The Plutarchan Option: Leonardo Bruni's Early Career in History, 1405-1414

Author(s): Gary Ianziti

Source: I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance, Vol. 8 (1999), pp. 11-35
Published by: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki s.r.l. and Villa I Tatti, The Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance
Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4603710 .
Accessed: 08/05/2011 05:17

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=celso. .

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.

Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki s.r.l. and Villa I Tatti, The Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance Studies are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE PLUTARCHANOPTION:
LeonardoBruni'sEarlyCareerin History,
1405-1414

GARY IANZITI

'UI he standard accounts of Leonardo Bruni's involvement in his-

tory-writingall have one thing in common: they leap over the
period 1405-1414 as largely irrelevant.1The bare facts in the
case may be stated by way of a prologue. In his LaudatioFlorentinae
urbis(1404), Bruni announced in no uncertainterms his intention of
writing a history of Florence, the city he had presumably come to
adopt as his own.2 At the beginning of the following year, however,
Brunileft Florence to seek employmentin the Roman curia.His sub-
sequent period of service to various Popes was to last for ten years,
with only one brief interruption.3During his decade in the curia

1 The key source is of course H. BARON,The Crisisof the EarlyItalian Renaissance,2

vols., Princeton, 1955. A revised, one-volume edition of this work appeared in 1966. The
impact of the 'Baron thesis', with its emphasis on the Florentine context, can be seen in
DONALD J. WILCOX, The Development of Florentine Humanist Historiographyin the Fif-
teenth Century,Cambridge,Mass., 1969. For an assessmentof the currentstatus of Baron's
contributions,see J. HANKINS, "The 'Baronthesis' after Forty Years and some Recent Stu-
dies of Leonardo Bruni",Journalof the History of Ideas, 56, 1995, pp. 309-338.
2 See the text of the Laudatio as edited by H.
BARON, From Petrarchto Leonardo
Bruni, Chicago, 1968, pp. 254-255: "Possum commemorare munitissima oppida manu
capta, innumerabiliapene trophea de finitimis populis ab hac urbe constituta, egregia rei
militaris facinora edita ipso populo Florentino exeunte atque armis fruente. Sed non est
praesentistemporis tot variasbellorum contentiones tantasqueres gestas posse referre;pro-
prium illa desiderantopus, et quidem magnum, quod nos, ut spero, aliquandoaggrediemur
et, quo pacto singula ab hoc populo gesta sunt, litteris memoriequemandabimus".J. HAN-
KINS,Plato in the ItalianRenaissance,2 vols., Leiden, 1990, II, p. 371, dates the Laudatioin
late summer 1404.
3 For Bruni's career in the curia, see the introduction to The Humanismof Leonardo
Brun',SelectedTexts,trans. and intro. G. GRIFFITHS - J. HANKINS - D. ThoMPsON, Bingham-
ton, New York, 1987, pp. 25-35, as well as G. GUALDO, "LeonardoBruni segretariopapale
(1405-1415)", in P. VITI (ed.), Leonardo Bruni cancelliere della repubblicadi Firenze,
Florence, 1990, pp. 73-95. The one interruptionoccurredfrom late December 1410 to early

11
 GARY IANZITI

Bruni maintained contact with his Florentine friends, in particular

with Niccolo Niccoli. However, as was probably inevitable, Bruni
soon began to experience the unravelingof his earlieridentification
with Florence. An important sign of this change occurs in the fre-
quently cited letter of 23 December 1406, addressed to Niccoli. In
this letter Bruni 1) declines Niccoli's invitation to apply for the re-
cently vacated position of chancellor of Florence, 2) states that his
place is now with the Roman pontiff, and that he intends to work
towards ending the schism that has plagued the Church since
1378, 3) construes his own identity in terms of Aretine (ratherthan
Florentine) ties, 4) refuses to consider revising the Laudatio in the
light of the recent Florentine conquest of Pisa, and 5) appears to
suggest that Niccoli look elsewhere for someone to author the pre-
viously projected history of Florence.4
Another, less frequently cited letter to Niccoli of almost exactly
one year later, 17 December 1407, strikes a similar chord.5 Niccoli
had just written to Bruni with the suggestion that he use his spare
time to translateThucydides into Latin. Bruni's response is catego-
rical:how can Niccoli be so insensitive as to suppose Bruni has time
to spare? Has he any idea of the immense labor involved in translat-
ing such a massive work? Even if his responsibilities in the curia
were to leave him any spare time, Bruniwould much prefer to spend
it in pursuits of a morallyimproving kind, ratherthan in translating
Greek history ("... tamen, mallem equidem vel in philosophia vel in
alia quapiam facultate, quae me facere meliorem posset, quam in
transferendisGraecorumhistoriis meum studium et diligentiampo-
nere"). Bruni is sick and tired of following the cultural directives of
others; from now on he will forge his own path ("Satisenim, super-

April 1411, when Bruni briefly served as chancellor of Florence:for the exact dates of this
service,see P. VITI,LeonardoBrunie Firenze,Rome,1992,pp. 3, 255.
4 LEONARDO BRUNI, Epistolarum libri VIII,ed. LORENZOMEHUS, 2 vols., Florence,
1741, I, pp. 35-36. See the comments on this letter by Baron, op. cit (see note 1), pp.
220-225,537-538. R. FUBINI,"Osservazioni sugli Historiarumflorentinipopulilibri XII
di LeonardoBruni",Studidi storiamedievalee modernaper ErnestoSestan,2 vols., Flor-
ence, 1980, I, p. 432, offers an alternate reading of the letter regardingpoint 5. See also
HANKINS,Op. cit. (see note 1), p. 323.
5 F. P. Luiso,Studisu l'epistolario di LeonardoBruni,L. GUALDO ROSA(ed.),Rome,
1980, pp. 39-42, also in LEONARDO BRUNI,Humanistisch-Philosophische Schriften,ed. H.
BARON,Leipzig, 1928, pp. 109-112.

12
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

que satis, ceterorum solatiis hactenus inservivi;nunc sentio in diem

magis atque magis me mihi cariorem fieri, nec tam aliorum causa
mihi placet vigilarequam mea" ). And the path he has set for himself
is stated no less categorically.In Bruni's own words, it involves un-
derstanding"the meaning and purpose of life and how it is to be led,
the value of virtue, the splendor of justice, the fittingnessof honesty,
the praiseworthinessof modesty, the glory of courage, and how each
of these is to be considered its own reward...".6
What is apparenthere is that Bruni, afternearlythree yearsin the
curia, has come to distance himself from the specific political com-
mitments that had characterizedhis earlier years in Florence. Or,
perhaps more to the point, the network of concerns that had sus-
tained these commitmentshas vanished with his relocation in a dif-
ferent environment. In May of 1406 Bruni's mentor Coluccio Salu-
tati had died, removing from the scene a father figure in the true
sense of the term: a man who had continued to shape the directions
of Bruni's work up to that point. The letters to Niccoli show Bruni
revelingin an orgy of self-discovery,keen to map out new priorities,
secure in his position in the papal curia.
Of great interest in this respect is Bruni's remark that the his-
tories of Thucydides are irrelevantto the sorts of moral and ethical
questions he has now placed at the top of his agenda. His dismissal
of Thucydides appears to be inclusive of history-writingin general,
and reinforcesthe impressionthat he had turned his back on an area
he had earlier considered eminently worthy of cultivation. Bruni in
fact wrote no historyas such duringhis yearsin the curia.It was only
in 1415, upon his returnto take up permanentresidencein Florence,
that he began to work on the Historiarumflorentini populi libri XII
(hereafter Historiae).7This is accordingly where most accounts of

6 Luiso op. cit. (see note 5), p. 42: "Itaquequantummihi detur otii, id totum libentius
in eo pono, ut intelligam quo pacto vita nobis instituenda sit et quibus rebus traducenda,
quanti virtus existimari debeat, quantus sit iustitiae splendor, quantum honestatis decus,
quanta modestiae laus, quanta fortitudinis gloria, quantus ipsorum quae supra dicta sunt
in eisdem ipsis sit fructus...".RICCARDO FUBINI offers a penetratingcommentaryon this pas-
sage in his article "Culturaumanisticae tradizionecittadinanella storiografiafiorentinadel
Quattrocento,"Atti e memoriedell'Accademiatoscanadi scienze e lettere 'La Colombaria',
n.s. 42, 1991, pp. 71-74.
7 As testified by the letter to Poggio Bracciolini,2 January1416, in Epistolarumlibri
VIII, I, pp. 110-111; see the comments of Luiso, op. cit. (see note 5), pp. 82-83.

13
 GARY IANZITI

Bruni's historiography begin their coverage, the consensus being

that Bruni's pioneering brand of realistic history-writingrequired a
political subject.
The first point to be made is the following: the hypothesis of the
ten-yearhiatus, 1405-1414, is impeccable, providing we accept that
the Florentine Historiae represent the alpha and omega of Bruni's
preoccupation with historiography. Recent scholarship, however,
has begun to cast doubt on this latter proposition. It has revealed
that Bruni deployed his historiographicalactivityover a much wider
range of fields than has usually been suspected. E. B. Fryde, for ex-
ample, has called attention to Bruni's interest in biography. In 1980
Fryde published a study of Bruni's Cicero novus, a life of Cicero
completed in Florence in 1415 - the very same year during which
Bruni began writing the Historiae.8Fryde's study argued that the Ci-
cero novus was characterisedby the same sort of critical analysisof
source materialsthat was so striking in the first book of the Histo-
riae. Nor did the parallelsstop here. In both cases the critical enter-
prise was sustained by an ideological program:in the Historiae the
promotion of the greater glory of Florence; in the Cicero novus
praise of the model citizen and man of letters. In addition both
works had as their primaryaim the revisionof standardclassicaltext:
Livy in the case of the Historiae;Plutarch'sCiceroin the case of the
appropriatelytitled Ciceronovus.9If anything,Bruni is actuallymore
explicit about his intentions vis-a-vis Plutarch:in the preface to the
Ciceronovushe explains how it was duringhis labours over his trans-
lation of Plutarch'sCicerothat he had come to realiseits inadequacies
and had finally reached the decision to strike out on his own.'0
Fryde's study has not only encouraged scholarsto take a broader
view of Bruni's engagement with history-writing;it has also singled
out Plutarchanbiography as one of the key issues. Admittedly bio-

8 "The Beginnings of Italian Humanist Historiography:The New Ciceroof Leonardo

Bruni", English HistoricalReview, 95, 1980, pp. 533-552, reprinted in E. B. FRYDE'S,Hu-
manism and RenaissanceHistoriography,London, 1983, pp. 33-53.
9 For Bruni's re-writingof Livy's early history of Rome see now A. M. CABRINI,"Le
'Historiae'del Bruni: Risultatie ipotesi di una ricerca sulle fonti", in P. VITI(ed.), op. cit.
(see note 3), pp. 250-258.
10 See the preface to the Ciceronovus, in LEONARDO BRUNI,Opereletterariee politiche,
ed. P. VITI, Turin, 1996, pp. 416-418. Viti gives the full text of the work on pp. 413-499.

14
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

graphydid not loomlargein Bruni'shistoriographical production

after1415:the briefVitaAristotelis appeared in 1430,followedby
theevenbriefer'parallel lives'of DanteandPetrarch in 1436.11
This
is smallfarewhencomparedto Bruni'smassiveoutputin history
properin the sameperiod:besidesthe 12 booksof Florentine His-
toriae,onecanlisttheCommentarii deprimobellopunico(1419),the
Commentarii rerum graecarum (1439),theDe temporibus suis(1440),
andthe De belloitalicoadversus Gothos(1441).Butwhilethe bal-
ancewasclearlytippedin favorof historyproperafter1415,theCi-
ceronovusprovesthatPlutarchan biography constitutedthe basis
foroneof Bruni'sfirstattemptsatserioushistory-writing. Evenafter
1415Brunineverabandoned biography altogether,
andthebeststu-
diesof thisaspectof hisworkreveala persistence of thePlutarchan
instance,a featurethatis perhapsmostobviousin the caseof the
parallellives(completewithcomparatio) of DanteandPetrarch.'2
The questionI wishto explorein the followingpagesconcerns
the impactof Plutarchon Bruni'searlyformation as a historian.'3
Duringthe periodof his residencein the curia,from 1405 to
1414,Bruniwas almostcontinuously engagedin translating from
one or anotherof Plutarch's Lives.His lettersinformus of his pro-
gress.Weknowthatattheendof thisperiodhisinterestin Plutarch
led directlyto hisfirstmajorexperiment in historical
writingandre-
search.Myprimary intentionin whatfollowswillbe to arguethat
Bruni'stranslation of Plutarch's Livescanbe seen as constituting
the coreof his interestin history-writing duringthe period1405-
If
1414. my thesisis correct,Bruni'sconcernwithhistorydid not
abatewithhis absencefromFlorence,it simplyunderwenta shift
of emphasis. Thepurposeof myremarks willbe to speculateas to
howandwhyit didso, andto assesswhetherBruni'sPlutarchan stu-
diescantellus anything abouta subjecton whichwe currently have
preciouslittleinformation: how Brunicameto definewhatwasto
becomehis ownverypersonalapproach to history-writing.
11 For these texts and relevantbibliographysee now ibid., pp. 55-56, 501-560.
12 See now L. GUALDo ROSA,"LeonardoBruni e le sue 'vite parallele'di Dante e Pe-
trarca,"Lettere italiane, 47, 1995, pp. 386-401.
13 For some stimulatingnotes on this subject, which I discovered only after writing
this essay, see G. RESTA,"Leonardo Bruni, Pietro Miani e l'inedita lettera di dedica della
traduzione della plutarchianaVita Pauli Aemilii", Scritti in onore di SalvatorePugliatti, 5
vols., Milan, 1978, V, pp. 883-887.

15
 GARY IANZITI

Bruni's Plutarchan project did not of course originate with his

move to the curia. Plutarch had long been an author held in high
esteem in Florence. Bruni's mentor Coluccio Salutati had sought
far and wide to obtain a manuscript of Plutarch from which the
Lives might be rendered into Latin. Salutati'sfamous letter on the
value of history as a provider of moral exempla is actually couched
in the form of a request for help in finding such a manuscript ad-
dressed to Juan Fernandez de Heredia, Master of the Order of
Knights Hospitallers.14 Florentine interest in Plutarch was boosted
by the arrival in 1397 of Manuel Chrysoloras, the teacher from
whom Bruni and others (but not Salutati)were to learn Greek. Plu-
tarch was Chrysoloras'favorite author and, not surprisingly,he set
his pupils to work translatingthe Lives. Translationfrom the Greek
to the Latin was indeed one of Chrysoloras' preferred teaching
methods. Fragmentsof passages translatedby his pupils are still ex-
tant today.15
Out of the school of Chrysolorascame the first Latin versions of
Plutarch'sLives based directlyon the Greek. These were not by Bru-
ni but by his older rivalJacopo Angeli da Scarperia.'6The latter pro-
duced a Brutus in 1400 and a Cicero in the following year. The
choice is significant. The Lives provided portraits of greatness, ex-
amples of virtue and heroism. But they were also seen by Salutati
and his circle in Florence as a vast repositoryof new and reliablein-
formation on the history of the Roman Republic. Interest naturally
focussed on the Roman lives of Plutarch, and particularlyon those
that illustratedthe last years of the Republic, a period which had left
behind no single authoritativehistory of the formal, Livian variety.17

14 Salutati'sletter is published in the Epistolariodi ColuccioSalutati,ed. F. NOVATI, 4

vols., Rome, 1891-1911, II, pp. 289-302. For the date of the letter (1393/1394) and other
informationsee R. WITT, "Salutatiand Plutarch"in S. BERTELLI - G. RAMAKUS, EssaysPre-
sented to Myron P. Gilmore, 2 vols., Florence, 1978, I, pp. 335-346.
15 For one such fragment, see the Epistolariodi Pier Paolo Vergerio,ed. L. SMITH,

Rome, 1934, pp. 451-452. On Plutarchand the study of Greek in late Trecento/earlyQuat-
trocento Florence, see R. WEISS, Medieval and Humanist Greek: CollectedEssays, Padua,
1977, pp. 204-254. On the School of Chrysoloras,see now E. BERTI,"Alla scuola di Ma-
nuele Crisolora",Rinascimento,27, 1987, pp. 3-73.
16 WEISS, op. cit. (see note 15), pp. 255-277, provides informationon the life and ca-
reer of this little-knownearlyhumanist (c. 1360-1410 or 1411). In 1405 he was to be Bruni's
rival for a position as secretaryin the papal curia.
17 The survivingbooks of Livy, except for the Periochae,or summaries,end with the

16
 OPTION
THE PLUTARCHAN

from Plutarch,MarkAntony(1404/
Bruni'sfirst translation
1405), clearlyfalls into this category.In his dedicatoryletter to Salu-
tati, Bruni faithfully repeats the master's own views. Plutarch is of
great value because he brings to light the lost deeds of the ancient
Romans, the ancestors of the modern Italians. Bruni describes Plu-
tarch as "summaeauctoritatishomo", and as a historian of the first
rank.'8He announceshis intention of translatinginto Latin all of the
extant Lives, a plan which shows him placing his talents at the ser-
vice of Salutati'sscheme of the 1390s.19The conclusion to be drawn
is clear:with the departureof Angeli for the curia, Bruni had inher-
ited the task of executing Salutati'smasterplan for a complete trans-
lation of Plutarch'sLives into Latin. This is hardly surprisingwhen
we consider how much of Bruni's earlyliteraryproduction was sub-
ordinate to the directives of Salutati.20
As it turned out, however, Bruni translated only one more of
Plutarch's lives while in Florence. This was the Cato minor, of
which Bruni managed to complete only a rough draft. Then, in early

year 167 B. C. Besides the monographsof Saliust and Caesar,the main ancient sources for
the first centuryB. C. are the letters and works of Cicero:see the list provided by D. STOCK-
TON, Cicero,A Political Biography,Oxford, 1971, pp. 346-347.
18 BARON, Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), p. 102: "Nam cum apud Plutarchum,sum-
mae auctoritatishominem, res gestas clarorumvirorum legeremus, quos ile praestantissi-
mos e Graecis Romanisquedelectos in paria et contentiones distribuit, doluimus profecto
animadvertentestantam apud nos scriptorumfactam esse iacturam,ut nec facta maiorum
nostrorumnec nomina iam eorum teneremus,per quos Italiain universo orbe gloriosissime
nominata esset".
19 Ibid.: "...habemus quidem in animo hos omnes Plutarchiviros, si per occupationes
nostras licebit, in Latinum convertere et famam ac gloriam summorum virorum reno-
vare...".L. BERTALOT, Studienzum italienischenund deutschenHumanismus,ed. P. 0. KRIS-
TELLER,2 vols., Rome, 1975, II, pp. 287-288, notes the existence of a Florentine tradition
that sees fragments of a Romulus by Bruni as proof that he began his project at the very
beginning. The Romulusfragment,under the title De Romaeorigineet unde dictasit, is pub-
lished as an appendix to E. SANTINI,"LeonardoBruni Aretino e i suoi Historiarumfloren-
tini populi libri XII", Annali della ScuolaNormaleSuperioredi Pisa, 22, 1910, pp. 157-158.
20 WEIss, op. cit. (see note 15), p. 251, notes that Bruni acted as Salutati'sresearch
assistant in matters involving Greek literature.For an example, see COLUCCIOSALUTATI,
De laboribusHerculis,ed. B. L. ULLMAN,2 vols., Padua, 1951, II, p. 569. Bruni portrayed
himself in this capacity in his Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum:see Prosatorilatini del Quattro-
cento, ed. E. GARIN, Milan, 1952, p. 80, where Salutati is made to remark that Bruni
"...quotidiepro nobis labores suscipit e graeco in latinum sermone transferendo....".Among
the works translatedby Bruni for Salutatiwere Basil's letter de utilitate studii in librosgen-
tilium, and Xenophon's Hiero.

17

2
 GARY IANZITI

1405, Bruni, like Angeli before him, moved to Rome, and there be-
gan that process of disassociationwhich we briefly examined at the
outset. The effects of the move on Bruni'splans for a history of Flor-
ence - a project also inspired by Salutati - have already been de-
scribed. But the Plutarchan project did not suffer the same fate.
On the contrary, Bruni's enthusiasm for Plutarch continued un-
abated. He polished his version of the Cato minor, and also found
time to translatethe following lives:Sertorius,Pyrrhus,Aemilius Pau-
lus, Tiberiusand Calus Gracchus,Demosthenes.2"
As is clear from this list, Bruni did not translatepairs of parallel
lives.22His Demosthenesmay nevertheless have led him to consider
the validity of Jacopo Angeli's Ciceroof 1401. Dissatisfied with An-
geli's version, Brunibegan his own, probablyin 1412. By 1415, how-
ever - and one notes the date correspondsto his returnto Florence -
Bruni had decided that Plutarch's Ciceroin itself was unsatisfactory.
He accordinglytook it upon himself to write his own biography of
the Roman statesman, a work he came to call the Cicero noVus.23
In his preface Bruni was at pains to point out that the Ciceronovus
was not to be regardedas a translationof Plutarch, but as a work in
its own right. In fact, Bruni's preface reveals the extent to which he

21 The chronology and dating of Bruni'sPlutarchantranslationsis still far from firmly

established. BARON, Op. cit. (see note 1), p. 614, places the composition of the Sertoriusbe-
tween October 1408 and January1409, but without explaining why. He also sets relatively
wide parametresfor the Pyrrhus,placed between autumn 1408 and March 1412. According
to WEISS, Op. cit (see note 15), p. 273, Jacopo Angeli dedicated his own translationof the
Marius to Giobbe Resta, secretaryto Pope Alexander V (m. 3 May 1410); if - as seems
likely - Bruni's Pyrrhusbears any relation to its Plutarchan counterpart,then the Marius
could be a clue towards a more precise date. In Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), pp. 163-
164, BARONdates the Aemilius Paulus before December 1410, but see now G. RESTA,
op. cit. (see note 13), pp. 896-897, who dates it prior to 12 August 1409. The Gracchi
can be dated to just before February-March1410, thanks to Bruni's letter to Niccol6 Nic-
coli, Epistolae,ed. MEHUS,op. cit. (see note 4), I, p. 89: "Gracchorumvitam legit nunc An-
tonius Luscus:cum eam praelegerit,ad te deferetur."The correctionof Graecorum(Mehus)
to Gracchorumis due to a timely interventionby Luiso, p. 70, who also provides the date of
the letter. Finally,the Demosthenescan be dated before 26 December 1412 thanks to a let-
ter mentioning it, written on that day: see BARON,Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), p. 163.
22 Vespasiano da Bisticci's comment that Bruni attempted a Demetrius (coupled with

MarkAntony) is probably meant to flatterthe later translatorof the Demetrius,Donato Ac-

ciaiuoli: see Le Vite, ed. A. GREco,2 vols., Florence, 1970-1976, II, p. 50.
23 See Bruni'spreface to the Ciceronovus, op. cit. (see note 10), pp. 416-418, together

with the comments of E. B. FRYDE,Op. Cit. (see note 8), pp. 33-53. The date 1412 (Septem-
ber) is suggested by Viti in his introduction to the work, p. 413.

18
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

haslostconfidence in Plutarchas a reliableguideto ancienthistory.

He wasin factneveragainto translate fromPlutarch's Lives.24
Withthe soleexceptionsof theMarkAntonyandthefirstdraft
of the Catominorthen,Bruni'sactivityas a translator of Plutarchan
biography is whollyconfinedto hisperiodin thecuria.It is therefore
legitimateto askwhyBrunipersistedin thistask,evenlongafterthe
deathof itsinstigatorSalutati.
To answerthisquestionwe needonly
considerthe choiceof thelivestranslated: onlytwo areGreeks;the
remaining five(sixif wewereto counttheCicero)areRomans, allof
whomlived- likeMarkAntony- toolateto be includedin thepor-
tionsof Livy'shistoriesknownto Bruni.25 Bruni'sinterestin Plu-
tarchis partof a largerconception,whichstemmedfromSalutati
andsoonbecameBruni'sown:to recoverthe unknownor obscure
areasof ancientRomanhistoryby drawing on Greeksources.26 That
sucha planshouldbe bolsteredby Bruni'sstayin the curiacannot
be suprising,giventhe antiquarian interestsof his colleaguesin the
humanist-dominated papalsecretariat.27
Bruni'scommitment to the recoveryof Romanhistorywas of
coursehardlya neutralissue.It was patrioticin a broad,Italian

24 In this respect, Bruni was quite different from his humanist colleague across the

Apennines, Guarino Veronese. Guarino continued to admire and to translatePlutarch all

his life. In a famous letter to Poggio, June, 1435, he defined Plutarch as "diligentissimus
rerum gestarum indagator, cui mira est antiquitatisnotitia", Prosatorilatini, op. cit. (see
note 20), p. 324. This can be compared with Bruni's statement on Plutarch of 1427: see
below, note 62.
25 With regard to Aemilius Paulus, one must remember that Books XLI- XLV of
Livy were still unknown in Bruni's day. Although Greek, Pyrrhuscould be regardedas be-
longing to an importantchapter of earlyRoman history:his campaignsagainstthe Romans
(280-275 B.C.) were recorded in the lost books of Livy, XII-XIV, as we know from the
Periochae.
26 Bruni re-evokes this early commitment in his preface to the translationof Plato's

Phaedrus,dedicated to Antonio Loschi (1424), Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), pp. 125-
126: "...nos tunc adolescentes... omnem mox operam ad id convertimus,ut, quarumrerum
inopiam Latini paterentur,eas de Graecorum copia nostris laboribus suppleremus. Quare
et historiae aliquot, partim ignoratae penitus, partim obscurae prius, nostra iam pridem
opera Latinis claruerunt".HANKINS, op. cit. (see note 2), II, pp. 380-381, correctlyremarks
that the reference here is to the translationsfrom Plutarch.
27 Besides Loschi himself, these included Poggio Bracciolini.See, for example, Bruni's
letter to Niccoli, 1405-1406, as published by BERTALOT, op. cit. (see note 19), II, pp. 415:
"Poggius noster Neapolim historiaecausa se contulit. Expecto Baias et aquas Puteolanaset
quicquid Capua Nola atque Gaieta antiquitatishabent in suo reditu cognoscere".

19
 GARY IANZITI

sense. Moreover, the idealizing, heroic proportions of Plutarch's

portraitswere eminentlysuited to Bruni'spurposes. Contemporaries
were to be made aware of the great men who had graced the penin-
sula in earliertimes. The Lives were to act as moving models to in-
spire the imitation of exemplarybehaviour.When one considers the
number of imperatives- cultural, moral, political, historical - satis-
fied by a single enterprise,it can hardlybe surprisingthat Plutarch's
Lives became a Brunian obsession in this period.
But if one is thereby authorisedto speak of a Plutarchanphase of
Bruni's career as a historian, it remains true that this area still lies
largely unexplored. What I propose to do from this point on is to
focus on two of the lives translatedby Bruni: Cato minor and Serto-
rius. Both of these, I believe, illustrate some of the underlying con-
cerns that led Bruni to Plutarch. Both provide a key to unlocking
the deeper implicationsof Bruni'sPlutarchanperiod. As it happens,
too, both the Cato and the Sertoriusthrow considerablelight on Bru-
ni's other literaryprojects of these years.
Bruni's letters provide more information about the Cato minor
than about any of his other translationsfrom Plutarch's Lives. We
know, for example, that Bruni had completed at least a rough draft
of his translationbefore leaving Florence in March of 1405.28 This
version, however, had been carried out in such haste that Bruni
had left many of the more difficult passages for later mulling over.
A letter to Niccoli of 12 October 1405 indicates that Bruni's first
months in the curia had not been conducive to polishing the transla-
tion. At this point, however, he is confident he can finish the work
quickly and forward it to Niccoli in Florence very soon.29
Niccoli must have been eager to obtain the work, for Bruni re-
turns to the question of the Cato minor in a letter of August
1406.30 Ten months down the track Bruni is clearly at pains to ex-
plain why completion has been delayed. The suggestion is that Bruni

28 HANKINS, op. cit. (see note 2), II, p. 374, establishes this fact on the basis of
Bruni's letter to Niccoli, August 1406: Epistolarum libri VIII, op. cit. (see note 4), II,
pp. 189-190.
29 Luiso,
op. cit. (see note 5), p. 12: "Catonisvitam propter has turbationes expolire
nondum potui; cito tamen, ut spero, absolvam et ad te mittam". See also Schriften,op. cit.
(see note 5), p. 105.
30 HANKINS, op. cit. (see note 2), II, p. 374.

20
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

stiflneedsto checkhis translation;

he lacksthe booksnecessary to
do so. To publishthe Catominorin its presentstatewouldbe sui-
cidalforBruni'sreputation as a Hellenist.
Overa yearlaterBruniclarifiestheproblemin a letterto Pietro
Emiliani,datablein October/November 1407.He has finallyob-
tainedanothermanuscript of theParallelLives,buthashadtheun-
pleasantsurpriseof discovering thatit does not containthe Cato
minor.3' Bruni is insecureabout the reliabilityof the manuscript
fromwhichhe hasmadehis translation ("Suspicor enimquasdam
fuissemendasin eo libro,a quo sumpsi..."). He is adamantabout
not publishinguntilhe hasbeenableto checkandpolishhiswork
withtheaidof a bettermanuscript. Otherwise his criticswillblame
himforerrorswhichin factderivefroma faultyoriginal("...itaque
efferrenolui,ne quislibriculpamin meamruditatem transferret").
Theletterto Emilianithusconcludeswitha pleathathe search
hishousethoroughly; theremightbe a Catolurkingsomewhere in a
darkcorner.PerhapsCatohimselfis in hiding,horrified bythetenor
of thetimes("indignatusfortassemorenostrorum temporum"). But
Brunishouldnotjoke:Cato'sseverityis to be fearedeventhoughhe
is dead("Sednoloin hacprimaepistulatecumiocari,praesertim de
Catone, cuiusetiam mortui formidocensuram").
We do notknowwhetherEmiliani wasableto satisfyBruni'sre-
quest.NordoweknowtheexactdatewhenBruniwasfinallyableto
publishthe Catominorwith confidence.If Brunistuckto his guns,
this couldnot haveoccurreduntilhe had procuredthe desired
manuscript, resolveddoubtsanddifficulties,
andpolishedhis ver-
sion.At the veryearliestthen,Brunimaybe thoughtto havepub-
lished the Catominortowardsthe middle of 1408, if not perhaps
muchlaterstill.
Bruni'sdifficultiesin completingthe Catominorareilluminating
in manyrespects.We catcha glimpseof his workingmethods:a
quickdraft,followedby a moredeliberate
processof revisionand
correction. fromFlorence-
We learn,too, how Bruni'sdeparture
himfromhis networkof fellowhumanists
by separating - affected

31 Luiso, op. cit. (see note 5), p. 38 (also Schriften,op. cit. [see note 5], p. 108): "Mud
vero admiratussum in ParallelisPlutarchinon esse Catonem, quem magnopere habere cu-
piebam, ut eius vitam iampridem a me in latinum conversam,nondum tamen editam, ex-
polirem".

21
 GARY IANZITI

his ability to work with his accustomed thoroughness. Clearly he

preferredto check his translationsagainstseveralmanuscripts,a task
that proved difficult in the midst of the disruption caused by the
itinerantlife-style of the curia. All of this, however, would be a mere
matter of erudite curiosity were it not that the Cato minor is inti-
mately bound up with themes that relate to another major literary
project meditated by Bruni in the years 1407-1408: the composition
of the so-called LaudatloColucii.
We first hear of this project in the aforementionedletter to Nic-
coli of 17 December 1407. A certain Philippus has asked Niccoli to
approachBruni with the suggestion that he write a work in praise of
the late chancellor Salutati (d. May 1406).32 As with other cultural
directives emanatingfrom Florence in this period, however, Bruni's
response is distinctly unenthusiastic. He would prefer to be let off
the hook, not because he fears the labor involved, but because he
finds the materialitself somewhat wanting, nor does he have suffi-
cient command of it ("non tam fugiendi laboris causa scribere recu-
so, quam quod materia ipsa non satis copiosa videtur ad scriben-
dum, nec mihi ipsi satis nota est"). Apparently unwilling, however,
to close too many doors on his Florentine friends, Bruni agrees to
set to work on one condition: that Niccoli himself assemble the re-
quired information and prepare a rough draft as an outline Bruni
can follow ("tu ipse pro me collige res et mihi rescribe, de quibus
a nobis putas scribendum").Niccoli appears to have done so rather
quickly,for in a letter to him of 7 January1408 Bruni reportsthat he
has begun work on the project and that it is progressingwell; he ex-
presses his full confidence in both the style and the substance:"Lau-
dationem Colucii Salutativiri clarissimiscribereincepi; oratio erit lu-
culenta et copiosa".33
What sort of work did Bruni plan to write? The title (Bruni in-

32 Luiso, ibid., p. 41 (also Schriften,op. cit. [see note 5], p. 111). For the possible
identity of Philippus (Filippo Corsini), and other informationregardingthe LaudatioColu-
cii, see the important contribution of R. FUBINI, "AII'uscitadalla scolastica medievale: Sa-
lutati, Bruni e i Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum", Archivio storico italiano, 150, 1992, pp.
1065-1103, esp. pp. 1093 ff.. See also J. HANKINS, "The Latin Poetry of Leonardo Bruni",
HumanisticaLovaniensia,39, 1990, pp. 9-10.
33 The line quoted here, missing in Epistolarumlibri VIII,is supplied by Luiso, op. cit.
(see note 5), p. 46.

22
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

variably refersto theworkas theLaudatio Colucii)suggestsa pane-

gyricalongthelinesof thosethatbecamecustomary tributesin hon-
or of recentlydeceasedhumanists.34 Brunihimselfclarifieswhathe
initiallyhadin mindin an important letterto Niccoliof 30 March
1408.Againhe stressesthat the workis proceedingwell, or, to
use Bruni'sterm,"satis... luculente". However,he alsorevealshe
is beginningto entertainseriousdoubtsaboutthe originalconcep-
tion.Theplanhadbeento couchthe Laudatio Coluciiin the form
of a funeralorationbasedon the ancientRomanmodel.ButBruni
now wonderswhetherthis is sucha goodidea.Likeothergenres
of writing,the funeralorationhasits rules,whichmustbe obeyed.
It requires,for example,an emotionaltone,whichin thiscasewill
be entirelyfictivesinceSalutatihasbeendeadfor sometime.It is
alsohighlyrestrictive withregardto contentandlength.Brunifeels,
in short,thattheoriginalconception imposestoo manyconstraints,
andwillpreventhimfromrelatingmuchthatwoulddeserveto be
related("ut...impediamur multa,quaerelatudignaforent,referre").
Whatis neededis a formwhichwilleasilylenditselfto the realiza-
tionof a lengthier, moredetailedandvariednarrative.35
Bruniis not explicitaboutthe alternative formhe hasin mind.
Butwhatfollowssuggeststhathe hadat leastconsidered thepossi-
bilityof recasting the materialsentby Niccoliin the formof a Plu-
tarchanbiography In orderto demonstrate
of Salutati. this,it is ne-
cessaryto reproduce a longpassagefromtheletter,in whichBruni

34 Bruni himself was to be the object of such tributes from Poggio Bracciolini and
Giannozzo Manetti: see Epistolarumlibri VIII, op. cit. (see note 4), I, pp. LXXXIX-CXXVI.
His own Laudatio in funere Othonis, written in Viterbo, 1405 (BARON, op. cit. [see note
1], pp. 535-536) may be taken as representativeof the genre: it is published by SANTINI,
op. cit. (see note 4), I, pp. 142-145. See in generalJ. MCMANAMON,Funeral Oratoryand
the CulturalIdeals of Italian Humanism, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1989.
35 Epistolarumlibri VIII, op. cit. (see note 4), I, p. 28: "Quod autem de Colucii lau-

datione significaritibi postulas, procedit sane opus satis, ut mihi videtur, luculente. Verum
quia institutussic fuerat sermo, quasi in ipsius viri funere secundum antiquummorem ejus-
modi haberi videatur oratio, saepe mecum ambigo, an praestet totam dicendi rationem sic
mutare, ut fictionem in re praesertimseria evitemus, nec lachrymis,et lamentationibusei
tempori congruentibusimpediamurmulta, quae relatudigna forent, referre.Tempori enim,
ut nosti, inserviendumest, nec jocunda tristibus satis concinne admisceripossunt. Itaque si
rationemdicendi mutavero,videor paulo amplioremcampum ad dicendum habiturus.Nam
quod de prolixitate orationis me admones, idem michi quoque placebat sicque insti-
tueram".

23
 GARY IANZITI

ponders (if only to reject) the viability of the Plutarchanoption as a

vehicle for modern biography.

But I consider it wrong to hide anythingfrom you. I speak as a friend

to a friend, that is, as if speaking to tnyself. Whether it is because of the
poverty of my subiect or because of my own lack of genius or both at once
I do not know, but when I come to weave together the threads of my nar-
rative I suddenly find I lack the warp and the woof. So that now I see that
what you so often preach is true: that we modern men are but pygmies.
Some of us may have a spark of greatness,but on the whole our lives offer
very little scope for the exemplification of glory or renown. Take Marcus
Claudius Marcellus:he captured Syracuse, defended Nola, and stopped
Hannibal, defeating him in many successful engagements;he was consul
five times, and proconsul twice; he killed the leader of Rome's enemies,
and hung the spoils of victory on the bier of Jupiter, celebratinga triumph
and an ovation. These things make him famous. Take Marcus Porcius
Cato: consider his remarks about wanting to run Sulla through with a
sword, his militarytribuneship,his reform of the public finances, the trea-
sures he brought back from Cyprus,his campaignsfor the office of tribune
of the people, the rowdy assemblies,his refusalof the consulship, his term
as praetor, the civil war, and the way he tore out his own bowels first with
his sword and then with his hand. All of these things provided ample ma-
terial for our Cicero to write about. Or take Agesilaus, who is praised by
Xenophon. He is celebrated for being descended from Hercules, for his
role as king of Sparta,for his magnificent deeds, for his innumerabletro-
phies throughoutAsia and Greece, for his girlishmodesty and for his chas-
tity, which has been commended down through the ages. I can in fact list a
practicallyinfinite number of ancients- our own as well as those of Greece
- whose great deeds are known far and wide. But as for us moderns, how
low we have fallen! What could I possibly report? What could I possibly
tell? Of offices held either within the city or without? But the "magnifi-
cence" of such offices causes me only pain. Well then, how about relating
some great deeds in war? I think a memorablebattle was fought at Peccio-
li. Could you read about it without laughing?Would I dare write such non-
sense if I were in my right mind? No, my friend, there are no more popular
assemblies, no more passing of laws, no more decrees. We are left with
good characterand learning.But even these cannot be praised in sufficient
detail unless they give rise to some great deed, extraordinaryfor the way it
illustratesa rare and noble example of generosity, fine feelings, prudence,
severity, constancy. Praise is of little consequence if it remains abstract.
You must descend to the particulars.And the particulars,if they are to
be admirable,must be rare and noble. Like Fabius when he saved Minu-

24
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

tius who had been surroundedby the enemy.By a singleact that great
generalwonthreeoutstanding victories:
he conqueredhimself,he conquered
his adversary,
andhe conqueredthe enemy.Or how aboutMarcelluswhen
he showedsuchhumanityand greatnessas to lay asidethe consularfasces
so thathe mightstandas an equalbeforehis Syracusan accusersin the Sen-
ate?Giveme thiskindof materialandI swearby God thatI wouldsooner
runout of parchmentand ink thanI wouldrunout of inspiration.But we
modems,whatdo we possessthatis eitherequalor similarto suchdeeds?
Whatthatis nobleor admirable, beyondour studiesandourliterature? So
I shallhaveto playthe latterup to the hilt, andto keeplookingarounddi-
ligently, collectingwhateverelse I can to attainthe right amount of detail.36

Let us try to analyze this extraordinaryletter. That it is an off-

shoot of Bruni's interest in and translationof Plutarch's Lives is, I

36 Epistolarum libri VIII, op. cit. (see note 44), pp. 28-30: "Sed nichil fas esse duco te a
me celari:amicus enim ad amicumloquor, id est ipse ad me. Staminaipsa, et fila nescio ob
rei ipsius de qua agitur,vel ingenii, vel utriusquesimul paupertatemmirificeme destituunt
ad id, quod exorsus fueram, praetextendum,atque ut nunc video, et ut tu clamareplerum-
que soles, nos plane hoc tempore homunculi sumus, quibus etsi magnitudoanimi non dees-
set, materiacerte deest ad nominis atque gloriae amplificationem.Marcum ClaudiumMar-
cellum Siracusaecaptae, Nola defensa, Hannibal repulsus,et multis secundis proeliis supe-
ratus, ConsulatusV, ProconsulatusII, caesus dux hostium, et opima FeretroJovi suspensa
spolia, triumphus, et ovatio celebrem reddunt. De Marco Portio Catone Syllae trucidandi
consilum, Tribunatusmilitum, aerariumpurgatum,thesauriCipro devecti, contentionestri-
bunitiae,contiones infestae,repulsaconsulatus,praeturaurbana,civilebelium, et ferroprius,
deinde manu impetitavisceralatam ad scribendumCiceroninostro praestiteruntmateriam.
Agesilaivero, quem laudatXenophon, Herculis posteritas,Lacedaemonisimperium,magni-
ficae res gestae, innumerabiliaper Asiam, Graeciamquetrophoea, puellarisverecundia, et
probata per omnem aetatem castitas memoratur.Possum infinitos pene referre de nostris
ac Graecis illustresviros, quorum latissimesunt res gestae diffusae. Nos autem hodie quam
in angustoversamur!Quid enim nunc referam?aut quid dicam? magistratusne in urbe vel
extra urbem gestos? At me quam magnificihi magistratussint, valde poenitet. An res bello
gestas?Apud Pociole credo memorabilemeditam pugnam, aut tu legere poteris absque risu,
aut ipse ego, si compos mentis fuero, describere audebo? Contentiones populares nullae
sunt, leges perlataenullae, decreta etiam nulla, mores dumtaxat,et humanitassuperest. Ta-
men in illis ipsis, nisi aliquainsignialiberalitatis,humanitatis,prudentiae,severitatis,constan-
tiae supra consuetudinemegregii ac rariexempli edita facinoraextent, satis copiose laudari
non possunt. Universi quidem generis laus parum habet momenti, nisi ad singulariadescen-
dis. Singulariavero, quae admirabiliavideri possunt, nisi sint egregia,et rara,velut Fabii sub-
ventio pro salute Minutii ab hoste circumventi,quo uno facto summus ille imperatortres
maximas victorias consecutus est: vicit enim se ipsum, vicit inimicum, vicit hostem; velut
Marcellihumanitas,et magnitudoanimi, qui fasces deposuit consulares,ut accusatoribusSi-
racusanisapud Senatum conquerentibuspar esset. In his atque hujusmodilaudandis prius
mehercule charta atque atramentummichi deforet, quam oratio. Nos vero quid simile aut
par? Quid egregium aut admirabilepraeterstudia, et litteras?Itaque me in illis jactabo im-
modice, et tamen caetera diligenterperquiram,et colligam, quo prolixitasimpleatur".

25
 GARY IANZITI

think,quiteclear,thoughthepointhasnot- asfarasI know- been

noticedbefore.37 The four ancientfigureswhoseexemplarylives
Brunisinglesout for specialmentionareallpresentandaccounted
forin thesurvivingcorpusof Plutarch. In addition,thedetailsBruni
listsshowa strikingresemblance to the orderandmannerof their
presentationin the ParallelLives.Themostobviouscaseof thisis,
notsurprisingly,Cato,whosePlutarchan biographyBrunihadtrans-
latedandwasaboutto publish.38 Butno lessconvincing in thisre-
spectarethe references to Marcellus39 and Fabius,40whileAgesi-
laus"'constitutesa moredebatablecase.
Thepresenceof Plutarch is proven,however,notonlyby thean-
cientfigureslisted,but alsoby the observationsBruniofferson the
taskat hand.Theserevealthe extentto whichBrunihad cometo

37 BARON'S last published discussion of the letter can be found in his collected essays:
In Searchof FlorentineCivicHumanism,2 vols., Princeton, 1988,11, p. 91. Baron notes that
what Bruni was planningwas "a biographyof Salutati".He does not, however, suggest that
the biographywas meant to be Plutarchanin form. There is equallyno mention of Plutarch
in RiccardoFubini's challengingreading of the letter, op. cit. (see note 32), pp. 1093-1095.
38 See Plutarch, Cato, III (Sulla), IX (militarytribuneship),XVI-XVIII (reformof the

treasury),XXI (tribune of the people), XXXVI-XXXIX (treasuresfrom Cyprus), XLIV

(praetor), LXX (death by suicide).
39 Many of the highlights in the career of Marcellus are to be found in the relevant
books of Livy's third decade. However, the campaign,victory, and triumph over the Gauls
is related in detail only in Plutarch'sMarcellus,III-VIII; cfr. PeriochaeXX. Bruni's knowl-
edge of Plutarch'sMarcellusis proven by his use of it as a source for his Commentariide
primo bello punico (1419): see B. REYNOLDS, "Bruni and Perotti Present a Greek Histo-
rian",Bibliothequed'humanismeet Renaissance,16, 1954, p. 113. Of Plutarchanderivation
too is the story of how Marcelluslaid aside his consularfasces: Plutarch,Marcellus,XXIII;
cfr. Livy, XXVI, 29-32.
40 How Fabius Maximus saved his colleague and rival Minucius is related by Livy,
XXII, 28-30, but Plutarch alone, Fabius Maximus, XIII, reports the words of thanks pro-
nounced by Minucius: "Dictator, you have on this day won two victories, one over Hanni-
bal through your valour, and one over your colleague, through your wisdom and kindness"
(trans. B. PERRIN,Loeb ed., London 1916). Bruni appears to have embroidered this
statement.
41 Plutarch'sAgesilaus is based on the Agesilaus of Xenophon and follows it closely.

So closely in fact that the editio princeps of Plutarch's Parallel Lives in Latin translation
(Rome, 1470) contains Xenophon's Agesilaus in place of Plutarch's, and subsequent edi-
tions continued to do so down to 1530: see V. R. GIUSTINIANI,"Sulle traduzionilatine delle
Vite di Plutarco nel Quattrocento",Rinascimento,s. 2, 1, 1961, p. 33. I have thus been un-
able to determinewhether Bruni's referenceshere are to Plutarch or to Xenophon. Bruni's
allusion to an Agesilausin his letter to Niccoli of 17 September 1408 is inconclusive (Luiso,
op. cit. [see note 5], p. 55), although BARON(Schriften,op. cit. [see note 5], pp. 201, 242)
leans in a Plutarchandirection.

26
 THE PLUTARCHAN OPTION

graspthe specificthrustof Plutarchan biography. Theultimateaim

Butthisis notto be accom-
is clearlyto revealstrengthof character.
plishedthroughmereappealsto abstract virtues.Thequalities of the
manto be praisedareto be madeto emergefromthe concretere-
presentation Inorderto attaintherequired
of hisdeeds.42 dimension
of exemplarity, thesedeedsmustbe in themselves outstanding: "rare
andnoble"to use Bruni'sownphrase.
Othersigns of Plutarchlurkingin Bruni'ssubtextcould be
found,for examplethe referenceto "infinitos pene...de nostrisac
Graecisillustresviros",which,thoughadmittedly somewhat vague,
does offera pairedperspective highlyreminiscent of the Parallel
Lives.All in all,it seemsfairto readthe letterin the keywe have
suggested:as an extendedcommentary on Plutarchan biography
anditsadaptability, orrathernon-adaptability,
to thewritingof con-
temporary lives.Butlet us returnnowto Salutati.
Thereis onefeatureof ourletterwhichstil needssomeexplain-
ing:Bruni'sfailureto mentionPlutarchby name,especially curious
sincehe doesmentionbothCicero,as the biographer of Cato,and
Xenophon,as the biographer of Agesilaus.Both were of course
amongthe sourcesdrawnuponby Plutarch. ButwhywouldBruni
preferto nameCiceroandXenophonif histrueparagonandexem-
plarwasin factPlutarch? Theanswerliesin the pairsCicero-Cato
andXenophon-Agesilaus. Bothwerecasesin whicha greatwriter
of antiquity(oneLatin,one Greek)had takenit uponhimselfto
praisea recentlydeceasedcontemporary. Of particular interestis
the coupleCicero-Cato, givenBruni'stendencyto identifyhimself
withCicero.43 No doubthe readhis owntask,thebiography of Sa-
lutati,throughthelensof ancientprecedent. Bruniwritingon Salu-
tatiwas akinto Ciceroon Cato,or mighthavebeen,had Salutati
beena Cato.Forhereis the keypointof the letter:a greatwriter,
a greatman Salutatimayhavebeen,but his life offeredlittlein

42 Plutarch's concentration
on characteris madeevidentat numerouspointsthrough-
out the Lives,but, to staywith the exampleat hand,see Cato,XXIV;XXXVII.
43 Bruniknewof Cicero's lost CatoboththroughPlutarchandthroughhis readingof
Cicero'slettersadAtticum(XII,5; XIII,27; XIII,46). He mentionsa LaudatioCatonisin
his list of Cicero'sworksin the Ciceronovus(1415):see op. cit. (see note 10), p. 472. The
titleLaudatioCatonisis Bruni's,andis of coursesignificantin termsof the projectedLau-
datioColucii.

27
 GARYIANZITI

the wayof materialto fill a biography in the greattraditionof the

ancients.ThusBruni'sdifficulties in forgingaheadwiththe project,
andthe cuttingremarks withwhichthe letterconcludes.
Bruni'slettershowshowhis encounter withPlutarchinjecteda
new dimensioninto the controversy overancientsandmoderns.44
The ParallelLives- at thisstagestillknownto onlya veryfew in
theWest- offereda codifiedseriesof portraits whichactedasa con-
vincingillustration of ancientgreatness. As suchtheybroughtgrist
to themillof thosewho,likeBruniandhis friendNiccoli,believed
in thenaturalsuperiority of theancients.Buthistorytoo waspartof
thiscontroversy. Forsinceat leastthe timeof Petrarch, historyhad
cometo be valuedforits abilityto represent, preserve, andtransmit
examplesof humanvirtue.45 In the letterwe haveexamined,the
superiority of the ancientsis interpreted by Brunifromthe point
of view of the prospectivewriterof contemporary history:that
superiority lies in the susceptibilityof the deedsof the ancientsto
lendthemselves to embodiment in value-loaded historical
narrative.
Conversely, the comparative inferiorityof contemporary Italyliesin
its lackof statusas a subjectworthyof historical composition. Lack
of suchstatus,one mightsay,comescloseto beingidentifiedwith
the notionof modernity itself.46
Furtherconfirmation of the close connectionsbetweenPlu-
tarch,history-writing, and the questionof ancientsvs moderns
comes from anotherof Plutarch'slives translatedby Bruniin
these years:Sertorius.The Sertoriusis especiallynotablein that
it is one of onlytwo or threeof the livestranslatedby Brunito
containa preface,in thiscaseaddressedto Bruni'sfriendandcol-
leaguein the curia,AntonioLoschi.47 LikeNiccoli,andof course

44 The impactof Plutarch on the beginningsof the Querelleseemsto havebeenover-

looked:it is not mentioned,for example,by R. BLACK,"AncientsandModernsin the Re-
naissance", Journalof the Historyof Ideas,43, 1982,pp. 3-32.
45 B. G. KOHL,"Petrarch's Prefacesto De virisillustribus",Historyand Theory,13,
1974, pp. 132-144.
46 See in generalD. QUINT, "Humanism andModernity", Quarterly,
Renaissance 38,
1985, pp. 423-445.FUBINI,Ioc. cit. (seenote 32), pp. 1097-1099andpassim,readsBruni's
conceptof moderninferiorityin termsof a polemicagainstscholasticism.
47 Published op.cit. (seenote5), pp. 123-125.The otherprefacesknown
in Schriften,
to me are:1) thatto theMarkAntony,alreadycited,withdedicationto Salutati,and2) that
firstannouncedby G. RESTA,Leepitomidi Plutarconel Quattrocento, Padua,1962,p. 29, as

28
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

Salutati,Loschihad shownintenseinterestin Bruni'sPlutarchan

project.48
Theprefaceto Loschihasrecentlybeendefinedby one scholar
as being "of scant interest".49But with regardto our present discus-
sion it offers numerous insights. First of all it confirmsthe point that
Bruni's work on Plutarch stands at the very heart of his reflections
on the controversyover ancients and moderns.50In fact, the preface
to Loschi makes it quite clear that the translationof the Sertoriusis
meant by Bruni as a contributionto an ongoing debate. Nor is it dif-
ficult to guess on which side the weight of the new contributionwill
fall: the Sertorius is intended to add new fuel to the cause of the an-
cients. It has even been invested with a particularmission to fulfill.
For some have maintainedthat while the ancientspossessed a sort of
innate moral superiority,they lacked the cunning, the cynicism, and
the duplicity in which the moderns can be said to excel.51 But Bruni
will not concede even this point, and with the Sertoriushe claims to
offer an ancient portraitin which cunning, duplicity, and wily beha-
viour are abundantlyin evidence.52Sertoriusis in fact presented as

a dedicationof the Aemilius Paulusto Pietro Emiliani.See now RESTA, Ioc. cit. (see note 13),
pp. 880-900.
48 Loschi had expressed the desire to see Bruni's translationof the Mark Antony as
early as the summer of 1406: see Bruni's letter to Niccoli, August 1406, as elucidated by
Luiso, op. cit. (see note 5), p. 24. Loschi's continuinginterestis shown not only by the ded-
ication to him of the Sertorius,but by the fact that by 1410 he had become the first to re-
ceive the translationsas they were produced; see Bruni'sletter to Niccoli, February/March
1410, Epistolarumlibri VIII, op. cit. (see note 4), I, p. 89: "Gracchorumvitam legit nunc
Antonius Luscus: cum eam praelegerit,ad te deferetur".On Loschi see now G. GUALDO,
"Antonio Loschi, segretario apostolico (1406-1436)", Archivio storico italiano, 147, 1989,
pp. 749-769.
49 FRYDE, op. cit. (see note 8), p. 38. For a contraryview, see FUBINI, loc. cit. (see note
32), pp. 1095-1099.
50 BARON, op. cit. (see note 37), II, p. 91, notes this point en passant, but does not
comment at any length. His remarksare an interesting addition to the original article, in
which Plutarch was not mentioned: "The Querelle of the Ancients and the Modems as a
Problem for RenaissanceScholarship",Journalof the History of Ideas, 20, 1959, p. 17.
51 Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), p. 124: "...ad illud tamquamarcemunicam sui erroris

confugere solent, ut dicant: antiquos illos prisca quadam bonitate refertos versutia ingenii
dolisque et faliaciis, quibus in hoc tempore homines superabundant,caruisse".
52 See Plutarch, Sertorius, I, where Sertorius is placed among the generals who
achieved victory through "a mixture of craft and ability".He was, like his counterpartEu-
menes of Cardia "given to wars of stratagem".See also X, where Plutarchwrites of Serto-
rius that "in all militaryactivitiesdemanding stealth and the power to seize an advantage...

29
 GARY IANZITI

dux",whileBrunitakesthisop-
et callidissimus
"praestantissimus
to lashout onceagainat modernpretensions:
portunity
And so therefore,as regardsthis businessof clevernessand intelli-
gence, if we want to see things aright,ratherthan be deceivedby our
own self-love,we shallperceivequiteclearlythatneitherin war,nor in pol-
itics, nor in eloquence,nor in humanisticstudiescan our times rivalthe
ancients.Unlessperhapsthereis some one of us comparableor equalto
Plato,Aristotle,Carneades,or manyothersin wisdomandlearning;to De-
mosthenesandCiceroin eloquence;or to Pericles,Solon,and Catoin pol-
itics;or - sincewe areon the subjectof war- to Pyrrhus,or Hannibal,or
FabiusMaximus,or Marcellus,or JuliusCaesar.53

The preface to the Sertoriusis best read, I believe, as a re-affirma-

tion of Bruni's long-standing interest in Plutarchan biography. It
suggests that the Plutarchan project took on new significance in
the light of the lively discussions being pursued by the humanist
circles that made up the papal entourage. From the subject of moral
reflection it had largely been in the Salutati circle in Florence, Plu-
tarchan biography became live ammunition in the controversythat
pitted ancients against moderns, and that implicitly questioned the
very possibility of writing contemporaryhistory.
Bruni's listing of ancients in the preface to Loschi also deserves
some comment.It comes very close, in fact, to providinga rough out-
line of Bruni'swork on Plutarch.By this tine Bruniwas surelyawareof
the impossibilityof carryingout the ambitiousplan announcedin the
prefaceof the MarkAntony (1404/1405), that of translating -all of Plu-
tarch'ssurvivingLives.That plan had in any case been Salutati'smore
than Bruni'sown, and had belonged to a differentcontext altogether.
HenceforthBruni'sapproachto Plutarchwas to be a selectiveone, and

wherespeed,deceit,and,if necessary,falsehoodarerequired,he wasanexpertof the high-

est ability"(trans.B. PERRIN, Loeb ed., London1919).
53 Schriften,op. cit. (see note 5), pp. 124-125:"Inhac itaqueingeniiet intelligentiae
parte,si recteiudicarevoluerimusnec nosmetipsoscaritatenostridecipere,iamvidebimus
manifeste:nec in re militarinec in gubernatione rerumpublicarum nec in eloquentianec in
studiisbonarumartiumtemporanostraantiquisrespondere.NisifortePlatoniautAristoteli
autCarneadiautmultisaliisveteribusin sapientiaet doctrinis,autDemostheniet Tullioin
eloquentia,autin gubernatione rerumpublicarum Pericli,Soloni,et Catoni,autin hacipsa,
de quacontendimus, militariartePyrrhoautHannibaliautFabioMaximoautM. Marcello
aut C. JulioCaesarisaeculanostraparesaliquosaut comparandos queuntproferre".

30
 THE PLUTARCHAN OPTION

thepreface toLoschiindicatessomething Ofthethirteen

of a direction.
ancientslistedbyname,ninebelongto thePlutarchan corpus.Ofthese
Brunihadalready translatedone (Cato),andwaseithertranslating or
wouldsoon translate two others(Pyrrhus, Demosthenes), whilewe
knowthatyetanother(Cicero) wasto be theobjectof hisveryspecial
attentions. it
Noris particularly difficultto accountforthe choiceof
thesefourversusthefiveothers.Of thelatter,two (FabiusMaximus
andMarcellus) arewellrepresented as leadingfiguresin Livy'sthird
decade.Twoothers(Pericles andSolon)areGreeks,andwehaveseen
thatBruni's preferencewentto Romanlives.Finally, thereis littleneed
to seekanexplanation forBruni'sexclusion ofJuliusCaesar.54
Theprefaceto theSertorius is therefore important asa manifesto
of Bruni'srenewedcommitment to translating selectedlivesof Plu-
tarch.It alsoprovidesfurtherjustification forthepointmadein the
letterto Niccoliof 30 March1408:i.e. thatPlutarch's modelis not
transferableto the writingof modernbiography. Theend resultof
Bruni'sworkon Plutarchseemsto havebeento reinforce hisbelief
thatmodernlives- becauseof theirinherentinferiority - offeredno
scopeto the seriousbiographer.
Thewholeissueis centralto a readingof whatis withoutdoubt
the mostimportant of Bruni'searlyworks:the Dialogiad Petrum
Histrum.Whilethe chronological questionssurrounding thiswork
arelikelyto remaincontroversial for sometimeto come,the the-
maticties thatbindit to boththe letterof 30 March1408andto
theSertorius areclearenough.55 TheDialogiindeedmaybestbe de-

54 Bruni's aversionfor Caesaris evident in the Laudatio,p. 247 ("O Cai Caesar,quam

plane tua facinora Romam urbem evertere!"), as well as in the Dialogi ad PetrumPaulum
Histrum, where even Salutati, author of the De tyranno, is made to cast aspersions: see
pp. 261-262 of the text as now edited by S. U. BALDASSARI, Florence, 1994. On the whole
question the fundamentalsource is still BARON,op. cit. (see note 1).
55 These connections have recently been made by FUBINIin his treatment of Bruni's

polemic against scholasticism:loc. cit. (see note 32), pp. 1097 and passim. In the same ar-
ticle, Fubini also returns to the vexed question of the date of composition of the Dialogi,
proposing that they were not written and released until after the death of Salutati (May
1406), and probably did not appearbefore late 1407/early 1408. This clashes with the tra-
ditionaldating, usuallyset in 1405 or 1406, in any case prior to the death of Salutati.For my
purposes it is enough to note that the Dialogi were composed sometime between the sum-
mer of 1404 (completion of the Laudatio)and May 1408 ( this terminusante quem is given
by the only letter in which Bruni mentions the Dialogi, a letter dated by Luiso, op. cit [see
note 5], p. 48, between Februaryand May 1408).

31
 GARY IANZITI

scribedasa depictionof thedebateoverancientsandmoderns,with

particularreferenceto theFlorentine of viriillustres,
tradition in this
case the so-calledthreecrownsof modernliterature,Dante,Pe-
trarch,andBoccaccio. RiccardoFubinihasrecentlyarguedthatthe
Dialogishouldbe seen as a manifestoof Bruni'sbreakwith the
cultureof late-Trecento/early-
essentiallymedieval,late-scholastic
Quattrocento Florentinehumanism, as representedby Salutatiand
his circle.56
Fromthe presentpointof view,however,whatis per-
hapsmoststrikingis the waySalutati's modelof a civic,Christian
culturehad come to investits capitalin the praiseof the three
crownsandotherleadinglightsof Florence.By the last decadeof
the Trecentosuch praisehad been codifiedin FilippoVillani's
two books De originecivitatisFlorentieet eiusdemfamosiscivibus,
a workrevisedandupgradedin 1395-1396underSalutati's direct
As the titleindicates,theDe origineembraced
supervision.57 a two-
fold theme:the firstbook rehearsedthe legendssurrounding the
originsof Florence;the secondbook celebratedthe morerecent
historyof the cityin the formof biographiesof its mostfamousci-
tizens,includingthethreecrownsandSalutati himself.Biography,in
otherwords,andmoreespecially of
biographies modernFlorentines,
formedoneof the centralpillarsof the culturalparadigm beingde-
fendedby the oldergeneration groupedaroundSalutati.
The Dialogiad PetrumHistrumneed most certainlyto be readas
Fubinisuggests,i.e., as Bruni'sattemptto settleonceandforallhis
accountswiththe oldergeneration. But by this verytokenit also
needsto be recognised thatthe Dialogicontainan undercurrent of
parallelspeculation on a closelyrelatedissue:the tradition,sanc-
tionedby Salutati,of castingcontemporary Florentinehistoryin
the biographical mode. As Salutati'sprotege,Brunihad been
steepedin Plutarchan lore,no doubtwiththe ideathathe might
one dayapplythe modelto contemporary biography.Attemptsto
get Brunito writetheLaudatio Colucciiwerea residueof theseear-
lierplans.Butwe haveseenhow,as his passionforPlutarchan bio-
graphyincreased, Bruni'sbeliefin it as a vehicleformodernhistory
declinedaccordingly. RiccardoFubinihasnow advancedthe inter-

56 FUBINI,bOc.cit. (see note 32), esp. p. 1098.

57 Ibid.,pp. 1079, 1093.

32
 THE PLUTARCHAN OPTION

estinghypothesis thatthe Dialogiwereactuallywrittenin placeof

thenevercompleted LaudatioColuccii.58 If thisis so, thenwhatBru-
ni offered- in responseto thedemandformodernbiography - was
something likea reflection on its impossibilty. In thissensetheDia-
logimay,I think,be regarded asthelogicalpendantto Bruni'swork
on thePlutarchan lives:onechiselsoutancientsuperiority, theother
outlinesmodeninferiority. TheDialogirepresent a sustained reflec-
tionon whatcannotbe;theystandin theplaceof whatmighthave
becomea moderncounterpart to the Plutarchan portraits.
Bruni'spreoccupation withPlutarchthusneedsto be takense-
riously.It is important bothin itself- as an expression of theform
assumedby Bruni'sapproachto historyin these crucialyears-
andforwhatit cantellus aboutthewiderproblemof Bruni'searly
literaryactivity.Our investigation has shownthatit was Plutarch
whoguidedBruni'sreflections on history-writing duringtheperiod
of hisresidence in thecuria.Thesereflections movedon twoparallel
planes.On the one handBrunisought,by translating Plutarch,to
makehis owncontribution to the recoveryof Romanantiquity. As
such,he participated in a policythatwasparticularly congenialto
the culturaland politicalaspirations of the Romancuria.On the
otherhand,however,and in tandemwith this eruditeoperation,
Brunitoyedwiththe ideaof applyingthe Plutarchan modelto the
writingof contemporary history.Thislatterpartof the equation,
of course,was destinedto remaina deadletter,thuscontributing
to theimpression of the 'hiatus'in Bruni'shistoriographical produc-
tionto whichwe alludedin the beginning.
In reality,as we havetriedto show,the problemof history-
writingcontinued topreoccupy Bruniduring hisearlyyearsinthecuria.
If ourviewis correct,thentheCato,theletterto Niccoliof 30 March
1408,andtheprefaceto theSertorius arealllinked,chronologically
andthematically, to Bruni'sdilemmaoverwhatto do aboutwriting
contemporary history.The dilemmatook the formof a sustained
meditation on the non-viability of the biographical modefor con-
temporary figures.
Bruni'ssubsequentcareerin history-writing confirmshis sub-
stantialrejectionof the Plutarchan optionand his embracingof

58 Ibid.,p. 1098.

33

3
 GARY IANZITI

other models. As we noted at the outset, neither the Historiarum

florentini populi libri XII, nor his other major histories were to be
set in the form of biography.59Bruni's return to Florence in 1415
saw him bring his earlier fascination with Plutarch to an abrupt
end: the Cicero novus was to some extent a biography in the Plu-
tarchan manner, but it also contained severe criticism of Plutarch's
own life of Cicero. In addition, while it celebrated the exemplary
deeds of an ancient hero, the Ciceronovus also bristled with implicit
disclaimers as to the applicability of the biographical paradigm to
modern figures, the latter seen as pitiful by comparison to their an-
cient courfterparts.60The year 1415 both marks the conclusion of
Bruni's Plutarchanperiod and offers the key to his future produc-
tion. With the composition of the Cicero novus Bruni said farewell
to an earlier passion; with the composition of the first book of the
Historiae he began to explore the possibilities of a different mode
of history-writing,one he had no doubt been pondering for some
time as the best alternativeto biography. The models here were to
be Livy and Thucydides. The accent was to fall not on the individual
but on the collectivity;not on the man but on his times.61Such a
program was in keeping with the evolution of Bruni's ideas as we
have seen them unfold in the foregoing pages.
All of which of course does not mean that Bruni lost interest in
Plutarch altogetherafter 1415. It is true that what had earlierbeen a
potential historiographicalmodel at times became an object of indif-
ference, and even criticism.62The translations,however, remained

59 The VitaAristotelis (1430) is an exception to the rule: see the text as now edited by
PAOLO VITI, op. cit. (see note 10), pp. 502-529. For a recent discussion see E. FRYDE, "The
First Humanistic Life of Aristotle:the 'Vita Aristotelis'of Leonardo Bruni",in P. DENLEY -
C. ELAM, (eds.), Florence and Italy: RenaissanceStudies in Honour of Nicolai Rubinstein,
London, 1988, pp. 285-296.
60 See the exclamationsthat interruptBruni'snarrativeat severalpoints, in op. cit (see

note 59), pp. 422-424 ("At nostre etatis homines si semel libellos legerint, si iterum ac rur-
sus pulpitum ascenderint,oratoriamfacultatem se possidere arbitrantur"),and p. 486 ("O
seculum doctorum hominum! At nunc vix est qui prima elementa proferre sciat, vix est
qui curet").
61 On this point see RESTA, Ioc. cit. (see note 13), pp. 884-886, who also emphasizes

the inadequacy of Plutarch as a model for Bruni's historiography after his return to
Florence.
62 See for example Bruni'sArgumentumin epistolasPlatonis (1427), in Schriften,op.
cit. (see note 5), p. 137: "Plutarchusvero, qui vitam Dionis scribit, in multis aberratnec

34
 THE PLUTARCHAN
OPTION

canonical,63and we can detect signs of the Plutarchanpresence even

where we might least expect to find them.64Moreover, a semblance
of the earlier enthusiasm appeared late in Bruni's career with the
publication of the lives of Dante and Petrarch (1436). It is certainly
no accident that these 'parallellives' were written shortly after the
republication in 1434 of the Laudatio Florentinae urbis,65 a work
which had significantlyfailed to mention the three crowns.66The
Plutarchanlives of Dante and Petrarch both made amends for this
earlieromission, and betokened the survival,in a minor key at least,
of a fundamentalmoment in Bruni'sformationas a writer of history.

satisaccuratehanchistoriamlegissevidetur".This maybe comparedwith Guarino'sre-

mark,quotedin note 24 above.
63 Theyarementionedby Bruniin a letterof 1441to Niccol6Ceva,Epistolarum libri
VIII,op. cit. (see note 4), p. 148, and are dulylistedamongBruni'sworksin the funeral
orationby Poggio, p. cxxiii, as well as in the life written by VESPASIANO DABISTICCI, Le vite,
op. cit. (see note 22), I, pp. 483-484.
64 See for exampleBookIV of Bruni'sHistoriae (1421),ed. E. SANTINI,Rerumitali-
carumscriptores, new ed., XIX, 3, Cittadi Castello,1914,p. 77, II, 25-41.The passagere-
lateshow newsof the victoryat Campaldino(1289)miraculously reachedFlorenceat the
verysamehouratwhichthe issueof thebattlewasbeingdecided.BruniwasfollowingGio-
vanniVillani,VIII,pp. cxxxi: see now Nuovacronica,ed. G. PORTA,Parma,1990, 1, pp.
602-603,11, pp. 141-156.It hasnot to my knowledgebeennoticed,however,thatBruni's
reworkingof the tale is basedon Plutarch,AemiliusPaulus,chaptersXXIV and XXV in
moderneditions.Comparison withBruni'stranslation of theAemiliusPaulusconfirmswhat
mighthavebeensuspected,i.e., thatBruniusedhis owntranslation as the basisforthe pas-
sageas presentedin the Historiae: see Vitae... Plutarchi, Basle,1531,pp. 157-158.I present
a fulleraccountin a forthcomingstudyof Bruni'sHistoriae.
65 On the republication of the Laudatio,andits connectionswithBruni'sofficialef-
fortsto havethe Councilof the Churchconvenein Florence,see now P. VITI, Leonardo
Brunie Firenze,op. cit. (see note 3), pp. 137-196.
66 The omissionwas significant in the light of Salutati'sInvectivain AntoniumLus-
chumVicentinum (1403)whichBruni'sLaudatiowas supposedto complement.Salutati's
Invectivaends in a crescendoof praisefor the threecrowns:see Prosatorilatini,op. cit.
(see note 20), p. 34. As for Bruni,he was alreadybeginningto distancehimselffromthis
traditionin a passagewhich deservesto be quoted:"...maximeque illud meminerintme
nonprivatimde singulorum civiumvirtuteautpraestantia loqui,sed de universarepublica"
(Laudatio Florentinae urbis,op. cit. [see note 54], p. 250).

35