Bruni on Writing History Author(s): Gary Ianziti Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp.

367-391 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2901571 . Accessed: 25/03/2011 14:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Bruni on Writing History

by GARY IANZITI
This article examinesLeonardoBruni'sideas on historywriting, tracing their evolution that from 1404 down to the latter half of 1443. It establishes Bruni saw historywriting as a textualactivity closelyrelatedto, if not identicalwith, translation. Thevarious implications of thisdiscovery exploredin relation to severalof Bruni'smajorhistoricalworks, are includingthe Cicero novus (1415),the Commentarii de primo bello punico (1419),and the De bello italico (1441). The article concludesby showing how Bruni's views - in theirfinal, extreme formulation - were challengedby his youngerrival, Biondo Flavio, in the early 1440s.

EONARDO BRUNI (1370-1444) is rightly regarded as the central

figure in early Renaissanceefforts to redefine the form and function of history writing. In particular,Bruni's monumental Historiarumflorentinipopuli libri XII (hereafterHistoriae)is often singled out as an exemplary work, one that set the whole enterprise of history writing on a new plane. Yet while most would agree that Bruni deserves to be seen as the pivotal figure in this area, there remain discrepancies when it comes to determining the exact nature of his contribution. Some have insisted that it lies in his pioneering of new methods in historical criticism. Others see Bruni as the proponent of a rhetoricalapproachto history writing based primarily on the desire to revive classicalliterary standards.o Both of these views have substantial claims to validity. Who can in fact forget the brilliance of the first book of the Historiae, where Bruni destroys the legends surrounding the founding and early history of Florence, and then recaststhe story on the basis of hard evidence? But the question has been asked whether such critical rigor can be said to characterizethe remaining books (I-XII) which form the bulk of the Historiae. And the answer has come back largely in the negative. Bruni himself appearsto have regardedhis first book as
1 The first view can be traced back to Santini, whose results were succinctly restated by Ullman. A more recent exponent is Fryde, 1983; but see also the introduction and apparatusof TheHumanism, 13, 176-77.The second view emanates from Gray and then Gilbert, and is specifically applied to Bruni's Historiaeby Wilcox, esp. 104-05;and Struever, 115-43.

Renaissance Quarterly 51 (1998): 367-91

[ 367 ]

368

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

a thematicexcursus whose conjectural methodswere dictatedby the need to reconstruct obscureand remoteperiod of the city's hisan his tory. Once he reached true subject- the recenthistory of Florence- Brunisettledinto the patternlaiddown by the canonical writers of ancient history. His method became the familiar one of narratio,completewith set-piecespeeches,full-scalebattle descripof tions, andall the paraphernalia classical historiography.2 rhetorical Bruni'srecourse such classical to devicesdid not in itself preclude application criticalcategories. the of Nor did the use of methodsin Book I necessarily the conjectural guarantee rigidadherto enceto truththatBruni'slateradmirers havesometimesattributed him. Recentscholarship done muchto overcomeold dichotomies has and to establishnew parameters the study of the Historiae. One for thinksin particular the work of Riccardo of Fubini.In a seriesof ima Fubinihas adopted contextualizing contributions, portant approach that presentsBruni'scriticalstanceas a functionof his identification with Florentineoligarchical politics of the early Quattrocento.Acare cordingto this view, Bruni'sHistoriae bestseen as a projectionof the valueschampioned the city's emerging by politicalelites.Bruni's of earlier versionsof the Florentine critique pastis thus not the prodof a pure scholarseekingto reconstruct past. It corresponds uct the insteadto a new ethos, one of whose chief characteristics a dewas traditions,both cultached, skepticalattitudetowardsconsolidated
tural and political.3

Another Italianscholar,Anna MariaCabrini,has focusedmore with regard to on how it operates specifically Bruni'stext, examining
2

See Bruni's introductory remarks to Book Two of the Historiae, 27: "Pervagatiorem nobis historiam superioris libri necessitas fecit.... Itaque brevi discursu longa pervagati tempora, quaecumque ad notitiam dicendorum necessaria fuerunt quasiargumentumpretextentes,uno in libro collegimus .... Iam vero non cursu, sed incessu erit utendum." According to Baron, 1955, 611-12, a gap of nearly four years separates the composition of Book I (1415) from that of Book II (second half of method" from Ginzburg, 96-125. For its 1419).I borrow the concept of a "conjectural applicability to the Renaissance, see Momigliano, 1950. Cf. the "Proemio" of Vespasiano da Bisticci, 1:31-32,on the early history of Florence: "... e a tutte queste cose bisogna andareper congetture,per non c'essere suti iscritori l'abino mandato a memoria de le letere. E per questo bisogno a meser Lionardo, avendo a scrivere la istoria fiorentina, durare una grandissimafatica, none trovando notitia ignuna, se none d'anni circa cento cinquanta;del resto bisogno soperire con l'autorita di queste cose nominate di sopra"(italics mine). Bruni's Historiae, II-XII cover the years 12501402. 3 Fubini, 1980, 1990, and 1991. On the importance of Fubini's work see also Hankins, 1995, 321-23.

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

369

the sources. Cabrini establishes the extent to which Bruni's concern for the city's image shapes his use of available materials. Her study demonstrates conclusively that the Historiae cannot be read in the one-dimensionalway proposed by early twentieth-century positivists. Bruni does not approach his sources in an objective quest for truth. Rather, he subordinatesthem to his own purposes, which include the glorification of Florence as a political power of the first rank.4 Cabrini's dissection of Bruni's Historiae is exemplary in suggesting how Renaissance historians relate to their sources. Her reading provides a wealth of insight into the Renaissancepractice of writing history and the underlying principles that guided one of its chief representatives. This is particularly true of the section on Bruni's handling of the chronicle of Giovanni Villani, the main source of the Historiae from the end of Book I to the beginning of Book VII. Perhaps the word "source"is somewhat misleading. For what Cabrini really shows is that Bruni did not regardVillani either as a source to be subjected to critical examination, or as a point of departure for mere re-elaboration.Her work suggests rather that Bruni's ultimate intent was to bring about a declassement Villani's chronicle by releof it to the status of a mere collection of raw materials.5By so gating doing, Bruni was effectively creating a historiographicalvoid for himself to fill. By refusing to recognize the Villani chronicle as either authoritative or normative, Bruni reduced it to the level of a storehouse of information that he could use freely to fashion his own radically new interpretation of the city's past. Cabrini shows how he does this by calling into play a range of manipulative techniques, including selection, modification, and omission.6 Cabrini's study of the relationship between Bruni and Villani helps clear the way toward a reassessment of some long standing problems. It suggests a new explanation, for example, as to why Bruni never cites Giovanni Villani by name. The reason does not necessarily lie, as has recently been supposed,7in a failure of critical vigilance. More probably, it stems from the first premiss of Bruni's
Cabrini, 248. 5Ibid.,275-76:"Pareevidente che l'intento di Bruni sia quello di scrivere ex-novo la storia fiorentina narratanella Cronica,declassandoquest'ultima - che continuava ad avere nella tradizione cittadina una indubbia autorevolezza - a raccolta di materiali per la sua nuova costruzione." 6Ibid., 281. 7Black, 146.
4

370

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

wholeenterprise, whichwasto denyauthorial to status his predecessor. The chiefmeritof Cabrini's study,however,is surelythe striking the way it illustrates actualworkingmethodsof a leadingRenaissance historian.One is left with a strongsenseof the gapexisting,in Quattrocento historicaldiscourse, betweentheory and practice.The humanistswere notoriouslyfond of cullingdefinitionsof historia from ancientauthorities. in Giventhe readyavailability suchstatements of letters, and treatisesde scribenda historia,they often have prefaces, been taken as prescriptive. One thing Cabrinishows is the degreeto which the use of suchtagsfailsto accountfor actualpractice. Bruni's the frequentlycited statement regarding distinctionbetweenhistoria and laudationeedsto be reexamined the light of her findings.8 in It well havemoreto do with the mappingout of discursive stratemay of of gies than with the establishment modernstandards historical truth. Theselatter,in fact,no longerappear relevantas they once as did to the understanding a work like Bruni'sHistoriae. of What is now requiredis an approach of grasping specificities the of capable Renaissance historical writing. The presentarticleis intendedas a modestcontribution towards this goal.If the way forward - asthe new Italianscholarship lies sugof gests - in the acquisitionof a fuller understanding Bruni's then it is important take into account to historiographical practices, the self-reflective of such practices. is with Bruni'sreflections side It on historywritingthat we will be concerned the followingpages. in Two preliminaryobservations perhapsin order. First, our are concernis not with Bruni'sarticulation classical of topoion history. While Bruni,unlike his mentorSalutati, no majorstatementon left clear that he too could, when required, historia,it is nevertheless make full use of classical doctrineon the subject.On at leastone occasionhe callshistorymagistra vitae.9 Fromhis variouswritings,one
Bruni, 1741, 2:112 (letter VIm, 4 of 1440 to Francesco Picolpassi): "Aliud est enim historia, aliud laudatio. Historia quidem veritatem sequi debet, laudatio vero multa supra veritatem extollit... " Baron, 1966, 217-18, sees this passage as marking a distinction between "thesubjectivenature of the selection and presentation of facts" at work in panegyric,and the "objectivity"that characterizeshistoriography. See also Baron, 1968, 151-71. In both places (508 and 153 respectively) Baron states that the distinction is "undoubtedly" based on Polybius X.21.8 - a point contested by Momigliano, 1977, 87. 9Bruni, 1741, 2:94 (letter VII, 6 of 1436 to King John II of Castile on the studies proper to a king): "Historia quoque magistravitae quantum afferre regenti fructum potest? Regum enim potentissimorum, et principum, magnorum populorum origines factaque cognoscere, tum ad voluptatem animi, turn ad disciplinam agendi multum
8

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

371

gathers that he regards history as a literary genre (genus scribendi) whose formal vehicle is narrative (narratio)and whose functions are both didactic and patriotic.'0 Such declarations,however, are so standardized that they are hardly likely to prove illuminating in relation to the area that constitutes the focal point of our enquiry. What we intend to study are those rare passageswhere Bruni indulges in reflections on the practicalitiesof history writing. This brings us to a second observation: such passages occur not in connection with the Historiae but in connection with several of Bruni's other historical works. It should not be forgotten that, in addition to the Historiae, Bruni authored a number of other works that he classified as historical in character. These included his biography of Cicero (Cicero novus, 1415), as well as his excursions into ancient history (Commentarii de primo bello punico, 1419; De bello italico adversus gothos, 1441).11In the past, these works were often a source of embarrassment to the proponents of Bruni as forerunner of modern scholarly methodology. This was presumably because in writing them Bruni had stayed closer than was acceptable, by modern standards,to his sources, respectively Plutarch, Polybius, and Procopius. Full recognition of such practices would clearly tend to undermine the whole project of reclaimingBruni as a precursor. It thus became imperative to shunt these works off into a discreet corner of the Brunian corpus. Most often it was argued that they should be reclassified as translaadmodum confert." For the expression historiamagistravitae, see Cicero, De oratore II, 36. For Salutati'sformulation, see his letter of 1392 to Juan Fernandez de Heredia, 2:289-302,together with the recent commentary by Vasoli, 9-12. 10 See, for example, Bruni, 1928, 13 (De studiis et litteris liber, ad Dominam Baptistam de Malatestis): "Est enim decorum cum propriae gentis originem et progressus tum liberorum populorum regumque maximorum et bello et pace res gestas cognoscere. Dlrigit enim prudentiam et consilium praeteritorum notitia, exitusque similium coeptorum nos pro re nata aut hortantur aut deterrent .... Neque enim subtilitas ulla in illis eruenda est aut quaestio enodanda; in narratione enim rerum facillimarum omnis consistit versaturquehistoria." 11A partial edition of the Cicero novus is to be found in Bruni, 1928, 113-20. Cochrane, 505, lists the editio princepsof the Commentariide primo bello punico in Polybius, 1498. In fact this is the first Latin edition. The date of composition is that establishedby Baron, 1955, 611; see also Baron, 1981, 835-36. The De bello italico was first published in Foligno, 1470. I shall be using this edition. Bibliography regarding these works will be cited in the course of this discussion. A complete list of Bruni's historical works would also include the Vita Aristotelis (1429), the Commentarium rerum graecarum(1439), and the De temporibussuis (1441). For reasons of presentation these will not be discussed here. On the last title, see Ianziti, 1990. On the Vita Aristotelis,see now Fryde, 1988.

372

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

tions, even though Bruni himself had been crystal clear in claiming them as his own.12Only very recently have they come to be recognized and re-integratedinto the category where they belong: among Bruni's historical works.13 It is perhaps not surprisingthat Bruni's most revealing formulations come in the margins of such works. Contemporaries too must have been somewhat puzzled by what they saw. Bruni was forced to justify himself, and in so doing made explicit the principles that implicitly underlay all of his historical works, including the Historiae. If the passages we are about to examine have been relatively neglected or misunderstood in the past, this is because an artificialdemarcation line had been set up to segregatethe works they refer to from the Historiae. Now that the Historiae have been relativized in the way suggested above, it is naturalthat this barriershould fall. The investigation to follow thus completes a process begun by other scholars by restoring totality to the picture of Bruni's overall historiographical production. Bruni began his career in history as a translator of Plutarchan biography. One of his first formulations on history writing occurs in a youthful work, a translation of Plutarch's Life of Mark Antony (1404-05).14 In the preface, addressedto his mentor Coluccio Salutati,
21-26.See especially his conclusion on 26: "mancadell'accuratainvesti12Santini, gazione delle fonti, dell'acume critico nella giusta interpretazione de' fatti e nella ricerca delle cause di essi, doti essenziali di un lavoro storico; e percio si puo giustamenteaccostarealle vere traduzioni."Similarly, Ullman, 324, calls the works in question "hardlymore than translationsfrom the Greek," and thus focuses his treatment on what he regards as Bruni's "only real historical work, the History of Florence." 13The Commentariide primo bellopunico were already considered to be a translation in the edition of 1498 cited in the preceding note. It is as such that they are discussed by Santini, 22-23, Reynolds, 108-18, and Wilcox, 106-07.Baron, 1955, 355, calls them "ahistory of Rome's struggle with Carthage, essentially an adaptation of Polybius." See too Momigliano, 1977, 83: "Brunidid not intend his work as a simple translation .... He intended to write history." On the next page, however, Momigliano admits that Bruni produced "ashis own histories, what we would treat as translations or paraphrasesof ancient texts." Similar hedging characterizesFryde, 1983: on 34 he appearsto consider the Commentariias "ahistory of the First Punic or War," but on 40 he lumps the work with other "adaptations summaries."Shifting categories (translation,adaptation,history) can also be traced in the critical literature on the Ciceronovus and the De bello italico. All three works are classified as histories in TheHumanism, 175-96,but subject to the usual qualifications. 14Themost recent discussion of the dating of this work is that of Hankins, 1990, 2: 367-78.

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

373

Bruni offered a brief disquisition on what was becoming one of his favorite themes: the art of translation.15 particular,Bruni was conIn cerned to answer charges made by the enemies of humanism regarding its lack of creative spark. Salutati'scircle had in fact only recently been criticized for its tendency to turn out translations of the classics rather than original literary works.16Bruni's preface is chiefly concerned with defending translation from its detractors. Toward the end of the piece, however, he offers a remark that can well serve as our starting point. For it is by way of analogy with history writing that Bruni seeks to establish the respectability of translation: "But in history, where there is no [need for] invention, I fail to see any difference between describing actual deeds and writing down what someone else has said. Either way the labor involved is the same, or rather even greaterin the latter case."17 The comparison between the work of the translator and that of the historian is all the more revealing in that it seems to be made in an offhand manner. It is not, as far as I can determine, suggested by any classical precedent. Bruni's train of thought appears to be sequenced as follows. The art of translation consists in transporting a text into a different language. This operation requires skills of a rhetorical kind that deserve to be respected and admired. In fact, the
15Thisprefacemay be usefully compared to the letter to Niccolo Niccoli, Bruni, 1741, 1:15-17(I, 8; also in Garin, 361-63).The most recent discussion on the dating of the letter is that of Hankins, 1990, 2: 370-71, who proposes 5 September 1404. 16 See Cino Rinuccini, Invettiva contro a certi calunniatoridi Dante e di Messer Francesco Petrarca di Messer e Giovanni Boccaci,in Lanza, 261-67. According to Lanza, 144, the Invettiva can be dated between 1398 and early 1401. The classic discussion is that of Baron, 1966, 277-90, but see also Lanza, 141-56, and now Fubini, 1992. An important echo of the ongoing dispute over translation is to be found in the "Prefazione"of Domenico da Prato, in Lanza, 243, where the humanists are accused in the following terms: "Io non ho alcuna opera per ancora ne istoriografica, ne filosofica, ne poetica veduta delle loro apparire. Alcuno di quelli rispondera disdegnosamente:- Tu non hai adunqueletto le traduzioni che delle opere greche di Aristotele e di Plutarco ho fatte in latino? - Al quale infino da ora rispondo averne lette e vedute alcune, e lui commendo che sappi greco e latino, ma non per inventore delle opere fatte per altri, e di queste restarglipiccolissima fama, non ostante che per le rubriche in esso siano vanamente intitulate, impero che la fama e delli inventori delle opere e non delli traduttori . . . "(italics mine). The passage, datable to the 1420s, is an important clue to some of the themes to be treated in our paper. 17 Praefatio in Vita M. Antonii ex Plutarchotraducta,ad Coluccium Salutatum, Bruni, 1928, 104:"Inhistoria vero, in qua nulla est inventio, non video equidem, quid intersit, an ut facta, an ut ab alio dicta scribas. In utroque enim par labor est, aut etiam maior in secundo." The rendering of this passagein Wilcox, 106, is unsatisfactory.

374

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

whole processmay be compared that which characterizes craft the to of a recognized auctor: historian. the Does not the historian often too work like a translator, by rewriting accountsof others? the i.e., Bruni'sanalogyarisesfrom assumptions about history writing which requirefurtherclarification. posits, in fact, two ways in He whichthe historian work:eitheras an eyewitnessof the eventsto can be related,or as a synthesizer rewriter thingsreported othand of by ers. Sucha view is in line with classical doctrine,but it is interesting to note Bruni'sattemptto place a premiumon the secondmethod. By taking up this position, Bruni was aligninghimself againstthe in classical The prejudice favorof directreporting.18 basisfor his analwith translation ultimately this re-situation historywritlies in of ogy within the ambitof textuality.The historian,like the translator, ing is basically rewriter others'narratives, a which is why the historian of can make no claim to the initial stage of the rhetoricalprocess, inventio.The material upon which historyis basedis foundreadyto hand.By implication least,the challenge writinghistoryengages at of and only the next two stagesof rhetoric:dispositio (arrangement) elocutio (stylisticembellishment). It is important emphasize to that what Bruniis proposingin the to preface the LifeofMark Antonyis an analogybetweenhistorywritHe the into one. A ing andtranslation. is not collapsing two activities clearpictureof the difference betweenthem emergessomewhatlater in Bruni'scareer. is, in fact,significant one of Bruni'sfirstforIt that ays into historywritinggrewdirectlyout of his activityas a translator of Plutarch.It was while translating latter'sLifeof Ciceroin the 1415thatBrunibecamekeenlyawareof two majorflawsin the original: firstly,Plutarch omittedmuchthat was pertinent; had secondly, he bore a distinctbiasagainst subject,probablycausedby his dehis sire to play Demosthenesoff as the superiorfigure in the parallel Brunidecidednot to translives.'9In the face of such shortcomings, late Plutarchafterall, but to write his own accountof the life and deedsof Cicero,which he cameto call Cicero novus.
18 On this latter point, see Momigliano, 1966, 130-36,and 214-16. 19 Cicero novus, Praefatio,in Bruni, 1928, 113: "ut progredior et ad convertendi

ne desiderium diligentiam magisconsidero, ipsequidemPlutarchus singulaquaeque mei animipenitusadimplevit, quippemultispraetermissis, quae ad illustrationem summi viri vel maximepertinebant, ut ceterasic narrat, magisad comparationem narrandi iudicium suam,in quaDemosthenem nititur,quamad sincerum praeferre videantur." accommodari

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

375

In the preface to this work, Bruni offers some important reflections on the distinction between translation and full-fledged authorship. He describes how, having once set Plutarch aside, he began to collect and evaluate other sources. The result was something that, both in content and in scope, went far beyond the original. Bruni thus felt justified in concluding that he had written the Ciceronovus "not as a translator, but according to my own will and judgment" ("non ut interpretes, sed pro nostro arbitriovoluntateque").20 These last words are significant and deserve further comment. Recently the Ciceronovushas come to be seen as representinga major turning point in Bruni's career as a historian. It has been arguedthat the work constitutes a milestone in an overall evolution toward more critical attitudes.21 The problem with this view is one that frequently when Bruni is presentedin these terms: namely that so often crops up his critical impulse appearsto be driven by a shift in interpretive priorities. In the Cicero novus there is every sign that what disturbed Bruni about Plutarch'streatment of Cicero was above all its failure to praise the man sufficiently. It should not be forgotten that in Bruni's eyes Cicero was not a neutral figure:he was ratherto be portrayed as the hero of the active life of the citizen, possibly in response to Petrarch's carpings.22 Bruni's primary objective in rewriting the life of Cicero was not to produce an accuratescholarly monograph; it was rather to build a portrait that would support his own interpretation of Cicero's career. Historical accuracy/inaccuracy came into play only insofar as it served to further this underlying agenda.23 The words quoted above - "non ut interpretes, sed pro nostro arbitrio voluntateque"- are crucial in that they indicate what was at stake for Bruni in the passagefrom translation to a work of his own authorship. And what was at stake was clearly his own interpretive autonomy. As long as he was translator, Bruni remained bound by
20Ibid.: "Nos igitur, et Plutarcho et eius interpretatione omissis, ex iis, quae vel nostros vel apud Graecos de Cicerone scriptalegeramus,ab alio exorsi principio apud vitam et mores et res gestas eius maturiore digestione et pleniore notitia non ut interpretes, sed pro nostro arbitrio voluntateque descripsimus."These last words appear to transform a Ciceronian statement on translation (De optimo genere oratorum, 14: "nec converti ut interpres, sed ut orator")into a statement on authorship. For the connections between arbitrium,auctor, and auctoritasin humanist circles of the early Quattrocento, see Fubini, 1992, 1090-92. 21Fryde, 1983, 33-53. 22 The Humanism, 178. 23 On this point in general, see Grafton, 118.

376

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

the sortof devotionto the spiritof the original that he latertheorized in his essayDe rectainterpretatione But (1424).24 the statusof author thathe wasnow claiming with regard the Lifeof Ciceroentailedan to differentmode. Its definingcharacteristic power, exwas entirely in to pressed the rightto shapethe text according his own freewill. The Cicero novusis thus to be seen as markinga key momentin Bruni'scareer.The year of its composition,1415,also saw BrunienWith gagedin what was to becomethe first book of the Historiae.25 regardto history writing at least, the time had come for Bruni to claimhis authorial to novusshouldbe persona.His preface the Cicero read as a statementabout authorship how it is to be framedin and terms of historia.The whole matteris defined not in relationto sourcecriticism,but in relationto the rightto shapeandpresentthe materialcollectedaccording a newly acquired to personalpoint of view. Effortsto readthe Cicero novusas a piece of pure scholarship immediatelyencounterthe familiarproblems.With regardto his sources (chieflyPlutarch,along with the works of Cicero himself), Bruni follows a policy not of criticalexamination, of selection, but andhighlighting. Cicero'sroyaloriginsareaffirmed almost omission, in spite of the evidence.26 from his careerare Embarrassing episodes suppressed.27 Flatteringepisodes are worked up on the basis of Cicero'sown writings.28 short,whatwe see in actionis not critical In but a reordering textualpotentialities orderto furof in scholarship ther an overalldesign.The processis not dissimilar that which has to contained the recentlybeen seen to characterize conjectural passages in the first book of the Historiae: criticalskills are not absent,but with other,lesstrenchant textualstratethey operatein conjunction all of which aremarshalled the serviceof interpretative in aims. gies,
24

et pingunt,figuramet statumet ingressum totius corporisformaminde assumunt sic nec, quid ipsi facerent, quid alterille fecerit,meditantur: in traductionibus sed, tota auctorem menteet animoet interpres quidemoptimussesein primumscribendi voluntate convertet et quodammodotransformabit eiusque orationis figuram, et meditabitur." cunctaexprimere statum,ingressum coloremque liniamenta 1416to PoggioBracciolini): (letter 4 of 2 January 1741,1:110 25Bruni, IV, "Exegi in librumunum,eumquepergrandem, quo longo discursu multa,quaead historiae nostrae cognitionem pertinent, explicavi." letterIV, 7 of Nov.-Dec. 1983,44,who alsocitesBruni,1741,1:115-17, 26Fryde, 1416to GiovanniCorvini,in whichBruniattempts defendhis thesis. to 27 42, Ibid.,49:Brunisuppresses Plutarch, of Cicero, 1-3. Life
28Ibid., 47.

Bruni, 1928, 86: "Ut enim ii, qui ad exemplum picturae picturam aliam

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

377

What we see then when we examine Bruni's discourse on history writing in this period is a cluster of attitudes which are distinctly unmodern. The sources are conceived as so many points of departure for elaboration in accordancewith Bruni's own ideas. Critical verification is brought into play only when it can contribute to the thrust of argumentation. More often, the narrative proceeds by means of amplifications, cuts, and reworkings with regardto the sources. This textuality is the basis for the analogy with translation that Bruni will continue to evoke throughout his career. It will be convenient at this point to consider a work that Bruni wrote in 1418-19:the Commentariide primo bellopunico. As the title indicates, this was essentially an account of the first Punic war. In his preface, Bruni explains the reasons that led him to tackle this particular subject. His choice had to do first of all with the importance of the theme, especially within the framework of national history. Bruni wrote out of a sense of reverence toward his ancient forbears ("commotus ... ob maiorum nostrorum gloriam"),to enshrine and preservethe memory of deedsthat constitute the basis of Italian glory ("in quibus huius soli decus et gloria continetur"). Concomitant to this first reason was a second: the fact that the books of Livy dealing with the first Punic war had been lost. Livy is here quite clearly taken as the paragon and main repository of Italian national history; if his second decade of writings had survived, there would be no need to undertake the task at hand ("cuius libri si exstarent, nihil opus erat novo labore").Bruni thus saw himself as supplying a missing chapter in the saga of Italian history begun by Livy.29 The Commentariideprimo bellopunico mark an important stage in Bruni'sdevelopment as an historian. Let us not forget that by 1419 Bruni was approaching his fiftieth year of age. Up to this point his historiographicalproduction had not been particularlyprominent. A few years earlierhe had written his biography of Cicero and his treatise on the origins of Florence, which was to become the first book of the monumental Historiae. He had not, as far as we know, subsequently made any further progress on this latter work. The Commentarii thus appear to have preceded the composition of the Historiae. They constitute in effect Bruni's first major effort in the field of history writing. As such, they obviously deserve attention. Yet such attention has not usually been forthcoming. The reason for this is easily stated. As Bruni himself freely admitted, the Commen29

The full preface is in Bruni, 1928, 122-23.See also Momigliano, 1977, 82-86.

378

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

tarii are heavily based on the first two books (in fact 1.7-11.34) of Polybius's Histories. So closely, indeed, does Bruni follow Polybius that several modern critics have opted to classify the work as a translation from the Greek. It is in fact as a translation from the Greek of Polybius that the work has been perhaps most effectively studied. And yet Bruni himself in his preface explicitly rejectedthis categorization, in terms that once again draw the by now familiar distinction between translation and original work: "I have not," he writes, "drawn from a single source, like a translator, but rather, having drawn from many, I have reported according to my own judgment" ("non ab uno sumerem, ut interpres, sed a multis sumpta meo
arbitratu referrem").30

It is of course significant that in this, his first important attempt at history writing, Bruni again invokes the old parallel with translation. The close relationship between his work and that of Polybius might conceivably have induced one of his critics to label the Commentarii as yet another humanist translation masqueradingas an original work. Bruni is clearly looking to ward off such an attack, yet his defense is not to be taken as mere pretext. He picks up and repeats both of the key ideas used in earlier contexts to discuss and define authorship: 1) the recourse to several sources as opposed to one; 2) the exercise of free will (arbitratus) determining matters of organiin zation and style. Subsequentscholarshiphas confirmed both of these claims. Besides Polybius, Bruni drew upon Strabo, Thucydides, He Florus, and Plutarch.31 also used a considerableamount of creativity in rearrangingand rephrasingPolybius's account. Heedful of this, subsequent scholars, beginning with Hans Baron, have had to rethink the classificationof the Commentarii.The work has come to be called an adaptation, a paraphrase, and most recently "an essay in
interpretation."32 30Bruni,1928, 123. 31Reynolds, 112-13. 32The latter expression is used in TheHumanism, 180, apparently on the basis of Bruni's letter of 1422-24 to Giovanni Tortelli. See Bruni, 1741, 1:134-35 (IV, 20), where a clear distinction is drawn between "commentarii"and "historia."But the word "commentarii"in Bruni's title is probably to be interpreted on the basis of Polybius's own view of his first two books as a "sketch"(1.3.10; 1.13;II 37.2-3), i.e., as a more succinct account, which will function as an introduction to the "historia" proper. On this latter point, see Walbank, 1:216. Bruni seems to be alluding to an alternate formal pattern, rather than to something lying outside "historia."On the whole question: Ianziti, 1992, 1034-39.

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

379

Suchhedgingreveals extentto which positivisticnotions still the actas determinants the evaluation Bruni'shistoriography. in There of is clearlya reluctance acceptBruni'sown view on historywriting, to which may be convenientlysummedup here in two mainpoints: 1) that history writinginvolvesclose textualre-writing the sources, of an operationakinto, if not identicalwith that of translation, that 2) what distinguishes is historywritingfromtranslation the numberof sourcesused and the freedomwith which they areused. Gaugedby thesecriteria, Commentarii the wouldseemto qualifyas a history.As - but withoutpursuing point to its one authorityhas recognized the logical conclusion- Bruni'sway of treatingPolybius in the Commentariiis not dissimilar his way of treatingGiovanniVillaniin to the Historiae.33 point is reinforced the factthat work on both The by textsis takingplaceat roughlythe sametime. Whatwe see happening in Bruni'sstudy aroundthe years 1418-21 the implementation of is of textualmontage. parallel techniques Bruni'srationalizations thesetechniques of clearlyreflecthis peralso The prefaceto the Commentarii ceptionsof classical precedent. historioprovidessome solid clues as to how he construedclassical The fundamental is graphical practices. passage his discussionof the sourcesfor the firstPunicwar. According Bruni,who is surreptito the tiously following Polybius (I.14),34 originalsourceswere two, both writtenfrom a partisan FabiusPictor,representing perspective: the Roman side; and Philinus of Acragas, representing the side.35 the next stageof his discussion, In Brunideviates Carthaginian from the position taken by Polybius.The latter,faced significantly with the problem of biasedsources,took the opportunityto condemn partisanship historywritingand to reaffirm own belief in his that the historianmust aim at impartiality. Bruni'spersonalreflections arenot only more restrained, they actuallyoverturnthe whole for messageby takingpartisanship grantedas an inevitablemotivational force behind all history writing,includingthat of Polybius. as paterhistoriaefor havingrestated Livy is thus applauded Romanae the Romanpoint of view on the basisof FabiusPictor.Polybiusis 3Wilcox, 106. 34 Bruni's account cuts straight from the end of Polybius 1.11 to the beginning of 1.16. Bruni's version thus eliminates Polybius's discussion (I.12-15)of his sources. However, Bruni's preface reworks some of the material in Polybius 1.14. 35 Bruni, 1928, 123: "Quorum uter patriae affectus suae ac studio partium inductus, etsi non circa rei gestae seriem, circa belli tamen causas iustitiamque excessisse modum putatur."

380

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

as quiteperversely, it hasbeen remarked madeout to be a follower of Philinus.36 historians not is Bruni'slumpingof Polybiusamongthe partisan it is also significant. it tends to justifythe main For only perverse, to in thrustof Bruni'sown operation the Commentarii: rewritePolythat It bius from a Roman perspective. has been rightly remarked Bruni's interventions the Polybianaccountaremadenot on critinto Where icalgrounds in order"to makethe Romanslook better."37 but a balanced Brunisoughtto Romanizethe Polybiussought approach, it narrative, bringing into line with Livianprinciples. in is Bruni's historians thus framed two ways.He view of classical of sees them as re-writers theirsources.And he alsoseesthem as gloto rifiersof their own countries.It is not quiteaccurate suggestthat he sees the ancientsas blindlyfollowingtheir sources.On the conit to dutyto re-shape trary,he appears regard as everytruehistorian's the the sourcesin such a way as to further prestigeof the fatherland. In this senseLivy is heldto be the archetypal historian. The Commentarii markthe end of whatwe mightcallthe formahis tive periodof Bruni's as development a historian. 1418-19 ideas By we on historiaare set according the principles have seen evolving to of over a numberof years.The application theseideasto the compo- a majorprojectthat will stretchout overthe sitionof the Historiae next two decades more (1419-1444) is not accompanied the and by same sort of constantreflectionon the practiceof history writing that we have been able to follow up to now. Yet Cabrini'sstudy, quotedat the outsetof this essay,showsthat virtuallythe sameprinBrunireworkedthe ciples are at work. In composingthe Historiae, sources sucha way as to procure greater in the glory of Florence,and this underlying purpose was explicitly recognized by contemas in poraries,38 well as by the Signoria its diplomaof 1439granting Bruniandhis descendants exemptionfromtaxesin returnfor his services as historian.39
annalium deindePolybiusMegalopolitanus, 36Ibid.: "Philinum conditor,secutus est; Fabium autem e nostris plures, sed praecipuaeclaritatisLivius Patavinus, historiae." Momigliano, Romanae See 1977,85. 37 pater TheHumanism, followingReynolds,111. 180, 38 1:476. Cavalcanti, Vespasiano, 126; 39 fame et gloriepopulis ac civitatibus Santini,139:"Quantam perpetuitatem afferathistoriarum peritadescriptioac litterarumsplendoret lumen consideranof BooksVII-IX the Historiae. tes .... "Brunihadjustpublished

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

381

It wasonly at the end of his life, when he hadcompletedandconthe to signedto the Signoria lastportionsof the Historiae see the light his lifetime,that Brunireturned his reflectionson history to during writing. Once again,he did so in relationto works that subsequent has to into his canon. These are scholarship been reluctant integrate the Commentarium rerumgraecarum (1439),based on portions of and libriIV Hellenica; the De belloitalicoadversus Xenophon's gothos basedon the last four books of the Historyof Procopiusof (1441), In Caesarea. both of these casesBruniclaimedauthorship terms in that repeatand refine some of his earlierideas.Yet the tone of his formulations changed. has becomestrident,even radical, has It possiin response criticismfromnew quarters. to This in itselfis somebly more attennotice, andthat deserves thing that has generally escaped tion: the extentto which Brunifoundhimselfembroiled new conin in his lastyears. troversy Of particular in interest this respectis the De belloitalico.In some this work can be compared the earlierCommentarii primo de to ways bellopunico.Once again,the objectiveis to supplya missingchapter of ancient,"Italian" history.But this time the spiritof the enterprise is different.Gone is the triumphalism hadcharacterized earthat the lier work, with its emphasis the riseof Rome andthe firstvictory on overCarthage. the Instead, focushasshiftedto the end of the classical world. Bruni'stheme is the invasionof Italy by the Goths, and the war fought by the generals the Eastern of to Justinian free Emperor frombarbarian a sadsubject, rule: to but necessary the Italy certainly, of sed understanding thosetimes ("dolorosam profectomateriam, pro In illorum temporumnecessariam"). this sense, the De cognitione belloitalicois a reflectionof Bruni'slateryears,with their increasing the pessimism regarding courseof humanaffairs.40 What is of particular interestto us, however,arethe techniques Bruni broughtinto play in writingthis final work of history. He claimedto have obtainedhis informationon this obscureperiodex Graecorum But commentariis. in actualfact, andby his own lateradmission, he seems to have confined himself to the use of a single source- Procopius- a choice that required some furtherexplanation on his part.Had not Brunihimselfearlierestablished use of the several sources one of the cardinal as that distinguished points history writingfromtranslation?
40I quote from the preface, Bruni, 1928, 147-49. For Bruni's last years, see The Humanism, 38.

382

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

A sign of Bruni's desire to clarify the matter can be found in his letter of 31 August 1441 to Ciriaco d'Ancona. Here Bruni returns once again to the question of history writing versus translation. His words deserve to be looked at carefully. Referring to the De bello italico he makes the following statement: "This is, however, not a translation, but a work composed by myself, in the same way that Livy drew upon Valerius Antias or Polybius and then arrangedthe material according to his own judgment" ("Est autem haec non translatio, sed opus a me compositum, quemadmodum Livius a Valerio Antiate, vel a Polybio Megapolitano sumpsit, et arbitratusuo
disposuit").41

We see here a recourse to familiar concepts, and particularly to the all-importantpoint that the historian, unlike the translator, exerwith regardto the rearrangement cises his own judgment (arbitratus) of the material contained in the original. On the other hand, Bruni appearsto place less emphasis in this passage on the earlier point regarding the use of multiple sources. Even if the historian were to follow one source and one source only, Bruni seems to be hinting, the claim to authorship might still be sustained on the basis of the arbitratus. A primary feature of the passageis the way Bruni enlists the example of Livy to his cause. It seems likely that Bruni's study of Polybius had revealed to him the extent of Livy's debt to the Greek author.42Bruni shows he is fully aware of Livy's well-known tendency to follow alternatesingle sources, rather than to compare and combine.43 The vel is thus significant: Livy draws upon Valerius Antias or upon Polybius. He is a rewriter of previous texts, following now one now another, always rearrangingand recastingthe material in accordancewith his own needs. The Livian precedent thus seemed to sanction Bruni's own policy with regardto the use of Procopius in the De bello italico. But the matter did not end here, and Bruni was called upon to clarify further his ideas in the following year, 1442. In a letter to
41

Bruni, 1741, 2:150, letter IX, 5. For Ciriaco d'Ancona, see Weiss, 91, 109, 137-

42.

He does not discuss it, however, in his letter to Prospero Colonna concerning Livy and Polybius as historians of ancient Rome: Bruni, 1741, 2:150-52 (IX, 6), on which see Momigliano, 1977, 85. On Livy's debt to Polybius, see Walsh, 135. Of interest is the preface of Niccolo Perotti to his translation of Polybius (1453): Reynolds, 115. 43 Walsh,141.

42

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

383

Giovanni Tortelli, Bruni offers what is surely his most mature formulation on the problem. Referring to the De bello italico he claims once again to have written not as a translator, but as parent and author; in the same way as, if I were to write about the presentwar, my information about affairswould come from oral testimony, but the order, arrangement,and words would be my own, and would be conceived and put into place accordingto my own judgment; in the very same way then, in drawing upon my source here for information about affairs,I have steered clear of following him in many matters, treating him like a source who has but one thing to offer: that he was present during the war; everything else of his is to be rejected.44 This passage substantially confirms our interpretation of the preceding one. Bruni has now definitely abandoned his earlier tendency to distinguish history writing and translation on the grounds of the number of sources used. He makes no attempt to conceal the fact that the De bello italico is based on a single source.45 By the end of his career, Bruni's confidence in the authorial arbitratus was such that he could make it bear the full weight of his argument for authorship. Other features of this passage are striking. Procopius is downgraded to the level of mere eyewitness to the events related. He is presented not by name, but as the anonymous compiler of a body of materials upon which Bruni, as auctor, has based his historia. Bruni's whole concept of history writing presupposes the availability of such a body of materials.46 His remark about the "present war" in fact im44 Bruni, 1741, 2:156 (IX, 9): "De historia vero quod petis, scias me post discessum tuum IV libros de bello italico adversus Gothos scripsisse. Scripsi vero non ut interpres, sed ut genitor, et auctor; quemadmodum enim, si de praesenti bello scriberem, noticia quidem rerum gestarum ex auditu foret, ordo vero, ac dispositio, et verba mea essent, ac meo arbitratu excogitata et posita; eodem item modo ipse noticiam rerum gestarumde illo sumens, in ceteris omnibus ab eo recessi, utpote qui hoc unum habeat boni, quod bello interfuit. Cetera illius sunt spernenda."Cameron, 39, does indeed confirm that "Procopiuspatterned his whole conception of the Wars on the model of secular military history based on autopsy." 45On Procopius as the sole source of the De bello italico, see Haury, 132, who states that the work "nichtsweiter enthalt, als was von Prokop erzahlt ist." Santini, 25, on the other hand, claims that Bruni had recourse to other sources, but fails to provide any proof of this assertion. The whole matter deserves further study. However, the point I am making here is one concerning Bruni's own perceptions. On this score there is no doubt that in the passagescited, Bruni argueshis case for authorship as if Procopius had been his only source. 46Bruni'sDe temporibus suis does not constitute a violation of these norms, since Bruni is carefulin the course of that work to specify that it does not meet the criteria for full-scalehistoria.On this point, see Ianziti, 1990, 8-9, 22; and passim.

384

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

a plicitly amplifieshis commentsinto somethingapproaching statement abouthistorywritingin general.The true historian,according

to Bruni, works from a distance. His contact is not with the events themselves, but with the accounts of events. These constitute an informational base that is considered to be formless: a catch-all which cannot qualify as historia,but that nevertheless contains the necessary ingredients. The role of the auctoris to treat these materialsfreely, to elevate them into historiaby calling into play rhetorical strategiesinvolving the categories listed in the passage cited: ordo, dispositio, verba. Many of these same concepts are repeatedin Bruni's last letter on the De bello italico, addressedto his friend Francesco Barbaro and dated 23 August 1443. Once againBruni is at pains to justify his claim to authorship on the basis of his freedom in deciding on matters of arrangement and style.47Once again too the claim to authorship is accompaniedby the downgradingof Procopius as a writer. This time, however, Procopius is actually mentioned by name, and Bruni is much more specific about what he sees as his shortcomings. Procopius is branded as inept, as an enemy of eloquence, and Bruni singles out for special blame his ludicrous attempt to imitate the setWhat we see happening here - perpiece speeches of Thucydides.48 haps more clearly than ever before - is Bruni's attempt to create a historiographical space for himself by denying authorial status to his predecessor. Bruni repeatsthat if Procopius has one saving grace it is his quality as an eyewitness, a quality which Bruni sees as a guarantee of total reliablity.49 Bruni's line of reflection thus reached its extreme limit. But not everyone found his ideas convincing. His attempt to justify writing a history of the Gothic war based exclusively on Procopius drew special criticism. As the names of some of the addresseesof the letters quoted above indicate, much of the criticism seems to have emanated from the papal curia, from men with strong antiquarian interests. One of the darlingsof this group was Biondo Flavio, a papal secretary who had begun his career as a humanist in the 1430s by contesting
47Griggio,50: "Ab hoc ego scriptore sumpsi non ut interpres, sed ita ut notitiam rerum ab illo susceptam meo arbitratu disponerem meisque verbis non illius referrem." 48 Ibid.: "sed admodum ineptus et eloquentie hostis ut apparet maxime in contionibus suis, quamquam Thucydidem imitari vult. Sed tantum abest ab illius maiestate quantum Thersites forma atque virtute distat ab Achille." 49Ibid.:"Solumid habet boni quod bello interfuit et ob id vera refert."

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

385

Bruni's theses on the Latin language. By the early 1440s, Biondo had set himself up as Bruni's main rival in the field of history writing. He was hard at work on what were to become the Historiarum ab inclinatione romani imperii decades (hereafter Decades), a vast panorama of Italian history from the fall of Rome down to the present.50 Books IV-VII of the first of the Decades, completed by June 1443, treated the history of the Gothic war in a manner which ran quite deliberately counter to Bruni's. Biondo in fact began his own account by questioning the reliability of Procopius ("partim multum adiuvabit, partim non levia alicubi afferet impedimenta"). In other words, Procopius was a useful guide to the period, but he could not be trusted fully. It was necessary to carry the enquiry further if the history of the Gothic wars was to be told in a more truthful mannner.51 Biondo's own account thus took Procopius as its chief source, but opened the investigation to include others as well. These included Jordanes, Cassiodorus, Gregory the Great, and even nonverbal remains such as the mural mosaics of Justinian and his court in Ravenna.52 Biondo's use of a wider range of sources allowed him to subject the account of Procopius to intense critical scrutiny. It enabled him to exercise a constant vigilance by checking the information provided by Procopius against that of other historians. At times the results thus obtained were of exceptional value, and have been largely confirmed by subsequent research.53At other times, the over-zealous application of Quellenforschung led Biondo into hypercritical positions

50Fubini, 1968, 542-43. 51 Biondo, 43: "multain hac belli italici historia ... mendose scripta vel absurde addita comperimus, in quibus explicandis ita versari est animus, ut non disputationem introduxisse, magisquamhistoriam ad veritatem dirigere videamur." 52For a fuller listing, see Buchholz, 33-47, 111-12.Biondo's remarks on the mosaics in San Vitale, 44, deserve to be noted: "Quo in loco aliqua fuerunt ad ornatum addita, quae et scriptorum supplent defectum, et certa ostendunt multa, quae scripta credere nolebamus." 53 Using Agnellus, 322, Biondo, 89, was able to date the arrival of Narses in Ravenna (552) at the end of July. As Biondo points out, the dating has important ramifications in terms of explaining the march of Narses and his armies from Aquileia through territory considered impassable on account of its swamps and rivers: cf. Procopius VII, xxvi, 24-25. Comparetti, in his edition of Procopius, 3:321, also follows Agnellus; see also Stein, 2:601, and Wolfram, 359, who still follow Agnellus, but with a revision of the date to early June.

386

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

that were ultimately unsustainable.54 the whole, one might say On that Biondo underestimatedthe importance of Procopius as a guide to the Gothic war. On the other hand, by basing his own version of these events on the widest possible collection of available sources, Biondo was in effect defending what he regardedas an essential component of historiographicalpractice. The irony of course is that in this case he was defending critical standardsagainsttheir putative founder. Biondo began his account of the Gothic war by considering the value of Bruni's then recent De bello italico. His examination led him quickly to the conclusion that "it contained nothing more than Procopius" ("nihil plus habet quam This statement has sometimes been taken anachronistiProcopius").55 as an accusation of plagiarism.56 fact, this is unlikely, given In cally Biondo's own tendency to follow his sources in a close, almost wordfor-word manner.57 What Biondo objected to in the De bello italico was rather Bruni's reliance on a single source, and thus his apparent retreat from his earlier insistence on the historian's duty to consult and compare multiple sources. As if to confirm his intention to challenge Bruni, on 13 June 1443 Biondo sent the first eight books of his Decadesto the newly-installed King of Naples, Alfonso of Aragon, that is, to the same personage to whom Bruni had - eight months earlier- sent a portion of his De bello italico.58Moreover Biondo's account at many points attacked Bruni through the screen of Procopius. One example will suffice. Bruni had, on the basis of Procopius, narratedthe destruction of Mi-

54 A good example is Biondo's attempt to deny the first trip of Narses to Italy, 538-539 A.D.: cf. Procopius VI, xiii, 16-18;Bruni, 1470, 27; Biondo, 64. The point naturally leads Biondo further to deny that discord between Narses and Belisarius was the primary cause of the loss of Milan in March 539: cf. Procopius VI, xxi, 38; Bruni, 1470, 30; Biondo 64-65. Subsequent research has overwhelmingly vindicated Procopius (and thus Bruni) on these events: see Stein, 2:360;Wolfram, 346. 55Biondo, 43: "Exinde Leonardus Aretinus scriptor aetate nostra clarissimus, eandem belli italici adversusGothos historiam decem et octo annos complexam scripsit, quae ad principium finemque nihil plus habet quam Procopius ...." On the same page Biondo, whose Greek was poor, explains how he was able to check Bruni's work by procuring for himself a rough translation. 56Haury, 137. Griggio, 45, is more circumspect on this question. 57As both Buchholz, 33-38, and Haury, 156, indicate, Biondo's verbatim copying from sources includes generous extracts from Bruni's De bello italico. 58Scritti, 148. Bruni's letter to Alfonso, 17 October 1442, is to be found in Bruni, 1741, 2:165-66 (IX, 13). See also Luiso, 156-57.

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

387

lan in 539 at the hands of the Goths.59Biondo attempted, through his usual comprehensive review of the sources, to cast doubt over whether this destruction had ever really taken place. He concluded his criticalexcursion on this question with a barb aimed at those who preferred a lazy ignorance to the hard work of investigation that the search for historical truth entailed.60 The contrast with the methods espoused by Bruni in the De bello italico could hardly be more pointed. Such statements cannot of course be taken at face value. They reflect Biondo's attempts to establish his own credentials as a historian at the expense of his most famous predecessor.In the last analysis, his methods owed a great deal to Bruni's example, particularlyto the conjectural techniques applied by Bruni to the early history of Florence in the Historiae. Yet it is hard to avoid the impression of a cleavagebetween these two major figures in Renaissancehistory writing. One distinguishingelement is undoubtedly generational, and has to do with Bruni's evolution in the directions outlined above. But there are also differences of milieu, temperament, and background. One is left with the sense that for Bruni, the conjectural mode was a sort of pis aller, to be adopted in those cases where a convenient narrative source was not available.When adopted, it did not really provide access to historiain the full sense of the word. The high road to the latter passed through textual operations of an exquisitely literary kind, and implied the miseen oeuvre of principles we have seen Bruni theorizing throughout his career.These principles did not necessarily exclude the critical faculty, but they had as their main aim the elaboration of a thematically relevant narrativefrom a pre-existingbody of materials.As he pointedly reminded Biondo in a letter of 1438, Bruni
59Bruni, 1470, 30; cfr. Procopius VI, xxi, 38-39. Modern accounts agree substantially with this version of events; see, for example, Bognetti, 38-39. 60 Biondo, 64-65: "Cogimurhoc in loco longiore, quam superiuspolliciti sumus sermone errores refutare, quos supra tanquam ex Procopio traditos omisimus .... Harum rerum veritas apud quos sit, illorum iudicio linquimus, qui parum ornate a veteribus scripta non fastidiunt, quosque potius laborandoinvestigandoque, sicut nos fecimus, veritatem cognoscere, quam torpescendo ignorare delectabit." The words I have italicized seem to echo Bruni's letter to Poggio of 2 January 1416 (IV, 4), in Bruni, 1741, 1:111, regarding Book I of the Historiae: "Sed tantus est labor in quaerendis investigandisquerebus, ut jam plane me poeniteat incoepisse" (italics mine). It is certainly ironic that Bruni, who had denied the traditional account of the destruction of Florence at the hands of the Goths (Historiae,24), should find himself attacked on this point.

388

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

regarded history writing as a matter of narratio, pure and simple.61 Biondo, on the other hand, came to consider the conjectural model of historical reconstruction as normative. This did not prevent him from sometimes following individual sources closely. But it did lead him to couch his text not in the form of narrative but in that of a critical meta-discourseon the full range of availablesources.62 Biondo's critique helps throw into high relief the particularities of Bruni's ideas on history writing. Bruni did not share a "classical" idea of history with other like-minded "humanists."He developed his own views through a process that included negotiating his personal understandings of classical precedent. It is in accordance with these views that his achievements in the field of history writing deserve to be measured, ratherthan by applying standardsof much later derivation. These latter indeed, while often assumedto be universally valid, are undoubtedly as historically conditioned as those elaborated during the early Renaissanceby Bruni, and whose articulationhas constituted the main object of this enquiry.
OF QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY

61 Bruni, 1741, 2:181 (X,10) regardinghis translation of the Politics of Aristotle: "Non enim haec est narratio, aut historia, in qua nichil sit praeter significationem rei gestae ...." For the date, see Luiso, 138. Biondo had published four books of his Decades dealingwith contemporary Italian affairsin the spring of 1437:Fubini, 1968, 543. A letter of Lapo da Castiglionchio to Biondo, 1 April 1437, drew a comparison with Bruni which was unfavorable to the latter: "is patriae tantummodo res gestas complexus est, tu autem reliquas ex universa Italia memoratu dignas ... prosecutus es." See the full text of the letter in Miglio, 189-201 (191-92 for the passage quoted here). raramenteil racconto si distende 62Fubini,1968, 546, rightly notes: "Abbastanza in squarcinarrativi .... "

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

389

Bibliography
Agnellus. Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. O. Holder-Egger.In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ScriptoresRerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum, 265-391. Hannover, 1878. Baron, Hans. The Crisisof theEarlyItalian Renaissance.2 vols. Princeton, 1955. - . The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance.Rev. ed. Princeton, 1966. -. From Petrarchto LeonardoBruni. Chicago, 1968. . "Progress in Bruni Scholarship." Speculum 56 (1981): 831-39. Biondo, Flavio. Historiarum ab inclinatione romani imperii decades.Basel, 1531. Black, Robert. "The New Laws of History." Renaissance Studies 1 (1987): 126-56. Bognetti, Gian Piero. "Milano sotto ii Regno dei Goti." In Storia di Milano, 2:1-54. Milan, 1954. Bruni, Leonardo. De bello italico adversusGothos.Foligno, 1470. Commentariarerumgraecarum, -. ed. GraeJacob Gronovius. In Thesaurus carum Antiquitatum, 6: 3388-3418. Venice, 1735. libri VIII,ed. Lorenzo -. Epistolarum Mehus. 2 vols. Florence, 1741. -. Historiarumflorentini populi libri XII, ed. Emilio Santini. In Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 19, 3, 1-288. Citta di Castello-Bologna, 19141926. . Rerum suo tempore gestarum commentarius, ed. Carmine Di Pierro. In Rerum Italicarum Scriptores,19, 3, 421-58. Citta di CastelloBologna, 1914-1926. -. Humanistisch-Philosopische Schriften, ed. Hans Baron. Leipzig-Berlin, 1928. Vita Aristotelis. In Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, ed. Ingemar During, 168-78. Goteborg, 1957. Buchholz, Paul. Die Quellen der "Historiarum Decades" des Flavius Blondus.Naumburg, 1881. Cabrini, Anna Maria. "Le Historiae del Bruni: Risultati e ipotesi di una ricerca sulle fonti." In Leonardo della Repubblicadi Bruni, Cancelliere Firenze, ed. Paolo Viti, 247-319. Florence, 1990. Cameron, Averil. Procopius. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985. Cavalcanti, Giovanni. Nuova opera, ed. Antoine Monti. Paris, 1989. Cicero. Rhetorica, ed. A.S. Wilkins. 2 vols. Oxford, 1902-1903. Cochrane, Eric. Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance. Chicago, 1981. Fryde, E.B. Humanism and Renaissance London, 1983. Historiography. . "TheFirst Humanistic Life of Aristotle: The Vita Aristotelis of Leonardo Bruni." In Florenceand Italy. Renaissance Studies in Honour of Nicolai Rubinstein,ed. Peter Denley and Caroline Elam, 285-96. London, 1988. Fubini, Riccardo. "Biondo".In Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 10 (1968): 536-59. . "Osservazioni sugli Historiarum florentini populi libri XII." In Studi di storia medievale e moderna per Ernesto Sestan, 403-48. Florence, 1980. . "Larivendicazione di Firenze della sovranitastatale e il contributo delle Historiae di Leonardo Bruni." In Leonardo Bruni, Cancelliere della di Repubblica Firenze,ed. Paolo Viti, 29-62. Florence, 1990.

390 -.

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY raneita : A proposito del Rerum suo tempore gestarum commentarius di Leonardo Bruni." Rinascimento n.s. 30 (1990):3-28. . "I commentarii: Appunti per la storia di un genere storiografico quattrocentesco." Archivio storico italiano 150 (1992): 1029-63. Lanza, Antonio. Polemiche e berte letterarie nella Firenze del primo quattrocento.Rome, 1971. Luiso, Prancesco Paolo. Studi su l'epistolario di Leonardo Bruni, ed. Lucia Gualdo Rosa. Rome, 1980. Miglio, Massimo. Storiografia pontificia del Quattrocento. Bologna, 1975. Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian."Journal of the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes 13 (1950):285-315. - . Studiesin Historiography. London, 1966. - . Essays Ancientand Modern in Historiography.Oxford, 1977. Plutarch. Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. London, 1914-26. Polybius. De primo bello punico, trans. Leonardo Bruni. Brescia, 1498. . TheHistories,trans. W.R. Paton. 6 vols. London, 1922-27. Procopius. History of the Wars, trans. H.B. Dewing. 5 vols. London, 1914-28. . La guerra gotica, ed. Domenico Comparetti. 3 vols. Rome, 1895-98. Reynolds, Beatrice. "Bruni and Perotti Present a Greek Historian." Bibliothequed'humanismeet Renaissance 16 (1954): 108-18. Salutati, Coluccio. Epistolario, ed. Francesco Novati. 4 vols. Rome, 1891-1911. Santini, Emilio. "Leonardo Bruni Aretino e i suoi Historiarumflorentini populi libri XII."Annali della Scuola Normale Superioredi Pisa 22 (1910): 3-173. Scritti inediti e rari di Biondo Flavio, ed. Bartolomeo Nogara. Rome, 1927.

"Cultura umanistica e tradizione cittadina nella storiografia fiorentina del '400."Atti e memorie dell'Accademia toscana di scienze e lettereLa Colombarian.s. 42 (1991): 67-102. -. "All'uscita della scolastica medievale: Salutati, Bruni, e i Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum." Archivio storico italiano 150 (1992): 1065-103. Garin, Eugenio. "Ricerche sulle traduzioni di Platone nella prima meta del secolo XV." In Medioevoe rinascimento. Studi in onore di Bruno Nardi 1:339-74. Florence, 1955. Felix. Machiavelli and Gilbert, Guicciardini.Princeton, 1965. Ginzburg, Carlo. Clues, Myths,and the Historical Method, trans. John and Anne C. Tedeschi. Baltimore and London, 1986. Grafton, Anthony. Forgersand Critics. Princeton, 1990. Gray, Hanna H. "RenaissanceHumanism: The Pursuit of Eloquence." Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (1963):497-514. Griggio, Claudio. "Due lettere inedite del Bruni al Salutati e a Francesco Barbaro."Rinascimento 26 (1986): 27-50. Hankins, James. Plato in the Italian Renaissance.2 vols. Leiden, 1990. . "The 'Baron Thesis' after Forty Years and some Recent Studies of Leonardo Bruni."Journal of the History of deas 56 (1995):309-38. Haury, J. "Ueber Prokophandschriften." Sitzungsberichte der philosound der histophisch-philologischen rischen Classeder k.b. Akademie der zu Wissenschaften MiinchenJahrgang 1895: 125-76. The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: SelectedTexts,trans. Gordon Griffiths, James Hankins, David Thompson. Binghamton, NY, 1987. e Ianziti, Gary. "Storiografia contempo-

BRUNI

ON WRITING

HISTORY

391

2 Stein, Ernest. Histoire du Bas-Empire. vols. Paris-Bruges,1949-59. Struever, Nancy S. The Language of History in the Renaissance. Princeton, 1970. Ullman, B.L. "LeonardoBruni and Humanistic Historiography." Medievalia et Humanistica 4 (1946):45-61. Vasoli, Cesare. "IImodello teorico." In La storiografia umanistica, 1:5-38. Messina, 1992. Vespasiano da Bisticci. Le vite, ed. Aulo Greco. 2 vols. Florence, 1970-76. Walbank, F.W. A Historical Commen-

tary on Polybius. 3 vols. Oxford, 1957-79. Walsh, P.G. Livy. Cambridge, 1961. DiscovWeiss, Roberto. TheRenaissance ery of Classical Antiquity. Oxford, 1969. Wilcox, Donald J. The Development of Florentine Humanist Historiography in the FifteenthCentury.Cambridge, MA, 1969. Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths, trans. Thomas J. Dunlap. Rev. ed. Berkeley and London, 1988.