candidacyforthe chancellor'sofficeinto a close relationship, or to
make Bruni's separationfrom Florence appear the result of a
precedingfailurein the plans of a "professional rhetorician".
It is also untruethatBruni,afterleavingFlorenceforthe Curia,
quicklygave up his concernforFlorence,thusrevealingtheshallow-
nessofhis former relations.16 Bruni'sapplicationfortheFlorentine

12Not duringthe vacancy afterSalutati's death, as Seigel says (p. 26 n. 59).

13 Cf. Humanisticand Political Literature,
pp. 1o7 f. and II112f.
14
"In favourof Pietro di Ser Mino", says Seigel (p. 26), but this again is all
mixed up because Pietro became chancellor in December 14o6, when Bruni
was not a candidate forthe Florentinepost.
1' Seigel, "Ciceronian Rhetoric?", p. 26.
18 Cf. forwhat follows,Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 248-54; Humanisticand Political
Literature,pp. 159-61.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 29

positioncamefourteen monthsafterhis departureto the Curia. All

thattimehis senseofidentitywithFlorencehad remainedstrongor
had even grown. When it began to fade,in the autumnof 1406,
the precedingfailureof his friendsin Florenceto obtainthe vacant
post forhim playeda minorr61e,if any. The real cause was the
attraction of an important newtask- the suddensenseof a mission.
We knowthis definitely fromBruni's correspondence, whichfrom
November1406onwardshowshimpassionately absorbedin changed
interests. GregoryXII, just elected,had swornthathe would do
everything to end the schismofthe Church,if necessaryat theprice
of his own abdication,and Bruniwas giventhe chargeto phrasethe
decisivediplomatic documents forthispolicyofunion. In November,
whenthesecondvacancyin Florenceoccurred,he wrotehome:"now
thatthereis goodhopethatthisbalefulschismcan be ended,I believe
I shouldlive here[at the Curia]".
Beforethe emergenceof this hope forservicein an even greater
cause, however,Bruni had borne the absence fromFlorencewith
anything but a lightheart. BetweenAugust1405 and March 1406,
whiletheCuria stayedin thequietcountry townof Viterbo,thepast
Florentine periodofhislifewas,in fact,followedbya warmafterglow:
his lettersat thattimeare fullofnostalgiaforFlorenceand all things
Florentine;theycontinueto referto Florentianostra. Salutatiin his
answerscalled Bruni "more than half of my mind, my own self
throughand through"and once even blamed Bruni forpraising
Florencetoo oftenin his letters. In an obituaryon a Florentine
patricianwrittenat Viterbo,Bruni still picturedthe relationship
betweenthe citizenand his patria in termslearnedfromSalutati:
a manofnobleand generouscharacter shouldgratefullyacknowledge
thathe owes his best to his commonwealth, even morethanto his
individualtalents.
Since Dialogusii was writtenafter1403-4,mostprobablyduring
Bruni'sstayin Viterbo(as shownin 1955),itis againstthisbackground
of nostalgiaand over-cultivation of the bonds with his Florentine
friends thatthescenein Dialogusii in whichthegrouparoundSalutati
is made to thankBruni for his Laudatio becomespsychologically
understandable.This does notmeanthattheidea thattheLaudatio
mightsomehowhelp him to returnto Florencecould neverhave
crossedBruni'smind,forhumanmotivations are usuallycomplex.
But to ignore completelythe fact that this extendedsequel of
FlorentinesentimentoccurredafterBruni'sdepartureto the Curia,
and to change the chronologicalorder of the eventsin order to
demonstrate thatthedisappointment ofBruni'sprofessionalhopesin

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

Florencecoincidedwitha swiftbreakwithhis Florentine past,comes

a littletoo nearthewaysofwritersofhistorical
fiction.

IV
Is it, however,correctat all to contendthatBruni'sattachment to
Florence"fadedout" (as Seigelputsit)" duringhis curialyears?
Here, I am afraid,I mustblamemyselfforhavingcontributed to
the misunderstandings of those who seek to give a "rhetorical"
interpretation to Bruni's life. In my Crisis of the Early Italian
Renaissance,I approachedthe problemof Bruni's "alienation"by
comparing hisreactionsat thetimeoftheLaudatioand at themoment
when,owingto the promiseof GregoryXII to bringunityto the
Church,he believedhe hadfounda newmeaningforhislife.18 There
is, indeed,a gulfbetweenthesetwo moments:Bruni,who in the
Laudatiohadexpressed thehopeofbecomingthehistorian ofFlorence,
in late 14o6 tells his Florentinefriendsthat one of theirfellow-
citizensought to be commissionedto writea historicalwork on
Florence's recentdeeds. The troublewith such comparisonsof
specificutterances to decidewhenand
is, however,thatit is difficult
forhow long theywere indicativeof theirauthor'spoint of view.
Was Bruni'sapparentforgetfulness in 1406abouthisplansto become
the historianof Florencemerelya reactionat a fleetingmomentof
highhopesfortheunionoftheChurch? Mighthe nothavereacted
differently had he written thelettera yearor twolater,whenhe had
becomedisappointedby thepope's failureto live up to his promise?
We mayforma truerpictureof the effectson citizensof Italian
city-republics of holdinga curialofficeif we considerthatthe Curia,
afterall, was farfrombeingthecourtlycircleofa Renaissancetyrant.
When Bruni'snon-Tuscanfriend,Vergerio,was forcedin 1400 to
returnto Padua, the seat ofthe Carrara,and therebecamethetutor
of a youngprince,he was,indeed,increasingly exposedto influences
antagonistic to the outlookon life and historycharacteristicof the
Florentines;his positionon the relativemeritsof a republicanand
a monarchical regimechangedradicallythereafter.But in thepapal
service, a Tuscan humanist likePoggio,who,unlikeBruni,made
hishome evw.n
at theCuriaformanydecades,byno meansentirely losthis
typically Florentine politicalconvictions. In fact,when, duringthe
1430s,civic humanistsand courtlyhumanistsin Italy foundthem-
selves bitterlydisagreeingover Scipio, the hero of the Roman
'7 See p. 27 above.
s Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 252 f. I had at thatpoint to determine
the date after
which Bruni's new commitment made composition of such an intensely
Florentine-patrioticpiece of writingas Dialogus II impossible.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 31

Republic,and Caesar,thefounderofimperialmonarchy, Poggio,from

his home at the Curia, became the leader of the republic-minded
humanistsand the ally of similar-thinking curial humanistsfrom
Venice. One ofthe latter,Pietrodel Monte,wroteto Poggioat the
time: "why,then,should it seem strangeto anyoneif I, who was
born, nursed,and broughtup in the strongestfortressof liberty
[Venice],emphaticallyand frankly
expressdetestation forCaesar,the
... destroyer of Roman liberty"?19 This is the self-analysis of a
"professionalrhetorician" ofVenetiandescentand attachmentin the
papal service.
For Bruni,thepapal Curia neverbecamea secondhome,as it did
forPoggioand Pietrodel Monte. Duringthetenyearsfrom1405to
1415, whenBrunibelongedto the Curia,he was notreallyseparated
fromFlorencegeographically forany lengthof time- in any case,
not afterthe periodof his briefdreamof committment to Gregory's
policy of union in I406-8.2o In 1409 he gave up a canonrywhich he
had held since 1407,thusfinallydecidingupon a layman'sfuturefor
himself. In 14Io he obtainedthe marriagepermissionrequiredfor
occupantsof curial posts,21 and in 1412 he married. During the
sameyearshe oftenvisitedFlorence. In 1409,likeall Florentines at
the Curia,he was recalledby the Florentinegovernment, whichwas
dissatisfiedwithGregory'sprocrastination in the matterof union.22
In 14Io-II he servedas Florentinechancellorforthreemonths,but
preferred to returnto the Curia; by joiningthe Pope electedby the
Council of Pisa, he could workat the Curia in the veryinterestof
Florence. Evenin 1415, whenhisincreasing wealthmadeit possible
forhimto settlein Florenceas a citizen,Florenceand the Curia did
notbecometwoentirely separatespheresforhim. AftertheCouncil
of Constance,the Curia stayedin Florenceforlong periods,and in
1419-20Bruniagainworkedfora whilein the curialservice.23At
19Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 66-9.
2 Cf. forwhat follows,Crisis,rev. edn., pp. 246 ff.
21 Cf. W. von Hofmann, Forschungenzur Geschichteder kurialenBehdrden,
vol. ii (Rome, 1914), p. 107.
22 Cf. LeonardiBruni AretiniEpistolarumLibri VIII, ed. L. Mehus (Florence,
1741), Epist. iii. Io.
23 The fact that Bruni resumed his curial officein
1419-20, while the Curia
was stayingin Florence, is not mentioned in the sketchesin Crisis,rev. edn.,
pp. 246 f. and 409 ff. It emergesfromBruni's Epist. xi. 12 (cf. LeonardoBruni:
Humanistisch-Philosophische ed. H. Baron [Leipzig, 1928], pp. 224 f.),
Schriften,
writtenin Florence 15 March 1419, where the following passage is found:
"Haec mihi quoque videbantur,qui ex tot annis quibus iam in Curia versor,
nihiltale meminiad pontificemdelatum. Itaque ... rem deferread pontificem
praetermisi". F. P. Luiso, in his unfinishedStudi su l'Epistolariodi L. Bruni
(see Crisis, Ist edn., p. 521), concluded from the letter: "Evidentemente
Leonardo, giunto a Firenze Martino V., riprendeil suo posto nella curia", an
inferencewhich is the more reliable because Luiso found two papal documents
of 1420 signed by Bruni.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER36

thesametime,hisinfluence
at theCuriawasrepeatedly
usedbythe
Florentinegovernment.
In spiteof his variousshorteror longerstaysat the Curia,Bruni
alwaysremainedbyresidenceas wellas bysentiment tiedto Florence.
During histransient in
chancellorship 14Io-II he was notlookedupon
as a hiredforeigner or curialhumanist;he was officially "Messere
Leonardodi Ceccho d'Arezzo,del contadodi Firenze".24 Whenhe
appliedfor,and was granted,citizenship in 1416,he had to provethat
forthemorethantwentypastyearshe had been a Florentinein fact.
Althoughbornin FlorentineArezzo,he declared,afterhis childhood
he had continuouslylived with Florentinecitizens,had never
recognizedany otherpatria, and had neverestablishedhis family
residenceelsewhere.25Naturally,Brunitriedto proveherethathe
had metthe legalrequirement of maintaining a Florentineresidence
for more than two decades; but this presupposesthat throughout
thoseyearshe had sufficientlyprovidedformeetingthatrequirement.
Besides,we shouldkeepin mindthatall thiswaspossibleforhimonly
because he was a Tuscan fromthe Florentineterritorial state and
fromthebeginninghad been considereda semi-Florentine.
There is nothing,then,in Bruni'slifeafterhe firsttooka position
in the Curia thatin any way justifiesour considering him a typical
professional rhetorician,one whose loyaltieschangeas he wanders
fromstateto state. If he belongsin anycategoryat all, it is rather
thecategory ofthoseresidentsoftheterritory subjectto Florencewho
forgenerations had been attractedto the capitaland who,thanksto
the opportunity affordedto rise therein the notariateand juridical
professions,weresoonto providesomeofthemostbrilliantrepresen-
tativesof FlorentineRenaissanceculture.
When due attentionis paid to the provincialorigin of many
Florentinehumanists,one becomesaware of the factthatFlorence
was notan isolatedcity-statebutfunctioned as capitaland focalpoint
of the northernTuscan region. Such immigrantintellectuals, as
newcomersand representatives at timesmetwith
of social mobility,
resistancefromnativeelements. Buttheinfluxfromthesurrounding
Tuscan provincehad alwaysbeen an operatingforcein Florentine
life,and at least for the professions(as well as for the artists)it
continued toplaya decisiver61einthefabricofRenaissancecivilization.

24 Cf. D. Marzi, La Cancelleriadella RepubblicaFiorentina(Rocca S. Casciano,

191o), P. 159.
25 See the summation of Bruni's application in the grant of Florentine

citizenshipon 26 June 1416, edited in E. Santini's Leonardo Bruni Aretinoe

i Suoi "HistoriarumFlorentiniPopuli Libri XII" (Pisa, 19Io), p. 133.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 33

Psychologicallyand ideologically,the process of assimilation

involvedcomplexproblemsforthe individualsconcerned. Yet, not
infrequently, by being able to approachthe Florentinetraditions
froma certaindistanceand by elaboratingthem in thoughtand
writing,immigrantssuch as Bruni became the most original
representatives oftheideasand idealsthatdistinguished theiradopted
city. But howeverone wishesto appraisethese subtle processes,
nothingcan be less suitedto determine thecharacteristictraitsofthis
mobility of Tuscan lifethan the model of the itinerant
"professional
rhetorician"- sophisticated and oftenefficientin publicservice,but
nowherereallyat home, and not to be takentoo seriouslyin his
expressionofpoliticaland ethicalconvictions - an oratorand writer
who offers his servicesto a multitudeoflords. No doubt,therewas
a placeforthistypeofprofessional humanistin thelifeofRenaissance
Italy; but when it comes to understanding the politicalhumanism
in
developing city-republics like Florenceand Venice,nothingcould
be moreconfusingand farther fromthe truththanto maintainthat
all humanistsshouldbe tarredwiththesamebrush.

V
The contentionthat officein a chancellerywas the inevitable
professionalgoal ofa humanistis also demonstrablywrongin Bruni's
case. Althoughhe allowedhis Florentinefriendsto place his name
on thelistof candidatesafterSalutati'sdeath(in thespringof 1406),
he neveragain competedactivelyforthe Florentinechancellorship.
As we haveseen,thereis no evidenceforhisallegedearlierprofessional
aspirationswhenwritingtheLaudatio. For his lifeafter1406it can
be positivelyshownthat,if he thoughtof holdingofficein Florence
at all, he did so with the strongestreservations.He was quite
lukewarmin his acceptanceof the Florentinechancellorship forone
yearin 14Io, and afteronlythreemonthshe resigned. We hearof
tworeasons:theofficedid notleavehimenoughtimeforhis studies,
and he foundthathe could earn moremoneyat the Curia.26 This
mustbe weighedtogetherwithour otherinformation.As earlyas
thetimeoftheLaudatio,Bruni'sultimategoalhad beento becomethe
historianofFlorence- and Florence'shistory had neverbeenwritten

26 Bruni's Epist. v. 3, writtenafter he had been only one month in office,

says that it did not allow him any leisure, and that he had accepted it merely
because refusalwould have caused him even greater"incommoda"; Poggio, in
his obituaryoration(in Mehus' editionof Bruni's Epistolae,vol. i, p. cxxi), states
that "majoris spes emolumenti" was anothermotive for Bruni to returnto the
Curia.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

by the chancellorsof the Republic. It had been the work of

independent,privatecitizenssuch as the variousmembersof the
Villanifamily. Now thatthehumanistic visionoftheancientcitizen
was emerging, Bruni'sguidingidea becameto do forFlorencewhat
Livy had doneforRome.27
Anotherside-lighton Bruniis providedby severalof our sources.
Theydescribehimas a personsomewhatmoreniggardly thanbehoved
a humanistic manofletters.28Shortlyaftergivingup thechancellor's
officeso easilyin 1411 he marrieda womanwithan unusuallyrich
dowry. Moreover,in 1415,as soon as the fortuneacquiredin his
curial officepermitted, and at the firstlegallypossiblemoment,he
appliedforFlorentine citizenship and immediately startedworkon his
History,livinghenceforth as a scholarand writerof privatemeans.
Evidently,the ideal whichhe pursuedwithan ironwillwas not the
professional careeroftherhetorician butthestatusofan esteemedand
well-to-docitizen,writingthe historyof his cityand livingat the
centreof its culturallife- an existencemuch more in harmony
witha citizen'sinclinations, and also muchmorein correspondence
withthe imagewhichmenof theQuattrocento had formedof Livy
and Tacitus.
It is true,of course,thatBrunidid acceptthechancellor'sposition
in 1427 and wenton to becomeits greatestrepresentative.But it is
equallytruethathe had notstrivenforthisoffice and thathe accepted
it withreluctancewhenit came. In 1426,due to thegreatrespectin
whichhe was heldat theCuria,he was sentto thePope as Florentine
ambassador,and his achievement on thisoccasionmade himappear
in thefollowing yearas theideal personforthechancellor'sposition.
To hisfriendshe wrote,however,thattheoffice "has fallento mylot,
contrary to all mywishes"; the "lifeof otium" led forso manyyears,
27 This is the perspectivefromwhich Bruni himselfand his contemporaries

saw his life-work. When, in old age, Bruni once felt slandered by another
citizen in a city council, his passionate answer, according to Vespasiano da
Bisticci,was thatthroughouthis life he had tried to honour his adopted city by
writingits historyfor lasting memory,"just as Rome has become celebrated
through its illustrious writers [of history], especially Livy" (Vespasiano da
Bisticci, Vite di nominiillustri,ed. L. Frati, vol. ii [Bologna, 1893], pp. 26 f.).
After Bruni's death, an anonymous citizen in the chancellery,recalling what
Bruni had meant to Florence, compared him with Livy, whom Spaniards
and Gauls had travelledall the way to Rome to see: just so, people fromall
over Europe had travelledto Florence to see Bruni. (Text in Santini, op. cit.,
p. 154).
28 Cf. Poggio's obituaryoration on Bruni, ed. Mehus, op. cit., vol. i, p. cxxii,
and C. Monzani, Archivio Storico Italiano, new ser., v (I), (1857), PP. 58 f.
Fellow-citizens,too, were aware of Bruni's thriftand successfuleffortto build
up a familyfortune,but praised him; see the anonymouscitizen, quoted in the
precedingnote, pp. 153 f.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 35

"dedicatedto litterae studiaque", had beenmorepleasantand tranquil

thanthisnew"vita negociosa etcivilis. But I had to obeythedemand
of the patria, whichwe must not obstinatelywithstandbeyonda
certainpoint,as Socratesin [Plato's]Critowiselyteaches". In any
case, he said, he had acceptedthe officemerelyfora limitedperiod;
he had notgivenup hisformer plansforever."9It canbe arguedthat
all thisis mererhetoric, by which we shouldnot be deceived. But
Bruni'scontemporaries judgeddifferently. Poggiowroteto Brunifrom
the Curia thathe had originallynot likedthe news thatBrunihad
acceptedthiskindof office. "But I learnedsubsequently, and this
has givenme thegreatestdelight,thatyou not onlydid not seekthe
job, but initiallyrefusedto acceptit whenit was offered, untilyou
finallyrelented,yieldingto the entreatyof yourfriends". Poggio
was readyto send his congratulations, providedthatBruni would,
indeed,tryto regainhis liberty:"afteryou have done yourpartfor
the Republic",he said, "do not forsakethe studialitterarum".30
We can be positive,therefore, thatneitherin Bruni'seyes nor in
thoseofhisfriendsdid hisattainment ofthechancellor's office
in 1427
appear the crowning-point of a "rhetorician's"professionalcareer.
The real meaningand value of thisoffice forhimwillbe understood
when it is seen againstthe backgroundof the unevencourseof his
literaryactivitiesafter1415.31 For six years afterwards his work
exhibitedall the marksof what we have learnedto regardas the
patternof civichumanism. He proceededsteadilywithhis History
oftheFlorentine Peopleand witha numberofpolitico-historical works
which, continuingthe approach of the Laudatio, set forththe
republicaninterpretation of Roman and Florentinehistorythatwas
to remaincharacteristic ofthe FlorentineRenaissance. At thesame
time,he developeda philosophyof the values inherentin the vita
activaetpolitica. And therewerecontactswiththe actualworldof
politics:Bruniestablishedrelationswiththerulingaristocratic circle,
as is indicatedby a commissionto revisethe statuteof the Parte
29
Bruni, Epist. v. 8 (1428): "Vita tamenilla ociosa, litterisstudiisque intenta,
jocundior erat michi atque tranquillior,quam haec negociosa et civilis. Sed
Patriae voluntati parendum fuit, cui neque repugnare ad extremum,neque
refragaricontumaciterdebemus, ut Socrates in Critone sapientissime docet".
Epist. x. 7 (1428): "Credo enim audivisse te literatoex ocio invitumrepugnan-
temque me jussu Civitatisnegociis publicis fuissepraefectum".
30 Poggio, Epist. iii. 16 (1427), ed. Tonelli, vol. i, pp. 215 f.: "Audivi postea
quod mihi fuit summae voluptati,te non solum non appetiisse id munus, sed
oblatum primo recusasse: denique victum, coactumque, cessisse precibus
amicorum". "... et cum reipublicae fecerissatis, non omittas studia littera-
rum".
"' Cf. for what follows, Crisis, rev. edn., pp. 409-II.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 36

Guelfa(in 1419-20)and bythe dedicationofhis De Militiato Rinaldo

degliAlbizzi(in 1421).
After1421,however,thegeneraldirectionofBruni'slaboursbegan
subtlyto change. Whereastheworkon his Historyno longermoved
forward, duringthenextfiveor six years(1421-6)he publishedmost
of the writingson whichhis reputationrestsas one of the great
philologicalscholarsand educationalwritersof thefifteenth century.
There was no let-downin the vigourand attainment of his studies.
But there was, it seems, a gradual weakeningof that political
componentin his thoughtthathad madehis humanismresponsiveto
theworldaroundhimin theyearsbefore1406,whenhe had livedin
Salutati'scircle,and againin the firstyearsafter1415,whenhe had
settleddownas a citizen-scholar.His personalcontactswithsomeof
the leadingcitizenscould in the longrunnot makeup forwhatwas
missingin hisciviclife:a newcitizenduringtheAlbizziperiodhad no
access to anyof the higherelectiveoffices. Thus we findthateven
whenwarwiththe Viscontiagainbrokeout aboutthe middleof the
1420s, therenewedpoliticalchallenge had littleimmediateimpacton
the nature of Bruni's studies. Without the constantchallenge
exertedby an activecitizen'slife,merescholarshipwouldnot allow
civichumanismto developbeyonda certainpoint.
Only afterhis mission to Rome in 1426 and his taking of
officein 1427 did Bruni'slifeand literaryactivitiescome finallyto
translateintorealitythe ideal he had affirmed fromhis earlyyears.
The officein the chancellerybroughthim the politicalexperience
thatnormal,full-fledged citizensderivedfromparticipation in the
elective offices. During the early fifteenth century,a time of
increasinginteractionamong the Italian states, the chancellor
gradually becamethecentralsupervisor ofall contactsoftheRepublic
with otherstatesdue to the factthat he was the only permanent
functionary, whiletheelectedoffice holderschangedin quickrotation.
The chancellorwrotethe correspondence withforeignstatesafter
the
attending meetings of the executive officials. He phrasedand
transmitted the instructions to all Florentineambassadors,corre-
sponded withthem,and receivedtheirwrittenreportsaftertheir
return.32Thus Bruniwas at thecentreof events,as werefewother
Florentines,duringthe new phase of the struggleof the Republic
withtheVisconti- a struggle whichhad notyetendedwhenhe died
in 1444.

32
Cf. F. P. Luiso, ArchivioStoricoItaliano, 5th ser., xxi (1898), 132 ff.,and
Marzi, Cancelleria,pp. 166, 194 f.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEONARDO BRUNI 37

Whilehe was busy withdiplomaticcorrespondence and the city's

propaganda,theoldertrendsofhishumanistic workgrewto maturity.
In spiteof the immensedemandon his timemade by his office, he
resumedthe Historyof theFlorentine People,whichagain took first
place in his humanisticactivities;the booksthatdescribethe power
strugglesof the recentpast and of his own day wereadded at that
time. Since he wantedto writeforordinary citizens,and notmerely
for Latin-trainedscholars,the vernacularfound a place in his
humanism. He defendedtheFlorentineVolgarein theoryand putit
to practicaluse in someofhiswritings, especiallyin the VitaofDante,
wherehe sees in Dante,duringhisyoungeryears,theperfectunionof
studiouspursuitsand a citizen'sinvolvement in his state- such as
Bruni himselfhad eventuallyachievedin his own life. Since the
earlyyearsof the Medici era,after1434,afforded certainofthe new
citizens a chance to become participantsin the highestelective
offices,the last decade of Bruni'slifesaw the full,almostsymbolic
realizationof the idea thathad long been at the heartof the civic
humanismof QuattrocentoFlorence- the idea thatonlythrough
directcontactwiththe actualityof societyand the responsibility of
politicalactioncan cultureand thoughtbe properlynourishedand
broughtto fruition.
This, in quick outline,is the pictureof Bruni'shumanisticcareer
and work that emergesfromthe perspectiveof fifteenth-century
"civic humanism". If we wereto interpret humanismas a basically
rhetoricalmovement, we wouldfind,on the contrary, as Seigelsays,
that
it iswrong..,.to seeBrunias motivatedchiefly .... Political
bypoliticalfeeling
concernsdid not shape his thought .... At everypoint in his career,
Bruni'sentryintoFlorentine lifewas madethrough his practiceoftheartof
rhetoric. Evenin theyearsafter1427whenBruniwasa distinguished figure
in Florence,it is clearthathis culturalactivitiesderivedfroma concernfor
oratoryfirst,and forcivicparticipation onlysecondarily.... His concern
forciviclifewastheconcernofa practising orator.33
To me it is impossibleto believethatmanyhistorians willbe ready
to adopt this inherently negative,inadequate,and whollyartificial
formulain exchangeforso muchofthehistorical realityofFlorentine
and humanisticlife which,as we thought,had once again become
visible.
Newberry Libraryand University ofChicago Hans Baron

33 Seigel, "Ciceronian Rhetoric?", pp. 25-7.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:51:52 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions