Читать книгу Exil und Heimatferne in der Literatur des Humanismus von Petrarca bis zum Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts - Группа авторов - Страница 15

After Cosimo’s return to Florence, the most noted humanist victim of the 1434 purge was Francesco Filelfo, a friend of Palla Strozzi who first took refuge in Siena and later in Milan at the court of Visconti, the traditional enemy of the Florentine republic. The most vocal and prolific of Medici adversaries, he responded to his misfortune in at least three literary genres: first, in various letters destined to form 48 books of Epistolae Familiares; then in poems he included in Book 5 of his Latin Satyrae; and third, in the Latin dialogue Commentationes Florentinae de exilio that he dedicated to the Milanese count Vitaliano Borromeo (1391–1449).

While most of Filelfo’s writings express an implacable hatred, in 1440 he composed two letters proposing a reconciliation between Florence and Milan. In Epistle 4, 2, dated 1 July 1440 and addressed to the “senate and people of Florence,” Filelfo deplores the plight of Florentine exiles, for which he blames the kind of civil discord that plagued ancient Athens and Rome:

Quid Atheniensium civitate illustrius? Quid praeclarius? Quid denique gloriosius? Quid splendidius? Haec bonarum omnium et laudatissimarum artium inventrix ac parens. Haec belli pacisque disciplina domi forisque insignis. Haec et dignitate et opibus in universum terrarum orbem praepollens atque admirabilis, ubi ad id magnitudinis ac virium ascendisset, ut nulla re prorsus ad foelicitatem egere videretur, nonne mox, posteaquam partium studia fovere, factiones conplecti, pestiferas aemulationes ambitionesque civium alere coepisset, repente ac praeceps in obscuram et sordidam servitutem corruit? Nam de Romanis quis est qui nesciat eos, alia nulla causa quam contrariis inter se voluntatibus et studiis, periisse funditus? Sive enim incipiamus dominatu regio, ab ipso usque Romulo repetentes, sive post exactos reges, senatus ac populi principatum consyderemus, intueri licet quantis ii semper in tempestatibus ac fluctibus iactarentur, quantis laborum et calamitatum praemerentur molibus ob infestas inter se mentes atque contentiones.1

(What is more illustrious than the city of Athens? What more splendid? What, in a word, more glorious? It was the inventor and begetter of all the fine and noble arts; distinguished in the practice of war and peace both at home and abroad. It was eminent and admirable throughout the world for its importance and wealth. But when it had risen to such greatness and power that it seemed to lack no element of happiness, and soon had fostered the heat of partisanship, embraced factions, and nourished the deadly rivalry and ambition of its citizens, did it not suddenly plunge headlong into obscure and sordid servitude? Is there anyone who does not know how the Romans were utterly destroyed by their conflicting desires and parties? Whether we begin with the royal kingdom going back to Romulus himself, or after the expulsion of the kings, when we contemplate the rule of the senate and people, we see clearly that because of their hostile passions and rivalries the Romans were continually tossed by great tempests and rough seas, and overwhelmed by massive struggles and disasters).

He calls for sympathy on the part of the Florentine commune:

Est enim his istis innocentibus et fortissimis vestris civibus, quos solo patrio eiecistis, caritate patria nihil carius, nihil antiquius. Qui si exilium suum patriae conducturum arbitrarentur, modice aequissimoque animo patria carerent. Sed cum manifesto cernunt per huiuscemodi naufragium suum civitatis Florentinae non modo miserabilem iacturam, sed etiam extremam summersionem atque interitum, ut et se patriae et patriam pristinae libertati dignitatique restituant, omni ope, omni opera moliuntur. Cui enim obscurum sit quibus hominibus vos talis ac tantos viros in praesentia parere oportet, qui Florentinum populum omni pecunia exhauriunt, diminuunt dignitate, spoliant gloria, libertate privant. Haec dolent viri optimates, haec ingemiscunt, haec queruntur. Nullo in vos odio sunt affecti, nulla simultate.2

(Those innocent and courageous citizens, whom you expelled from their homeland, hold nothing dearer or more important than love of their country. If they thought that their exile would aid their country, they would forego it with moderation and equanimity. But since they clearly see that their disaster entails not only the pitiful ruin of the city of Florence, but its final downfall and demise, they strive by every means and method to restore themselves to their homeland, and their homeland to its former freedom and dignity. Is it not clear to everyone that you great men must presently obey such fellows as drain the Florentine people of all their money, diminish their dignity, strip them of glory, and rob them of freedom? The men of the best party lament, bewail, and protest this. They bear you no hatred, no animosity).

In a passionate appeal, Filelfo calls for two related measures of reconciliation:

Duo vobis faciunda censeo, viri Florentini, quo rectissime et pacatissime vobis vestraeque civitati consultum sit, ut et civis vestros, viros optimatis, quos exules agitis, in urbem recipiatis, et cum hoc divino principe, Philippo Maria Anglo, in gratiam redeatis.3

(I believe that you must do two things, men of Florence, to take most just and peaceful measures for your city: you must welcome back to the city your fellow-citizens, the optimates, whom you have exiled; and you must make peace with this divine ruler Filippo Maria Anglo Visconti).

In Epistle 4, 3, written only three days later and addressed to Cosimo de’ Medici, the accomplished Hellenist cites a Plutarchan anecdote as an exemplum of rivals – both famous exiles, we recall – who set aside personal differences for a common good:

Aristides Atheniensis, cognomento iustus, cum legatus una cum Themistocle, qui cum ei erant inimiciciae, mitteretur. Ubi ad Atticae fines ventum est, ‘Vis, ait, o Themistocles, nostras hic inimicicias relinquamus? Nam si videbitur, eas rursus cum reverterimus, capiemus.’ Et pie ut semper Aristides, et quam prudentissime monuit. Intelligebat enim utilitati publicae nullo sane pacto per eos consuli posse, qui privato inter se odio dissiderent, at par esse privatam causam publicae semper cedere […]. Cum his igitur de rebus mihi tecum agendum esset, quae et ad publicam pertinent et ad tuam utilitatem, ut […] idem te monerem quod Themistoclem Aristides, operae precium duxi […]. Ex Mediolano. IIII Nonas Iulias MCCCCXXXX.4

(Aristides of Athens, nicknamed the Just, was sent on an embassy together with Themistocles, with whom he was on bad terms. When they came to the border of Attica, he said, “Themistocles, would you like us to forget our differences? If you agree, we may resume them after our return.” Thus Aristides offered advice that was pious, as usual, and extremely practical. For he saw that men divided by private hatred could in no wise serve the public good, but should regard their private interest as equal to the public […]. Since I needed to discuss these matters with you, I thought it worthwhile to advise you just as Aristides did Themistocles […]. 4 July 1440).

If only Cosimo would pardon the exiles, he would truly become the Father of his Country:

Si malueris patriae exules civis restituere quam id pervicacius expectare, ut patriam ipsi pristinae libertati dignitatique restituant, tum eris sane adversante nemine in republica princeps, tum pater patriae appellabere, tum omnes te colent, omnes admirabuntur.

(If you prefer to restore the exiled citizens to their patria instead of awaiting with determination for them to restore their patria to its ancient liberty and dignity, then you will most certainly, with no opposition, be called princeps of the republic and Pater Patriae, then all will honor you, all admire you).5

These two missives seem to represent an isolated moment in which Filelfo thought that Cosimo might be open to compromise. But in several poems in Book 5 of the Satyrae, written in 1435 or shortly thereafter, Filelfo reflects on the exile of the Florentine optimates. Emblematic in this regard is Satire 5, 5, which addresses Onofrio Strozzi, son of the famous Palla and with him an interlocutor in Filelfo’s dialogue On Exile. In the poem, which Filelfo sent on 25 January 1435 from Siena to Strozzi in Padua, Filelfo observes that envy afflicts only the most distinguished citizens, and he cites the legendary exiles (listed by Valerius Maximus) Theseus, Scipio, Themistocles, and Camillus:

Nec mirum est livor si vos exegit ab urbe.

Semper enim sequitur virtutem livor et una

gloria quae radiis livorem splendida perdit

denique. Thersitae nemo, nemo invidet Uti.

Thesea quin etiam, quod vulgo fertur, Athenae

ingratae nimiumque leves iecere parentem;

Scipiadae, patriam quem servavisse ruentem

et Poenum pressisse ferum dirumque rebelli

imposuisse iugum perhibent, stat gratia tanti

exilium meriti. Pateris nil durius omnes

quam clari consuere viri. Damnata Camilli

est pietas, cunctis invisa Themistoclis ingens

gloria: nimirum plebs omnis semper et omnes

ingrati stulti. Satis est quod perfidus olim

ipse etiam exilio livor rubet, atque fatetur

vos indigna pati, verum Pallanta verendum.6

(Small wonder if envy drove you all from the city.

Virtue is always attended by envy, as well as by glory

That in the end destroys envy with its glowing rays.

No one envies Thersites, no one envies Nemo [Niccoli].

But Theseus, the story goes, was expelled by Athens,

Ungrateful and fickle to her father. As for Scipio,

Who, they say, saved his collapsing country and laying low

The fierce Punic horde and placed a dire yoke on the rebel –

The reward for such merits was exile. You suffer nothing

Harsher than what all famed men usually suffer.

Camillus’ piety was damned, and Themistocles’ vast glory

Was hateful to all: for all the mob and all fools are forever

Ungrateful. Suffice it that treacherous envy some day

Blush in exile, and confess your wrongful suffering,

And let Palla be revered).

Dedicated to Rinaldo degli Albizzi, the leader of the exiled optimates, Satire 5, 8 was probably written in early 1440, when Albizzi lead troops into Tuscany. (In the event, the Medici forces would triumph at Anghiari on 29 June 1440.) Filelfo’s conclusion preaches Stoic forbearance while suggesting that Filippo Maria Visconti aid the optimate cause:

Quidquid Deus optimus offert,

nos alacris id ferre decet. Permisit ab urbe

nos pelli patria, modice toleravimus omnes

exilii aerumnas. Reditum nunc monstrat in urbem

calle brevi, nemo quem speravisset inire.

Ingrediamur iter, qua nos Deus ipse vocavit!

Non etenim sine mente Dei, sine numine certo,

auxilium nobis properat praestare Philippus.7

(Whatever God the Best offers us, let us

Cheerfully accept. From our country,

He allowed us to be driven, and we modestly bore

All the hardships of exile. Now he shows how to return home

By a shortcut that none had hoped to take.

Let us enter this path, to which God himself has called us!

It is not without God’s plan or divine aid

That Filippo hastens to bring us aid).

Like Petrarch, Filelfo uses his verse epistles as a form of political negotiation. The first satire of Book 5 (1436) addresses Filippo Maria Visconti, the duke of Milan. In a letter of 13 April 1436, written in Siena to the duke’s secretary Giovan Francesco Gallina, Filelfo characterizes his poem as a “satire-exhortation in verse” (satyrica exhortatio versibus ⟨a⟩ me scripta). Genoa has revolted, but Filelfo calls upon the duke to pardon the rebels, and to aid the exiled Florentines. Filippo Maria’s clemency was already demonstrated by his freeing Alfonso of Aragon, taken prisoner in the naval battle at Ponza (5 August 1435):

Carcere solvisti qui cum tibi semper amicus

Ante fuit, nulla se causa reddidit hostem.

Liberet exilio tua munificentia, qui te

hostili ex animo quo semper inarserat armis,

et studiis et amore pio servetque colatque.8

(You freed from prison a man who was always your friend

Before, but who without cause became your enemy.

Let your generosity free that person who

without the animosity that long kindled him in war,

would protect and honor you with zeal and pious love).

The next poem in Book 5 is addressed to pope Eugenius IV, who had fled to Florence to escape the wrath of the Roman mob. Filelfo consoles him for this misfortune, but deplores his role in Cosimo de’ Medici’s repatriation. As Filelfo narrates the events in his dialogue On Exile, Rinaldo degli Albizzi had planned a coup against the Florentine government, which envisioned an amnesty for the Medici faction. At the pope’s request, the conspirators surrendered their weapons, thus facilitating Cosimo’s return. Exculpating the pontiff, Filelfo suggests that it was the pope’s entourage – by implication, cardinal Giovanni Vitelleschi – that fostered the Medici return and reprisals, which led to the exile of the noble Florentine optimates:

Hinc est prima mali labes, hinc omnis origo

exilii cladisque fluit. Namque illa latronis

impia sacrilegi mox coniuratio Mundi,

subsidiis adiuta tuis potiusve tuorum

(non etenim talem se servantissimus aequi

polluerit meus Eugenius) […]

Nobilitas veneranda suis e sedibus omnis

Truditur insidiis; patriis fugit exul ab oris […]9

(Hence the first stain of evil, hence the whole origin

Of exile and ruin flowed. For soon the impious plot

Of the sacrilegious brigand Cosimo,

With your aid or rather your colleagues’ aid

(For my Eugenius, most observant of what’s right,

Would not have defiled himself so) […]

All the august nobility is driven from its seat

By treachery, and flees from its homeland as an exile).

Filelfo’s most extensive reflections on exile are found in his dialogue Commentationes Florentinae de exilio, initially planned as a series of ten dialogues. In the event, the humanist completed only three books, presumably abandoning the project after the 1440 defeat of the optimates and their Milanese allies at Anghiari.10 As his interlocutors, Filelfo casts a number of prominent Florentines, and he sets the dialogue during the early days of Cosimo’s return in 1434, just before the author and many of the so-called “optimates” were forced to leave Florence. In the first dialogue, On the Misfortunes of Exile (De incommodis exilii), the anti-Medici optimates Rinaldo degli Albizzi, and Palla and Nofri Strozzi are joined by several humanists, including Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and Giannozzo Manetti. In the next two dialogues, On Disgrace (De infamia) and On Poverty (De paupertate), these interlocutors are joined by Francesco Soderini, Rodolfo Peruzzi, and Niccolò Della Luna.11

The dialogue treats of exile in a slightly detached fashion, since Rinaldo degli Albizzi and the two Strozzis have not yet left their native Florence. But in this work by a disgruntled adversary, the political vicissitudes of Cosimo de’ Medici hardly inspire any laudatory references to the great men of antiquity. If history is written by the victors, then satire is written by the losers.