Humanism and Historiography 1

3. The Chief Contributors to the His• toriography of Humanism— Aside from the scholars whose activity lay solely in the search for classical texts, the first important product of humanist historiography was Twelve Books of Florentine History' by Leonardo Bruni (1369-1444). In this and his later mentaries' are to be found nearly all of the characteristics of the historiography of the humanist school — a moderate adherence to the canons of style of the Greek and Roman Rhetoricians, the opinion that classical rather than contemporary culture was the most promis ing field for historical inspiration, the elimina tion of pagan and Christian miracles and le gends, and a primary attention to the practical analysis of political events and activities. The standards of Bruni were adopted by his. Vene tian disciple, Marcantonio Coccio (1436-1506), known as Though he took his chronology from Eusebius, he restored to the history of antiquity some degree of proportion in dealing with the various nations by depart ing from the almost exclusive concern with Hebrew history, which had been the fashion for a millennium. Again, while he in no way foreshadowed Voltaire, that he made sonic progress toward rationalism and criticism may be seen from his placing the legend of Sam• son on a parity with that of Hercule& The great gulf between the historiography of the Patristic period and that of humanism can best be appreciateda comparison of the 'En. neades> with he Seven Books of History against the Pagans.> If Bruni was the Hero. dotus of humanist historiography and Sabellicus its Diodorus, Poggio (1380-1459) was its Ephorus. His Books of Florentine His tory' illustrate in its extreme form the influence of classical rhetoric on humanist historical literature and one may agree with Fueter that 'what he gained as a literary artist he lost as an historian.* Of a widely different character from the work of Poggio was that of the most distin guished historical critic of the period, Lauren tius Valla (1407-57). Valla's only systematic historical work, History of Ferdinand I of Aragon' was not conspicuously successful. It proved the author to be a *scandal-monger* rather than a historian in the field of narrative, though it may have been a slight methodological advance to have substituted scandals for mira cles. His achievement, for which he has re ceived undue fame in the field of criticism, was the final proof of the forgery of the of Constantine,' the authenticity of which had already been doubted by Cusanus and Bishop Peacock. As Fueter has dearly shown, Valla acquired fame by virtue of the venerable nature of the document he attacked rather than by the skill or erudition he displayed in its analysis. It was a testimonial to his courage rather than to his critical powers, which could be matched by several other humanists. As Emerton has said, 'The most interesting thing about the ex posure is the amazing ease of it. It does not prove the great learning or cleverness of the author, for neither of these was needed. The moment that the bare facts were held up to the world of scholars the whole tissue of absurd ities fell to pieces of its own weight.* More skill was shown in his 'Duo Tarquinii,' an attack on Livy's treatment of a certain phase of early Roman history. This work also showed that the most highly esteemed of secular authorities was no more immune from critical examination than venerable ecclesiastical docu ments. Valla's methods were applied by his Venetian contemporary, Bernardo Giustiniani (1408-89), to dissipate the legends connected with the founding of Venice.

Far the greatest historical scholar that Ital ian humanism produced was Flavius Blondus (1388-1463), the Timaens of humanism, who de voted his life to a study of the antiquities of ancient Rome and the rise of the mediaeval states. His chief work was since the Decline of the Power of the Romans,) in 31 books. The most notable thing about this work, aside from the careful scholarship, was the original attitude that its author displayed in his interpretation of the significance of the mediaeval period. *The novel element in the

attitude of Blondus," says Professor Burr, 'is that instead of thinking of the Middle Ages as the continuous history of a Roman Empire, as medisevals had been wont to do, he left Rome to the past and told the story of the rising peoples who supplanted her.* *He contributed more,* says Fueter, ((to our knowledge of the Middle Ages and of Roman antiquity than all the other humanists combined.* It is the best possible illustration of the canons of humanism that . its greatest historical scholar and savant was never given formal recognition or reward for his great con tribution to scholarship, because he did not possess an elegant literary style. In a more fundamental sense, perhaps, his work was given the greatest testimonial possible, in that, of all products of the historical scholarship of the period, it was the most plagiarized for informa tion by later writers. In this way it contributed indirectly to the improvement of historical scholarship, The unpopularity of scholarship for its own sake, as shown by the experience of Blondus, explains why he had but one true Italian disciple, Calchi (1462-e.1516), the his torian of Milan. Blondus was the true precut'. son of Mabillon and Tillemont.

The humanist Pope, rEneas Sylvius Pic colomini (1405-64), deserves mention in a sketch of humanist historiography more from the nature of his personal career and the in fluence he exerted on later German writers than from the value of his contributions to systematic history or to the improvement of historical method. His numerous historical works, on the Council of Basel' ; History of Frederick III> ; 'The History of Bohemia> ; History of Europe'; 'Universal History,' and (Commen taries,' or his autobiography, were superficial, without deep philosophical grasp, fragmentary and incomplete. Contrary to the usual view, he did. not even equal Bruni as an historical critic, to say nothing of Valla and Blondus. On the other hand, he was a man of action in politics to a degree scarcely equalled by Polybius or Tacitus. No contemporary knew more of Ettropean polities and culture than he, and the most valuable aspect of his historical works is the fact that they are full of personal memoirs. As a member of the imperial chancery of Frederick III and through his later ecclesiasti cal relations with the empire, his interest in German history and culture was greater than that of any of his Italian contemporaries. His significance in the development of historiography rests primarily upon his works on German his tory and his influence on later German his torians. In, his history of Frederick III he made large use of Otto of Freising and brought him to the attention of contemporaries. His history of Bohemia was probably the first at tempr of a' humanist historian to introduce ethnography into historical literature. Finally, his history of Europe and his universal history sought to bring out the interrelation between history and geography. It was in these re spects, chiefly, •that he influenced later German historians. Fueter says on this point: Sylvius was mainly responsible for the later appearance in the works of many German humanist historians of the tendency to introduce into works on history excursions into the origin and growth of law and the relations of geog raphy to historical development, to assume at least a semi-critical attitude toward the legends of racial origins, and to display a boisterous chauvinism in matters touching the question of nationality' Historical biography among the humanists was founded by Fihppo Villani (c.1325-1405) in his survey of the most illustrious citizens of Florence.. Always handicapped by the crude ness. of their classical model, Suetonius, the biographical products of the period were not as successful as the more systematic historical works. The only notable work was Giorgio Vasari's (1511-1574) 'Lives of the Most Emi nent Painters, Sculptors and Architects.' This lacks almost every characteristic of a good his torical •work, but has become famous because of its subject matter and the scarcity of other sources. It was the first real history of art.