Guicciardini, Machiavelli, Valori on Lorenzo Magnifico ARTICLE SUMMARY AND NOTES

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Guicciardini, Machiavelli, Valori on Lorenzo Magnifico ARTICLE SUMMARY AND NOTES"

Roy Sanders
5 years ago
Views:

1 Guicciardini, Machiavelli, Valori on Lorenzo Magnifico ARTICLE SUMMARY AND NOTES NOTE: This is certainly more information than you need for your class. But not knowing the syllabus or exactly what your teacher will expect, I have summarized the article in clear language so you can cut out whatever is necessary. BASIC THESIS The thesis of the article, written by Felix Gilbert, is simply that a piece by Francesco Guicciardini (Italian Renaissance historian, based in Florence), a 'Portrait of Lorenzo Magnifico de' Medici,' was written between 1514 and The reason for any argument is that the short piece itself does not give explicit proof of its date, and has been usually dated to between 1512 or However, what makes the article interesting is Gilbert's exploration of how the three 16 th century Italian historians Guicciardini, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Niccolo Valori had influence on one another both in terms of the attitudes they espoused about the ruling Medici family, but also in terms of how they approached history. Gilbert ends up illustrating how the historians made contemporary political commentary in a tricky way, by making their points through a seeming discussion of a previous, much-lauded ruler. It would be like if a contemporary historian, afraid of losing his job if he criticized President Obama, wrote an article about the health care debate by discussing health care under the presidency of FDR. Explicitly, the article would be about FDR, but in a tricky way, it would actually be about health care and big government. So a sort of secondary and more interesting thesis to the article is that contemporary historians influence one another in their treatment of history, not only in the way they interpret the past (i.e., interpreting the life of the dead Lorenzo) but also in terms of what they use that history for (in this case, for criticizing the 16 th century Florence government). BACKGROUND Below is some basic historical background that might make navigating the summary of the article easier. The Medici family was a Florentine (of Florence, Italy) dynasty that was prominent in politics, banking, and in providing popes. They never officially became monarchs but rather exerted influence through their money. Lorenzo Medici was the last of the first phase of Medicis. He ruled from the background with a firm hand, but his son lacked his capability, and so after Lorenzo's

2 death (in 1492), the family was exiled from Florence. In 1512, the Medici family was allowed to return from its exile and within a year, Giovanni Medici, one of Lorenzo's other sons, was named Pope Leo X. Pope Leo died in The Italian historians discussed in the article had to be careful about criticizing Florentine government and the Medici relationship to it. There had been attempts on the lives of Lorenzo and his family, and writers had been punished for too openly criticizing the current government. This final fact is one that will help feed Gilbert's secondary thesis, about the way the historians influenced one another. ARTICLE SUMMARY It was not until 1862 that Guicciardini's "Portrait of Lorenzo Magnifico de Medici" was first published, since it had not been discovered until long after the writer's life. As the piece showed no explicit proof of when it was written, its publisher, Palmarocchi, used textual evidence to suggest it was published between 1512 and Palmarocchi's evidence was based on logic: Guicciardini's piece is an extremely positive elogium (a short piece praising someone) about the dead Lorenzo. Palmarocchi suggested that Guicciardini would not have praised the Medici family in print before their return to Florence from exile (which happened in 1512), and since Guicciardini makes some reference to the possibility of Giovanni Medici being named Pope, it must have been written before he was named pope (which happened in 1513). Thus, Palmarocchi believes it was written between the Medici's return to Florence and the naming of Givoanni as Pope Leo X. This would have been Gilbert believes this claim absolutely incorrect. He points out that Guicciardini had been harshly critical of Lorenzo's memory in his writing as late as 1511, and while it's possible Guicciardini would have changed his tune in order to flatter the Medici family and thereby gain their favor, Gilbert points out that Guicciardini was living far away from Florence in the period, and so a positive elogium would not have achieved this purpose. Further, he suggests that the last sentence of the elogium which alludes to the possibility of Giovanni being named pope was written from the perspective of people living in Florence at the time of Lorenzo's death in 1492, not at the time of Guicciardini's writing. In other words, Palmarocchi's evidence that Guicciardini wrote before Leo X was named pope is based on a misreading of the text. However, that final sentence which talks about Giovanni in glowing terms, as a man of merit and virtue is obviously meant to contain a compliment to Leo X (who again, is what Giovanni was named), so it would make no sense for Guicciardini to have written it after Leo X's death (in 1521). So the article, Gilbert maintains, must have been written after 1514, when Guicciardini returned to Florence, since it obviously was meant to flatter Leo X and the Medici family, something he would not have bothered to do if he were not living in Florence. And it

3 must have been written before 1521, when Leo X died, since it would make no sense to flatter him after his death. So the article must have been written between Gilbert's first thesis is therefore supported. However, he points out that this is only circumstantial evidence and so, to find more evidence, he wants to compare Guicciardini's elogium with other works written between , to see if he can find other corroborating evidence. It's here that his second thesis begins to form. He discusses how the "personality and government methods of Lorenzo" were at the time period a "burning political issue." Again, Lorenzo was long dead but his methods continued to be a topic of debate (think how FDR's 'big government' philosophy remains a topic of debate in contemporary USA even though it's 60 year old history). Therefore, in order to criticize the current government, Renaissance writers would sometimes "disguise" their critiques by praising rulers from the past, making suggests for current rule by discussing previous rule. Gilbert identifies two other writers who were doing this at the time Guicciardini was alive Machiavelli, in his Florentine History, and Valori, in his "Life of Lorenzo." Both of these other writers wrote about Lorenzo in the form of elogium (very positive portrayal). Though Gilbert notes that Valori's treatment of Lorenzo is far more comprehensive than the work of the other two, Gilbert believes that all three works show striking, undeniable similarities. These similarities include: Listing of the same political events in Lorenzo's time Selecting the same important facts from Lorenzo's life "All three reported about Lorenzo's relations with intellectuals and princes in almost identical words" The use of the same simile to describe a certain event A rhetorical device that talks about Lorenzo as have "two different and contradictory natures" In short, Gilbert maintains that the connections are significant enough to suspect some overlap. This overlap is further suggested by known connections between the three writers. There is plenty of evidence that connects the writers. Two best examples are perhaps: Valori was godfather to Machiavellis' youngest son; and at the time Machiavelli was writing his Florentine History, he wrote to Guicciardini saying he wishes the latter was able to help him. However, even without all the evidence, Gilbert reminds us that Florence was too small a community for the primary intellectual figures not to have known one another. Gilbert suggests that since Valori's portrait of Lorenzo is the most comprehensive, it probably provided the material on which the other two writers based their own elogia. Thus, for evidence of when Guicciardini wrote his piece, Gilbert needs to identify when Valori wrote his.

4 Dating Valori's work is a bit tricker, in no small part because Valori intentionally tried to mislead his reader, claiming he wrote it in 1492 (at the time Lorenzo died). Gilbert finds this a ludicrous lie on the part of Valori, especially because Valori makes references in his work to events that happened after Lorenzo's death. Further, he was a known opponent of the Medici family at the time of Lorenzo's death and during the Medici exile, so it makes no sense for him to have written a glowing portrait of Lorenzo during that time. Gilbert suggests that Valori wrote his piece between 1517 and 1519, based on the belief it was done on commission from Cardinal Rossi (don't worry about him). Gilbert starts to sum up his article by apologizing for not having more definite proof. But he does note one final interesting point: many of the biographies that followed the work of these three writers showed the influence of their elogium. Gilbert claims that contemporary biographies of Lorenzo (i.e. in the 20 th century) have not used "comprehensive research", but rather the "modern concept" of Lorenzo continues to consider him a great and prestigious man because of the 16 th centry biographies, especially that of Machiavelli. In other words, Gilbert thinks that the overly positive depictions written by Guicciardini, Valori and Machiavelli have created a false picture that most historians, even today, don't think to question. This is amusing since, if Gilbert is right, these elogium were not written until about 25 years after Lorenzo's death. Gilbert explains how, at the time these were written, Florentine writers showed a tendency to disguise their current political ideas by writing a historical sketch. Again, it would like if a historian today wrote a biographical sketch of FDR's "New Deal" to backhandedly criticize the new health care legislation. In a more tyrannical time like Florence in the 16 th century, a historian could be jailed for speaking out against the government, so this made a lot of sense. Thus "the modern historical concept of Lorenzo still shows traces of an idealization undertaken for political reasons." Guicciardini and the other two writers praised Lorenzo for their own political purposes and yet our history today continues to be influenced by their writings, without taking into account that those writings were not meant to be good history, but rather good politics! CONCLUSION Gilbert's purpose at the outset is to provide a more accurate date for Guicciardini's elogium on Lorenzo. He does this by both discussing political motivations that are suggested by Guicciardini's text, and by comparing the work to other contemporary Florentine writers. He suggests it was written between However, through the process, he explores a bigger thesis, which is that contemporary writers rely on one another not only for their information, but for their historical approach. The historical approach in question is the way these Florentine writers criticized current politics by writing historical sketches that disguised their ideas.

5 Finally, at the end, he proposes a bigger thesis, which is that such historical methods using history for political purposes can have the effect of influencing later history. After all, he notes that our contemporary understanding of Lorenzo is based not on new history, but on assuming that the politically motivated documents written by Guicciardini, Valori, and Machiavelli were in fact good, well-researched history.

The Renaissance It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them.

The Renaissance It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. The Renaissance 1350-1600 It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things Leonardo da Vinci A Return