Bruni, author of the History of the Florentine People, wrote of the greatness of the citizens and the magnificence of the city of Florence. Bruni was a man of letters and a historian who dwelled among the great classics written by ancient authors. Authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and others had tremendous influence on the views of Bruni regarding matters of city and state.

Bruni allotted many years to writing the official history of Florence. He carefully examined the ancient authors as resources for his work. The History was not released in the English language until the turn of the 21st century, some 600 years after the death of Bruni. Three authors of note are included due to their scholarly stature in the field of Renaissance history. These include Gary Ianziti, Gene Brucker, and Hans Baron. Study of the works of the ancient authors, Leonardo Bruni, and modern scholars provides a cultural history of a glorious people and the magnificent city called Florence.

The decision to write required considerable thought on the part of Bruni. Of his own admission, he waffled back and forth in the decision "to write about the deeds of the Florentine People, their struggles at home and abroad [and] their celebrated exploits in war and in peace."[1] The history was to be one of Bruni's last works added to his lifelong literary corpus. James Hankins, translator of Bruni's History, wrote, "The composition of the work was a laborious process which occupied Bruni for the rest of his life."[2] He died before finishing his work. The authorship of his twelve-volume History required close to a quarter-century to complete.

Due to the magnitude of the decision, Bruni carefully weighed the factors that led to his commitment to undertake the monumental task. The deciding factors for him were the deeds of the Florentines: their struggles, exploits, and victories. In the final analysis, Bruni chose to write due to his admiration of the Florentine people. 

What attracted me was the greatness of the actions this People performed: first its various internal struggles, then its admirable exploits against its immediate neighbors, and finally, in our own time, its struggle as a great power against the all-powerful duke of Milan and the aggressive King Ladislas.[3]

In his estimation, the Florentine feats in battle recalled the days of Carthage and conquest like that in antiquity which "displayed an equal tenacity, and deeds were performed that were every bit as memorable and important as those great events we read about and admire so much in antiquity."[4] In his deliberation of the proposed task, Bruni came to the conclusion that "these actions seemed to me very much worthy of record and remembrance, and I thought acquaintance with them would serve both public and private ends." This thought helps the reader understand the authorial motivation behind Bruni's decision to write. He intended for his History to be read for the benefit of the private, individual student of Florentine history and to serve as a public memorial to the glory of Florence.

As a scholar, Bruni lived with the minds of men from antiquity. He recognized the value of conversation with the older, wiser of his time but placed the written wisdom of the ages in highest esteem. 

For if we think men of advanced years are wiser because they have seen more of life, how much greater is the wisdom history can give us if we read it carefully! For there the deeds and decisions of many ages may be scrutinized; from its pages we may learn with ease what behavior we should imitate and avoid, while the glory won by great men, as therein recorded, inspires us to perform acts of virtue.[5]

Bruni recognized greatness: he admired the greatness of the Florentine people, he likened the Florentines to those who had greatness in antiquity, he acknowledged the wise who lived during his lifetime, and admired the wise history of times past. For Bruni, the glory of the past encourages men to virtue in the present.

In his preface regarding the reason for writing the history, Bruni acknowledged his limitations as a historian but hoped "that God will favor my enterprise and make it turn out well, since I am acting in a good cause."[6]He implored God to bless his efforts in accomplishing a good cause. By his own admission, he did not believe that his abilities matched the test of writing the history but knows that God "will nevertheless aid hard work and effort."[7] Considering the fact that he is the topic of discussion some six hundred years after the authorship of the History, one might conclude that his desired end was accomplished. Bruni respected the works of antiquity. This is evidenced in the works that he read and translated from Greek into Latin. He saw value in the works that preceded his time and applauded those authors who recorded the events of their day for study by posterity. 

For if I am not mistaken, the special duty of scholars has ever been to celebrate the deeds of their own time and so to rescue them from oblivion and the power of fate indeed, to render them hallowed and immortal.[8]

The idea of celebrating the deeds of a time bygone shed light into the mind of Bruni. Bruni saw value in the past. He intended to learn from the past. He incorporated the past into his history of the Florentine people as a tool for education. Not only did he see value in the authors of antiquity, he celebrated them and, in so doing, averted the terrible risks of oblivion and fate. 

This thinking informed Bruni's decision to write his history of the people of Florence. Without his work on Florence, the knowledge of the history of that city-state would have been tremendously void of valuable content. Without Bruni, much of the Florentine history would have fallen into oblivion resulting in a certain fate of loss. The world would not have known of the glory of Florence. This text informs the reader of his motivation. He wanted the splendor of Florence to be remembered for all time much like those authors of antiquity had informed him as a reader of their works. As Bruni considered his own motivation for writing the history, he considered the reasons other men may have had for not writing their own historical work. Bruni concluded, "Yet I suppose that each man had his reasons for remaining silent. Some shrank from the heavy labor; some lacked the ability; some applied themselves to other genres of writing. It is not hard, with some effort, to write a slim volume or letter."[9] Even so, Bruni wrote as a matter of honor and obligation. By thus concluding, he worked through the questions of importance for his own decision: Bruni accepted the heavy labor, he judged that he had the ability to write, and he decided to focus on this genre of history.

 Bruni applied his method of study to write the official story of the Florentine people. Eight years into writing the official history he concluded, "For history has two parts or limbs, as it were—foreign and domestic affairs—and it should be understood that domestic conditions are as important to comprehend as foreign wars."[10] This method is evidenced throughout the entirety of the History. Viewing his work through this lens, it becomes apparent that his focus was simply designed: foreign and domestic affairs. All of which is in the framework of the greatness of the Florentine people. This formula is repeated throughout the work. His work is long in the sense that he begins at approximately 750 BC at the founding of Rome and continues his history until his death in 1444. He spans over 2,100 years of history. The narrative is connected in the sense that he crafted the story culminating in the glorious days of Florence. The long and connected narrative was the history of the greatness of the Florentine people. He explained the cause of events explicating the before and after situations that led to the specific moment in discussion. Finally, Bruni concluded that his opinion was of value for consideration as he gave his judgment of each event. In summary, Bruni stated, 

I have decided, therefore, to investigate and write the history of this city, not only in my own time, but in earlier ages as far as memory has preserved it. The account will touch on the wider history of Italy as well, for nothing important has been done in Italy for a long time without the participation of at least some Florentines.[11]

The work of Leonardo Bruni is the chronicle of the lives of the people of Tuscany, of the Florentines, and the Guelf and Ghibelline factions. Tuscan revival is the story of change led by the people of Florence. Bruni developed many congruent themes including a detailed study of the Italian peninsula from the early days of Rome (circa 750 BC), the transition of numerous papal offices, the rebirth of learning (circa 1402),[12] the humanities and civic life emerging as a civic-minded humanist society,[13] the Medici and oligarchical culture of Florence,[14] and the brutal wars leading to the coalescing of the people in the peninsula to form one Italy. Being among the most respected scholars of the day, Bruni's work led to service as apostolic secretary in the papal office of four popes (14054–14) and as chancellor of Florence continuing during the Medici regime until his death while in office (1427–44). During his lifetime, he was a translator of classic works, historian, and civic leader. In short, he was a noted humanist. Bruni wrote about the glory of Florence as seen in the architectural foundations throughout the city that spoke of its magnificence and splendor. This splendor was given birth through the minds of those who first designed the city. Early in his History, Bruni gleans historical narrative from authors the world continues to applaud as among the greatest. He discussed two men who, in his estimation, were among the great authors of the past. 

Both Cicero, and Sallust, two great Latin writers, record the existence of these settlers. Cicero tells us, moreover, that the veterans, though excellent Roman citizens and the toughest of men, did not know how to control their spending when they found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly enriched by Sulla through civil war.[15]

Drawing upon the story as told by Cicero, Bruni shared his thesis: the magnificence of Florence is found in the greatness of its people and glory of the city. The magnificence was seen in the form of ancient remains of architecture from the time of Cicero. The magnificence and splendor of his Florence is the central idea of his History.

What the father of Latin eloquence [Cicero] says of their buildings seems important to me, for it leads to the conclusions that the foundations of [Florence], from its very infancy, were magnificent. And there still exist today remains of ancient buildings that must command our admiration even amidst the present splendor of Florence.[16]

Years later another Florentine chancellor, Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote of the greatness of Florence in the "Preface" to his Florentine Histories. This, too, was the central focus of his official Florentine history.

And there is no doubt that had Florence enjoyed such prosperity after it had freed itself from the Empire as to have obtained a form of government to maintain it united, I know of no republic either modern or ancient that would have been its superior, so full of virtue, of arms, and of industry would it have been.[17]

Bruni relied heavily upon two sources for research: Dino Campagni's Chronicle of Florence[18] and Giovanni Villani's Chroniche Fiorentine of Giovanni Villani.[19] A historian prior to the birth of Bruni, Compagni lived in Florence from 1255-1324. Villani lived in Florence from 1275-1348 as an author and wealthy Florentine merchant. Compagni and Villani chronicled early civic humanist themes but did not experience life in a civic-minded humanist society;[20] Bruni did.[21] Drawing upon standard works of Florentine history—Campagni and Villani—the maturing of Bruni's worldview had the benefit of reflection beyond that of his source histories even though he was born only twenty-two years after the last of these two men died. Together, Bruni, Compagni, and Villani form the standard texts for study of the Guelf and Ghibelline movements.

The Decision to Write the History of Florence

The rediscovery of Plato and Aristotle in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries led to a renewed spirit of classical liberal learning. Classical learning explored the great written works handed down through the ages. These authors influenced the likes of Bruni whose authorship continued the tradition of classical learning. Bruni referenced Plato in  Memoirs as he considered the value of the archives of antiquity. 

I observe the same careful concern for record-keeping in the case of Plato, who was of an earlier age, for, when we read his books and correspondence, we behold, as it were, a sort of still living and breathing image of those times. He gives an account of his youthful aspirations and his desire to participate in public affairs, the changes which occurred in his time, his travels to Sicily, the dissensions in which Dionysius and Dion were interminably embroiled and the disasters which ensued for both of them.[22]

Bruni wrote his Memoirs[23] after the History near the end of his life. The Memoirs provide, by virtue of Bruni's study of the work of Plato, a glimpse into his authorial intent. He wrote with the purpose of memorializing the past for the sake of posterity. Bruni depicted Plato as having kept historical records while simultaneously breathing life into his books and letters. For Bruni, works of antiquity were not dormant letters of dead men. Plato and Bruni alike created living documents accessible to readers for ages to come. In summary, "Clearly [Plato] wanted to bequeath a knowledge of these matters to posterity."[24] Bruni, too, wanted to share knowledge of the present for generations to come. After careful consideration, he dedicated himself to writing for the glory of Florence.

It required long deliberation and many changes of mind before I decided to write about the deeds of the Florentine People, their struggles at home and abroad, their celebrated exploits in war and in peace.[25]

For Bruni, the history of the Florentines was a history of intense conflict that led to their emergence as a glorious people. The Florentine reputation was known far and wide. He factors into his decision, 

Indeed, all Italy from the Alps to Apulia rang with the sound of Florentine arms, and even beyond Italy the People caused kings and vast armies to cross the Alps from France and Germany. In addition there is the conquest of Pisa, and if one considers the clash of characters, the rivalry of power, and the ultimate outcome, I think it is fair to call that city another Carthage.[26]

The fierceness of the Florentine military presence led Florence to their ultimate reputation as the preeminent Florentine Republic. Given his admiration for the writers of antiquity—Plato, Aristotle, Cicero—and his role as literary protege, he committed to write.  

deeds were performed that were every bit as memorable and important as those great events we read about and admire so much in antiquity. These actions seemed to me very much worthy of record and remembrance, and I thought that acquaintance with them would serve both private and public ends.[27]

The history of Florence is as grand and awe inspiring as the ancient histories. This history was worthy of writing as the chronicle of the Florentine heritage. Bruni thought of history as the wise teacher of the ages. To study history, according to Bruni, is the pathway to understanding and making decisions for the present day. He required that one "read only the best and most approved authors … [and] to bring to this reading a keen critical sense."[28]

For if we think men of advanced years are wiser because they have seen more of life, how much greater is the wisdom history can give us if we read it carefully! For there the deeds and decisions of many ages may be scrutinized; from its pages we may learn with ease what behavior we should imitate and avoid, while the glory won by great men, as therein recorded, inspires us to perform acts of virtue.[29]

By engaging the wisdom contained in quality historical works, the actions and decisions of the past serve as teachers for the actions and decisions of the present. For Bruni, the virtue of Florence was entwined with the glory of his beloved city. The commitment to write the official history required deliberate consideration of the cost to memorialize this history. Bruni confessed his own perceived limitations as the author of this work. The task of writing such a long narrative history was no light decision but for the sake of Florence he chose to write rather than remain silent.

What held me back, however, was the labor involved in such an enterprise, and the gaps and obscurities in our knowledge of certain times, the harsh sounding names that would hardly allow of elegant treatment, and many other difficulties. Having weighed all these matters long and carefully, I came to feel that, on the whole, any plan for writing was better than silence and idleness.[30]

Even with the admission of his own limitations as a historian, he justified the decision to write by appealing to the authors of antiquity.

Would that the men of earlier times, whatever the extent of their learning and eloquence, had recorded the events of their own day, instead of letting them pass by in silence! For if I am not mistaken, the special duty of the scholars has ever been to celebrate the deeds of their own time and so to rescue them from oblivion and the power of fate—indeed, to render them hallowed and immortal.[31]

Bruni celebrated the continued internal and external conflicts. Each had its place in glorifying Florence. Bruni attributed the warring deeds of Florence as a factor in its magnificence. After giving his reason for undertaking such a monumental task, he shared his method for writing history.

History, however, requires at once a long and connected narrative, causal explanation of each particular event, and the public expression of one's judgment about every issue. With the unending burden of the task of overwhelming the pen, a history is as dangerous a thing to promise as it is hard to perform.[32]

His method for writing the history engaged narrative, explanation, and opinion. Based upon these ideas, 

I have decided, therefore, to investigate and write the history of this city, not only in my own time but in earlier ages as far a memory has preserved it. The account will touch on the wider history of Italy as well, for nothing important has been done in Italy for a long time without the participation of at least some Florentines.[33]

The seriousness with which he contemplates the task of writing alongside his desire for posterity to know of his Florence served as his reason for writing the History. He further underscored his reasoning in his Memoirs.

For I feel I owe this to my generation, to ensure that a knowledge of whatever transpired in our time may be conveyed by me to posterity. If only those of our forebears who had some literary skill had done this we would not then have been left in such a state of profound ignorance.[34]

He accepted the obligation to serve his generation in this official capacity. His work was contemplated as being for the good of the commune. Posterity, if of the same mind as Bruni, would value the conveyance of the history of Florence. 

So I will try to produce for future generations what I desire others to do, so that those who may in future care to read what I have written will not lack a knowledge of my times.[35]

Compagni was of a similar mind when he made the decision to author his Chronicle of Florence. He recalled, "For a long time the memory of the ancient histories has spurred me to write of the perilous and unfortunate events which this noble city, daughter of Rome, has borne for many years…."[36] When Machiavelli considered the authorship of Florentine Histories, he first 

thought that Messer Leonardo d'Arezzo [Bruni] and Messer Poggio, two very excellent historians, had told everything in detail that had happened from that time backwards. But when I had read their writings diligently so as to see with what orders and modes they proceeded in writing, so that by imitating them our history might be better approved by readers, I found that in the descriptions of the wars waged by the Florentines with foreign princes and peoples they had been very diligent, but as regards civil discords and internal enmities, and the effects arising from them, they were altogether silent about the one and so brief about the other as to be of no use to readers or pleasure to anyone.[37]

As a result of a lifelong commitment to historical writing, Bruni produced numerous volumes of work. Giannozzo Manetti (1396-1459) referred to him as "the most eloquent man of our time, who composed another, more elegant life of Dante in the Florentine dialect, paired with a life of Petrarcha."[38] Manetti catalogued Bruni's corpus referring to them as monuments: 

Leonardo Aretino [Bruni], born in Arezzo, thanks to the admirable greatness of his intellect was a most learned and distinguished man, extremely well versed in Greek and Latin, as he shows clearly in many different works, some of which are translations from Greek into Latin while others are his own works. His versions from Greek into Latin include a comedy by Aristophanes (to begin lighter works), a letter of St. Basil, Xenophon's Tyrant and the following lives of Plutarch: Mark Antony, Paulus Aemilius, Marcus Cato, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Sertorius and King Pyrrhus of Epirus. Then seven books of orations by Demosthenes, including his orations against Philip; Plato's Phaedo on the Immortality of the Soul, the Gorgias, Phaedrus, Apology, Crito, and Letters.

Further,

He also translated from Greek into Latin Aristotle's two books on Economics, the ten on Ethics and the eight on Politics, all in such a way that, marvelous to relate, they do not seem to lack any rhetorical ornament of the original. And he himself composed, using his very own genius and prowess, the following: On Knighthood, On Correct Translation, In Praise of the City of Florence, A Panegyric of Nanni Strozzi, In Self-Defense before his Judges, The Life of Cicero, The Life of Aristotle, On Literary Study, Introduction to Moral Philosophy, commentaries on the two books of Aristotle's Ethics, and eight books of his letters.

And,

He also wrote three books On the First Punic War, a book of Commentaries on Greek Affairs, four books On the Italian War against the Goths, and two books On His Own Times. He wrote The History of the Florentine People in twelve books with the greatest learning and eloquence.[39]

Bruni referenced Cicero three times at the beginning of two monumental works: the History and his Memoirs. His mention of Cicero early in the official history and personal memoirs allows the reader to learn of Bruni's motivation. His literary lineage is connected with his literary fathers: Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Dante, and others. By examining their work, Bruni shared what interests him as a historian and informed the reader of his own authorial methods as official Florentine historian. 

The works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others had once been of tremendous value in a time when those works were consumed by the populace. These great works represent the glorious age of Greece and Rome in all their splendor, a tradition that Bruni intended to instill upon his Florence. Bruni touched on Greece and the Greeks in his history only sparingly in the context of preparing his foundation to transfer the glory of Greece to the glory of Florence. The mention of Greece was when Pope Leo crowned Charles, the king of the Franks, "with the imperial name and office. Hence was born the division of the Roman empire which still exists today, with some arrogating to themselves the title of Roman emperor in Greece, others in Gaul and Germany."[40]Charles conquered for the Church. In so doing, he conquered for all who lived under the protection of the Church. This heritage allowed for the commune of Florence to flourish and, eventually, to mature to the designation of republic.

As time passed the writings of Plato and Cicero became less accessible to the readership by reason of limitations in the reproduction of the works and linguistic barriers due to works not being translated. In the millennium between their original authorship and the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the works became virtually unknown. As Rome's power faded so did its magnificence. Many of the ancient works had never been translated from the Greek language into Latin or Italian. The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries became a time of coalescence of earlier philosophical, religious and cultural ideas into a cohesive humanist philosophy. As a philosophy, humanism found fertile soil in the minds of those willing to engage a different way of thinking. Christopher Dawson reflects the mind of the times,

This age saw the creation of Gothic architecture; the achievement of the intellectual synthesis of Christian Aristotelianism; the rise of the universities, the communes and the free cities; the development of representative institutions and the system of Estates; the rise of new vernacular literature, and a new type of lyrical poetry; the institution of chivalry; the creation of new types of religious orders, and the Franciscan movement with its cult of voluntary poverty. In all these diverse manifestations of culture, religion had a part—whether as a directly creative and inspiring force, or as consecrating and ennobling institutions like knighthood which had their origin in secular needs.[41]

"Although Dawson was writing about the 13th century, the confidence and optimism of which he writes were part of the Florentine outlook in the early 15th century after the city turned back the attacking forces of Milan."[42] Architecture, intellectual synthesis, education, city-states, literature, and religious ideas had many points of origin. This cultural state of affairs encouraged the spirit of humanism. The commune of Florence was a vibrant place to live during this time of great change. Florence, in all its glory, was a cultural center of greatness. Florence became a reincarnation of the glory of Greece and Rome. His political history encouraged belief in the greatness of Florence. The splendor of Florence was enhanced by the power that had been brought to the city-state by notable leaders. Even amid political conflict, the grandeur of Florence continued to blossom.

The Bruni texts chronicle the pursuit of sovereignty as an ongoing conflict between church and empire. Each sought dominion over the other. The historical method engaged by Bruni was to record the magnificence of Florence through centuries of civil and foreign war in Italy. The breach between the church and empire is pivotal to understanding the purpose of Bruni's History. Bruni wrote his narrative of the tension between church and empire and the direct impact conflict had on every aspect of the political state of affairs throughout the long history of Florence. 

Bruni developed pagan ideas as part of the Florentine narrative. Greek and Roman gods were wrapped in mythological narratives. The gods influenced the work of man on earth. Their influence was varied among the people. The gods had personalities that reflected the desires of man. The religious thought that emerged was of man and god interacting with one another. Their interaction often resulted in rivalry between god and man with harsh judgements to follow at the whim of a god. While religion was not the driving force in Bruni's text, it did have relevance in his History. Christopher Dawson, in his work entitled Religion and Culture, concisely placed religion as the sum of the whole matter when he stated, "Religion is the key to history."[43] The history of the Florentine people provides the story of glorious Florence influenced at every turn by its relationship to gods, pagan temples, God, and church. Classical learning, church and empire, notable leaders, and cultural uniqueness were Bruni's effort to chronicle the story of Florence in all its glory.

The Temple of Mars and Baptistery of Saint John

Roman military leaders believed in the pantheon of gods adopted from Greek mythology. Ceremonial rites were founded on their superstitious belief in pagan gods. The Romans held the Etruscans in reverence for their mastery of the ancient ceremonial rites and astral rituals. Juxtaposed to the pantheon of gods was the God of the Catholic Church. The blended cultural belief in the divine serves as part of the backdrop for the Bruni discussion of Florence. The city of Florence was originally founded by Roman victors in the battle against the Goths. The influence upon Florence by Roman religion and culture was lodged into the framework of their society. Bruni referred to the Romans as pagans. The pagans dedicated the temple in Florence to the Roman god of war, Mars. The Romans held the temple in great esteem, partly due to their desire for ancestral connection with Mars. The original structure of the temple was replaced circa 1059-1128 by the Battistero di San Giovanni (or, the baptistery of Saint John), becoming the centerpiece for the Catholic sacrament of baptism in Florence. Bruni's admiration for the splendor of Florence was, in part, described by commenting on "the temple where the baptistery [sic] is now located is an outstanding ancient structure which the pagans dedicated to Mars."[44] The Christians held the baptistery in great esteem due to their spiritual ancestral connection to St. John and Christ. Positioned as a Florentine centerpiece, the temple served as a sacred relic to Mars. Mars was the son of Jupiter, king of the gods in Roman mythology. He was known as Zeus in Greek mythology. Mars, the god of war, was the lover of Venus and father of Romulus, the famed founder of Rome. With lineage to the gods, Romulus set in order the formation of Rome that became an empire. 

The pagan temple that became a Christian baptistery served as a typology of the convergence of the God of the Catholic Church with the gods of Roman mythology. This ancient structure was sacred to the pagans, who dedicated the temple as a holy relic to Mars. The craftsmen erected the structure with great care as "the temple of Mars was built in the same spirit of emulation, for it was to this god that the Romans, superstitiously, traced their ancestry."[45] From the beginning, the people who lived on the Arno River had a sense of grandeur. The Florentines saw themselves as descendants of kings and gods. Greatness is the storyline of Bruni's History. A sense of cultural pride shrouded the raising of the temple with the spirit like that of the architects who laid the plan and the builders who constructed Rome. This spirit of national and ethnic pride was rooted in their collective psyche since they considered Mars to be their genealogical forefather. This ancestry must have been empowering and comforting to the descendants of gods. This was their myth. This underlying worldview plays out for generations to come even as the armies of the church and empire entered into the commune of Florence. Florence was to be defended at all cost against barbarian, church, and empire as nothing was to be allowed to desecrate the glory of the great republic. Thus, the glory of Florence was the glory of the gods.

Roman religious ritual was borrowed from the Greeks. These people "received the Greek name, Etruscans, which referred either to their sacrificial rites or to their contemplation of clear skies."[46] The Etruscans were the forefathers of the modern day inhabitants of Tuscany. The influence of the Greek culture has had a lasting impact on the region of Tuscany of which Florence is the center. The Etruscans were known for human sacrifice as revealed in a number of burial sites in a non-funerary context, of infants, children, and adults.[47]The  Florentines believed in their descendancy from the Roman gods, they erected temples of worship to their gods such as Mars, and they recognized a priestly class that performed ceremonial and astral rituals. The pride in their lineage and the belief in their gods contributed to the glory of the Florentine people.

Esoteric mysteries are by nature veiled to the uninitiated. Because of the secretive nature of the mysteries, the relative popularity of a belief among the people may at times appear to be less prevalent than what is known. The people of Florence held to a form of pagan ideology. Edgar Wind, author of Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, noted that Pico della Mirandola intended to author "a book on the secret nature of pagan myths…."[48] He was an original thinker who believed the soul of man was the path to reconciliation of Platonic and Christian beliefs. Mirandola was of the opinion

that divine subjects and the secret Mysteries must not be rashly divulged….That is why the Egyptians had sculptures of sphinxes in all their temples, to indicate that divine knowledge, if committed to writing at all, must be covered with enigmatic veils and poetic dissimulation….[49]

Pagan religions concealed their "revelations in myths and fables" to "protect the divine secrets from profanation."[50] The direct influence of pagan thought was present in the mind of the citizenry generally as a whole and on the Catholic in particular. Perhaps the people only had a veiled knowledge of pagan thought along side of their Catholic dogma.

The Fusion of Pagan Mysteries and Catholic Dogma

In view of the history of pagan and Catholic influences upon the citizenry, Florence was a city with varying cultural forces of change. The Florentines tell the story of pagan mythology to applaud the idea of being descendants of the gods while alignment with the Catholic Church provided a place for the divine in the form of dogma. The Florentines acknowledged the role of apostolic authority in the conduct of the Holy Roman Church while they experienced a papacy that was corrupted by men whose political agenda overpowered their sacred office. Their religion was based upon the Holy Roman Church with all the adjacent attributes of clergy, monks, and curia that administered the Holy See's work. The fusion of pagan and Catholic traditions created a spirit of ancestral strength among the Florentines. 

The Romans also adopted their religious ceremonial and cultic practices from the Etruscans—and in these arts the Tuscans are reported to have excelled all other nations—doing this in such a way that they left the older rites in the charge of their Etruscan inventors. As soon as a serious crisis would threaten the commonwealth and the Romans decided that the spirits of the gods needed placating, priests and soothsayers would be summoned from Etruria. All such knowledge of religious matters was referred to by the Romans as 'Etruscan learning'. It seems to me that the Roman willingness to borrow these things shows that they had a certain respect for the Etruscans. Imperial insignia, religious ceremonies, and literary studies are excellent and important matters, things that relate to private as well as public life.[51]

A fusion of pagan religion emerged, upon which the Christian religion was cast.  The Romans embraced the Etruscan cultic practices in religion, art, and education in private and public life. The Florentines appear to have scripted a blended approach to deity, embracing the biblical God and mythological gods. Bruni's reference to pagan mythology and Christian religion throughout the History was not simply a reference to folklore but the incorporation of Florentine beliefs of his time.

Even with pagan influence, a distinctly Christian worldview existed in which the monotheistic God was sovereign. The idea of God was woven into the fabric of Florentine society. The idea of atheism was not in vogue. Paganism and monotheism shared in the conversation. Monotheism prevailed as expressed through the religious dominance of the Catholic Church.

Hints of the Divine

Bruni acknowledged a divine being. He referred to Totila as "the Scourge of God."[52] He wrote that Florence conquered enemies "by the will of the gods."[53] Not only did the Florentines have "brave hearts," but they had "the good will of God" who ordained their relief from the crisis.[54] In an ominous time "a comet was seen in the sky which terrified men the more as they are already fearful … and it was no vain portent" because "a pestilence followed."[55] The Florentine exiles were given to prayer. "After much call of God and men to witness" they made a strategic decision as they faced "a great obstacle."[56] Bruni opined that one powerful leader had lived "without respect for the moral law [and] had done whatever his lust and cupidity had driven him to do; he had never shown the least shame before men or fear before God."[57] Bruni quoted from a speech made to the Florentine people, stating, "I pray God that He may put into your minds what will be the most salutary decision."[58] God was portrayed as the divine benefactor to the Florentine people. Charlemagne "certainly enjoyed both divine and human favor" being "truly worthy of the highest position of emperor" and deserving "to be called 'The Great' not only for the greatness of his deeds but for excellence of his many virtues."[59] Further, Bruni confidently asserted that "it is by no means inappropriate to believe that the divine power by whose generosity victory was won, with an equal generosity announced his propitious favor instantaneously to the very persons he had favored."[60] Bruni attributed the salvation of the city from "imminent danger" to being "removed less by human aid than by divine beneficence."[61] Bruni framed the cultural environment of Florence, 

For my part, I confess, as one who practices the common life and moral customs of mankind, I am moved by the things that men hold to be goods: extending borders, enlarging empire, raising on high the glory and the splendor of the state, assuring our own security and advantage.[62]

Bruni expressed his philosophy of life in Florence by means of a confession of perspective. His perspective was that of a man who had expended considerable effort in the study of Florence. He studied the ideas that made Florence great and gave careful consideration to those items that had proven detrimental to the glory of the commune. Having served in the role of advisor to popes, chancellor of Florence, and official historian of the Florentine people, Bruni had every reason to know the practices and customs common to his narrative. Glorious Florence was no accident rather the result of men who intended to increase the strength of their commune. Bruni does not state that he was motivated by religious thought or any other agenda except that which was by nature for the glory of Florence. He was a man who believed in the expansion of territory and becoming a larger presence in the growth of empire. This agenda was designed to position Florence for greater splendor. In the end, the goal was to provide a secure commune. The following Bruni text is crucial to understanding his respect and passion for the commune of Florence: "If we say that these are not desirable things, then the welfare of the republic, patriotism and practically this whole life of ours will be overthrown."[63] He offered a rare window into his idea of the commune. He argued for a form of government, the spirit of the people, and the way of life. To not give heed to these city-state virtues was certainly to lead to the demise of the magnificence of Florence. His real-life example was the issue of Lucca.

If those who would dissuade you from taking Lucca despise such things and think them of no account, they are in their turn introducing new moral standards into life; if they approve of them and consider them goods, then they must necessarily believe that Lucca should be taken, for so many goods and advantages follow together therefrom. In my view this opportunity has been offered us by a kind of divine beneficence, that we are now able to subdue to our power without danger or suffering the city from which first Uguccione della Faggiuola, then Castruccio, made dangerous war against us.[64]

For Bruni, the moral standard was to live for the good of the commune. He argued that the decision not to pursue Lucca was against the established moral standard that led to a secure Florence. Florence had not choice but to attack to honor its moral standard.

Bruni allowed that the opportunity to defeat Lucca was occasioned by the generosity of the divine. These texts provide an occasion to observe Florence from a religio-cultural perspective. The convergence of pagan and Christian thought into one worldview matured during Bruni's lifetime. The spirit of Roman mythology embedded in the birth myth of the Florentine people guided their interpretation of life in the commune. Religious ritual was borrowed from the Greeks, establishing Florence as a cultural melting pot. Even with the pagan influence in Florence, a Christian worldview emerged as foundational to their culture.  

[Bruni] wrote all this while leading a very busy life, partly agitated by the constant instability of the Roman curia, in which he served diligently for many years as papal secretary under various popes, partly distracted hither and yon by the affairs of the Florentine people, whose chancellor he was for a long time, and partly burdened by his own family cares. So his literary achievements should be considered even more admirable and praiseworthy than if he had written so many lengthy works while leading a quiet and leisured life. Having left all these monuments to his genius and served in all the magistracies of the Florentine people in a most honorable and glorious way, he died happily at the age of seventy-four in Florence, and was buried with solemn ceremony in the church of the Franciscan under a square gravestone.[65]

Scholarly Reflections on the Work of Leonardo Bruni

Bruni's text serves as the lens for the periods of time under discussion. The work of Gary Ianziti is an example of modern scholarship in the Bruni studies. His recent work serves as a secondary source that provides an exploration of Bruni's work.[66] Ianziti is an expert in Renaissance Italian humanism and specializes in the contribution of humanists authors on modern historiography. Ianziti's volume is a welcomed addition to the scholarly collection of texts on Bruni. 

Central to Ianziti's work is Bruni's authorial intent. To garner an understanding of his intent, one may consider Bruni's worldview: he was a man from Arezzo who adopted Florence as his home, he esteemed Florence in the highest sense, his life's work was centered on advancing the glory of Florence, and he was a humanist. It is an assumption to designate Bruni as a Christian humanist and a further assumption to call him a secular humanist. Bruni would not have used those terms to express his personal worldview. Bruni was a humanist who acknowledged the other worldly without having committed his allegiance to any specific concept. His association with numerous popes, his work in the city of Rome and in the Papal State all provided an environment conducive for a man to be aware of the concept of faith. The available evidence does not suggest that Bruni was a man of faith, yet nothing in his work denies faith. He wrote of pagan gods and of God, without making a distinction. In one sense, Bruni could have been referencing the myth of religious thought. He acknowledged the idea of a pagan understanding of the world even if only as a literary tool. His mind was informed by pagan thought and Catholic dogma. 

His work as chancellor and historian placed him in the presence of those who held a theistic view of the world. He was a man of letters, student of classic works, translator, historian, and a humanist. These ideas were central to his decision to write the official history of the Florentine people. His primary task was to record the lore about the glory of Florence. At times he used creative license to share the story. Ianziti proposed that Bruni's writings in general were of a secular worldview rather than a Christian worldview. Ianziti defined Bruni as a secular humanist, a humanist which does not include a Christian perspective. Bruni was a humanist who did not openly state in his History a connection to the Catholic Church as being "Christian." Yet, Bruni’s stated In Praise of the City of Florence, 

What then shall we say now, and what remains to be done? Nothing other than to thank the Creator for his great beneficence and to offer him our praise. You, therefore, omnipotent and immortal God…; and you, most holy mother…; and you, John the Baptist, the patron saint of this city; protect this most beautiful and precious city and guard its people from every danger and every evil.[67]

This is not the conclusion of a secular humanist devoid of recognition of a theistic worldview. As Bruni summarized his view of the greatness of Florence, he included reference to God, the mother of Christ, and the patron saint.

Bruni was perhaps the most distinguished Italian humanist of his era. Many credit him with having pioneered modern historical methods. Essential reading for those studying Bruni include Bruni's History of the Florentine People.  Bruni's History is the significant focal point in Ianziti's work, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past. In this thorough, carefully investigated, and thought-inspiring study of Bruni's corpus, Ianziti's foremost question is not whether revision of historical texts and lore occurred, rather the reasoning for alteration in sources by Bruni's pen. Ianziti recognized that Bruni "contended in his preface that the whole of Florentine history should be placed under renewed scrutiny."[68]Further, Bruni "indicated that he intended to reinvestigate and retell the city's past from a fresh perspective. His aim, then, was not to reprise and extend, but to reexamine and retell."[69]


Ianziti called Bruni an "avant-garde in Florence" who embodied "a new Italian scholarship" as "the new humanist approach to historiography."[70] Bruni used Villani's chronicle as a historical source "reducing it to the level of a storehouse of information that he could use freely to fashion his own radically new interpretation of the city's past."[71] Without blushing Ianziti stated, "Rather than a reworking of actual documents, Bruni's speech is pure fabrication."[72]

In the chapter entitled "Writing from Procopius" Ianziti declared, "Bruni's work can hardly be said to qualify as a leading example of humanist historical scholarship.  More often, in fact, it has been singled out as a brazen attempt at high-handed literary theft; one of the classic, textbook cases of blatant plagiarism."[73] Questioning the motive of Bruni's authorship, Ianziti concluded that "Bruni does not approach his sources in an objective quest for truth. Rather, he subordinates them to his own purposes, which include the glorification of Florence as a political power of the first rank."[74]

It is sometimes difficult to determine Ianziti's real feelings about Bruni. He portrays Bruni as a man lacking intellectual integrity yet applauds his great work. At one moment he reveres Bruni as a saint of Renaissance humanist scholarship, and at the next moment Ianziti risks eroding Bruni's value by guiding the reader to view Bruni as a second-rate historian and a first-class plagiarist. Perhaps it is fair to suggest Ianziti is as biased for and against his study (Bruni), as Bruni was biased for and against his study (Florence).

Ianziti refers to Bruni as "a critical historian" for the scholar today, ascribing to Bruni "a new brand" of political and classical historiography,[75] the moniker as inventor of literary biography in his Dante[76] and applauded him as a cultural, classical and apologetic historian.[77] Cicero is the "first example of Bruni's commitment to 'scientific' history. The work heralded the birth of the positivist historical methodology."[78] Ianziti professes that Bruni's biography of Cicero operated on an entirely different paradigm "defined not as 'scientific' nor as 'civic' but as uncompromisingly political."[79] This is one of the strongest conclusions of Ianziti's work and is the key to understanding the writings of Bruni. Bruni did not write for scientific, civic, or religious reasons but for political and patriotic reasons. This does not diminish the scientific, civic, or religious mind of Bruni, for these were not his foci. 

Bruni's first love was glorious Florence. Bruni's History is replete with his deep passion for Florence. "Bruni in this instance is working somewhat in the manner of a modern historian: moving beyond the hard data towards its interpretation."[80] The hard data "inspired Bruni's historical imagination. Historical writing was actually a form of rewriting from a previous tradition...of robust revisionism that marks Bruni's History."[81] Ianziti projects onto Bruni a postmodern historical interpretation. The historian cannot limit himself to "a mere narrative of events but should also delve into causal explanation."[82]

Ianziti's description of Bruni's work is loaded with an ideological framework of interpretation. Rather than exegeting Bruni's historical documents to discern the real life situation in which Bruni wrote, some might say that Ianziti performs cultural-historical eisegesis on the corpus of Bruni's work. Others may conclude that rather than offering a relatively unbiased study, Ianziti imposes his own theoretical agenda for postmodern scholarship upon Bruni. Consider the creative use of words such as "historical imagination," "documentary parenthesis,"[83] "Livian device of dramatization,"[84] "the Polybian sketch,"[85] "Carthaginian complacency,"[86] "Etruscan myth,"[87] "Bruni's estruscanology,"[88] "the Florentine dilemma,"[89]"revisionist project,"[90] "textual dialectics,"[91] "anti-Boccaccian strategy,"[92] "Bruni the Aristotelian,"[93]"maelstrom of party politics,"[94] "civic rhetoric,"[95] "Medici doctrine,"[96] "oligarchical culture,"[97]"paragons of civic virtue,"[98] "dangers of demagogy,"[99] "chancery propaganda,"[100] "political realism,"[101] "pro-Florentine apologetics,"[102] "Visconti imperialism,"[103] and "transient hegemonies."[104]

Of the Plutarchan writings, Ianziti asserts that Bruni had a deep commitment "to make his own contribution to the recovery of Roman antiquity" being evidenced in his translation of Plutarch.[105] Further, "Bruni's commitment to the recovery of Roman history was of course hardly a neutral issue. It was patriotic in a broad, Italian sense."[106] Bruni held a patriotic duty to his homeland "for the glory of our ancestors, lest the record of their splendid and magnificent deeds be allowed to perish."[107] "So far we have seen how Bruni rectifies, embellishes, and adds to the Polybian account. But there are also instances where he rewrites entire key episodes of the war."[108] For example, "Livy … clearly indicated that four thousand men were put to the sword. How was it, then, that Bruni, in the de primo bello punico, dared to reduce this number to a mere three hundred?"[109] Ianziti asserts that Bruni "appears to have allowed himself to be guided by something like what Collingwood called the historical imagination."[110]

Even though Bruni had "a longstanding association with the Florentine ruling elites it would be wrong to reduce the significance of Bruni's History to its role as a vehicle of Florentine propaganda."[111] Herein lies the question of the historical integrity of Bruni's work as a new Italian scholar par excellence. He cannot simply be reduced to Bruni the plagiarist or Bruni the propagandist. Bruni the protagonist promotes Florence and the Guelf Party as the heroes in a drama of the republic.  

Bruni pays "a sort of homage to Parte Guelfa. The whole purpose behind this section is in fact to celebrate the origins of the Parte."[112] "Bruni, in other words, is here placing the Parte Guelfa at the very center of Florence."[113] Indeed, this proposed argument is the strength of Ianziti's scholarly work. The "Etruscan myth" is the storyline that the ancient Etruscans "flourished across a wide stretch of Italy long before the rise of Rome."[114] "Bruni moves on from here to his famous discussion on the decadence of Rome under the emperors."[115] Bruni held that "the key to the Etruscan story is continuity."[116] "Etruria thus not only predated Rome, but it also continued to exist after Rome's demise."[117] Further, "What was truly novel in Bruni was the central core of the enterprise itself: his setting out to write the history of a modern polity, whose rationale he located outside the framework of Roman law and lore."[118]

In the chapter entitled "The Florentine Histories: A Sourcebook for Statesmen," Ianziti captures the true essence of why Bruni the plagiarist, propagandist, and protagonist all had their rightful role in the Florentine saga as chronicled by Leonardo Bruni. At times it really does seem that Ianziti has more disdain for Bruni than respect with the appearance of a kind of intellectual "king of the mountain" where he is overthrowing dead Bruni, who cannot respond to these charges. This may be the point in the book that Ianziti slipped from a complex portrayal of a complicated figure to a more biased one. Ianziti wrote, "The key to Bruni's History thus lies in its symbiotic relationship with the regime. The work expresses the values, aspirations, and ethos of a new generation of leaders."[119] To further enhance the argument, Bruni's attempts to forge a new concept of Florentine statehood was "not to add to it, but to revise it root and branch. Revisionism, therefore, did not spring from an independent critical spirit; rather, it was functional to the needs of the moment."[120]Revisionism is a loaded term in the world of scholarship today. Revision in the time of Renaissance indeed served the agenda well for the nascent regime that led Florence to the heights of power under the Medici oligarchs. "Bruni's reassessment of Florentine history is meant both to discredit the mechanisms of communal governance and to reinforce the logic of oligarchical rule."[121]


In the chapter entitled "Bruni and Biography: A Life of Aristotle," Ianziti refers to "the 'hagiographic' character of Bruni's portrait of Aristotle."[122] Bruni was not simply a revisionist historiographer but an inventor of historical propaganda. Ianziti comments, "Bruni's Aristotle should be seen as an extension of his battle to redefine Aristotle's position within Western culture."[123] Further, "Bruni did not write biography—or, for that matter, history—in a vacuum: each of his principal biographies addressed a specific text, in a dialectical spirit. The aim was to contest the established, or incipient canonical status of a rival text."[124]
In the chapter entitled "Medici Florence"  it is noted that Bruni extolled "Petrarch [as] the founder of the humanist movement—that is, modern literature in Latin—just as he made Dante the founder of volgare literature."[125] In "Bruni, the Medici, and the Florentine Histories" the chancellor's "public letters reveal him to have been a zealous advocate of Medici policy."[126] Having successfully transitioned to a role in the Medici regime "it may not indeed be inappropriate to characterize these books [Bruni's Florentine History] as constituting—among other things—a first attempt at a Medici history of Florence."[127] In summation Ianziti states, "The result was that he cautiously and quietly became the first in a long line of Medici historians."[128]Bruni was a fifteenth-century humanist who "operated within a culture of nuance."[129]  


Ianziti concludes in "The Florentine Histories: From Policy to Propaganda" that Bruni's work was simply political propaganda. His approach "served a didactic purpose" intent to reveal "the inner workings of politics to a new class of officials, diplomats, and magistrates."[130] Bruni's narrative of Florentine history was written by "an enlightened man of the fifteenth-century looking back on earlier times."[131] At this point he was a scholar and sage among the Florentines. "This is Bruni's tendency—to consign inconvenient facts to the black hole of silence."[132] Ianziti perceives Bruni as presenting "the descent into party strife after 1292 in Aristotelian terms as a corruption of good government."[133] Ianziti cautiously asserts, "Bruni may well have been committing the historian's sin of anachronism."[134] "Bruni's account is informed by the Aristotelian idea that 'the administration of justice...is the principle of order in political society.'"[135] Bruni as Aristotelian philosopher informed Bruni as Florentine historian.

"Writing from Procopius" is a reflection on Ianziti's thoughts on Roman history.  He suggests, "It is certainly quite true that Roman historians in general, and Livy in particular, tended to write according to what one student has called the 'scissors and paste' method."[136] Scissors and paste leads to a question of ownership of content and originality of authorship.  Ianziti says, "Within a historiographical epistemology ruled by the concept of autopsy, truth was not something that emerged from the rigorous application of deep source criticism; it depended primarily on proximity to the events themselves."[137] Bruni was a religiously informed man while writing as a humanist historian. Ianziti asserts that Bruni's work related to Procopius contains "no hint of moral condemnation. His detachment from such categories of judgment is absolute."[138] Bruni's "narrative is couched in the clinical language of the political analyst whose sole objective is the determination of cause and effect. One could indeed cite many further examples of this tendency of Bruni's to isolate political phenomena from moral, religious, or legal encumbrances."[139] Bruni possessed an "underlying sense of political realism."[140]

In "Memoirs of a Humanist," Bruni is quoted as saying that history "requires at once a long and connected narrative, causal explanation of each particular event, and the public expression of one's judgment about every issue."[141] Ianziti states that "such indeed were the standards set by the great classical historians of antiquity."[142] The great classical historians wrote "historia, as Bruni tells us in the preface to History of the Florentine People, [which] is a long and laborious task requiring many years of commitment."[143] The History was written by an elderly man possessing a sage-like wisdom for his beloved Florence. In a brief summary, Ianziti articulates the totality of his entire career as the protagonist of the glorious republic: 

It demands the careful study of copious source materials, which in the case of contemporary history could only mean submitting to the time-consuming process of sifting through eyewitness accounts, diaries, archival records, and the like, there being no authoritative narrative source to turn to.[144]  

Ianziti's Writing History is a worthwhile read regarding Bruni and the writing of Renaissance history. Two additional highly recommend, texts include Gene Brucker's Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378[145]and Hans Baron's The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance.[146] Brucker and Baron wrote standard texts forming the basis for much modern day Bruni scholarship. Brucker offered a historical narrative while Baron provided a critical, exegetical type evaluation of historical questions. Brucker's work focused on the timeframe of 1343-1378 as an investigation "into the political and social life of Florence during its transition from 'medieval' to a 'Renaissance' city."[147] Brucker summarized,

Briefly sketched in two introductory chapters is the economic, social, and political milieu in which the communal government functioned in these years. The main body of the work traces the history of the communal regime which was established in 1343: its unstable beginnings, its mature period of uneasy equilibrium, and the years of crisis which culminated, in 1378, in its downfall. My objective has not been to write a political narrative, but to delineate and explore the most significant problems and issues confronting the Florentine commune.[148]

 Hans Baron, in his classic work entitled The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, argued for the transition of the medieval into the Renaissance as being the year 1402. He concluded, "After this transformation of the general picture of the period, the images of some well known humanists of early Renaissance Florence begin to change; we learn to distinguish between the mere literary men—the representatives of the new classicism—and humanists nurtured on the political and social experiences of their day.[149] His chapter, "The Elements of the Crisis: Classicism and the Political Transformation," begins by defining the transition.

In the development of Renaissance thought, it is by humanists roughly coeval with Brunelleschi and Donatello—Niccoli, Bruni, and Poggio in Florence, and such men as Vergerio and Guarino in northern Italy—that Petrarch's Humanism and the mind of the Trecento were profoundly transformed; so profoundly indeed that, in the history of Humanism no less than in the history of art, the beginning of the new century coincides with the emergence of the full pattern of the Renaissance.[150]

This study considers the work of Leonardo Bruni in his History of the Florentine People. The bulk of Bruni's work has not been made available to an English readership prior to the release of the I Tatti Renaissance Library series. A void has existed in the study of this text.

Conclusion

Bruni wrote his History to memorialize the greatness of the Florentine people and to highlight the glorious city of Florence. His access to ancient authors was a factor in his ability to write his own classic work on the history of the Florentine people. Men such as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and others influenced him, which had the effect of transferring the cultural and political mind of greatness to Bruni as a worldview. Bruni saw Florence as a city of magnificence with people of greatness as inhabitants. The narrative develops as Bruni portrays the Guelfs and Ghibellines as a war engine of political upheaval. The Guelfs and Ghibellines were central to Bruni’s estimation of the greatness of the people and the glory of the republic. The entire Italian peninsula saw brutal conflict as the church and empire sought dominion over each other. The Guelfs and Ghibellines aligned with church or empire for the long and arduous wars that erupted on the peninsula. The particular lens through which Bruni observed the cultural setting of Florence was the history of both foreign and domestic affairs, the church and empire, and Guelfs and Ghibellines. The unique contribution of this study is to ascertain key ideas in the cultural history contained in the Bruni texts and to consider his contemporary authors, authors of antiquity, and to provide awareness of contemporary authors who have worked in the Bruni texts. Bruni's perspective was that of a man who spent a quarter-century of his life writing on this one theme, the glory of Florence. For Bruni, this was what mattered for his contemporary readership and for posterity. 

References

[1] Leonardo Bruni, History of the Florentine People, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 3. 

[2] Ibid., xi.

[3] Ibid., 3.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. 

[6] Ibid., 5.

[7] Ibid. 

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., 4:16.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Hans Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 46. Baron wrote of the year 1402: "At that time the role of city-state independence and liberty, in the past as well as the present, emerged in a new light." Hans Yoran, "Florentine Civic Humanism and the Emergence of Modern Ideology," History and Theory 46, no. 3 (2007): 326-44. Yoran wrote, "According to Baron, Petrarchean humanism of the fourteenth century was a nostalgic classicist literary movement steeped in medieval notions, most notably adherence to the ideal of the vita contemplativa." See, for example, Jr. Albert Rabil, ed., Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. II, Humanism Beyond Italy (Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 152-154.

[13] Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: the Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (Harper & Row, 1961), 4. "The Renaissance is a very complex period and it encompassed, just as do the Middle Ages or any other period, a good many chronological, regional, and social differences."

[14] Gary Ianziti, "Leonardo Bruni, the Medici, and the Florentine Histories," Journal of the History of Ideas 69, no. 1 (2008): 3.

[15] Bruni, History, 1:4. 

[16] Ibid.

[17]Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, trans. Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 7.

[18] N.P.J. Gordon, "Plotting Conflict in Florence 1300," Renaissance Studies 24, no. 5 (2010): 621-37. Gordon comments that Compagni "drew and extended on a historical tradition in which events illuminated underlying patterns so that the narrative revealed the civic and moral significance of the past."

[19] Dino Compagni, Chronicle of Florence (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 5-6. Compagni wrote of glorious Florence noting that "for these reasons many people from distant lands come to see Florence—not because they have to, but because of its crafts and guilds, and the beauty and decoration of the city." See also, Philip Henry Wicksteed, Rose E. Selfe, and Giovanni Villani, Villani's Chronicle: Being Selections from the First Nine Books of the Croniche Fiorentine (Ulan Press, 2012. 

[20] Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958), 353.

[21] Wallace Ferguson, The Renaissance (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1953), 2. "The Renaissance was an Age of Transition." See also, Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought II: Papers On Humanism and the Arts (Harper & Row, 1965). 

[22] Bruni, History, M:2. 

[23] Ibid., M:1-118.

[24] Ibid., M:2.

[25] Ibid., 1:1.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Craig Kallendorf, trans., Humanist Educational Treatises (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 97.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., 1:2.

[31] Ibid. 

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 1:3. 

[34] Ibid., M:1.

[35] Ibid., M:3.

[36] Compagni, Chronicle, 3.

[37] Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, 6. 

[38]Giannozzo Manetti, Biographical Writings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 3.

[39] Ibid., 159.

[40] Bruni, History, 1:68. The two additional references to Greece are in relation to events leading to the time when Florence existed in all its glory. Bruni began his historical commentary of Charles by connecting a sign from the heavens with the work of Charles on the peninsula. "At the very time, when spirits had been raised in expectation to see how Charles' undertaking would turn out, a shining star, which the Greeks call a comet, shone in the heavens with enormous, brilliant rays for nearly three months" (2:84). For the final reference to Greeks see 3:44.

[41] Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2013), 153. 

[42] Jewell, Jason. Google Document Thread. Faulkner University. May 28, 2016.

[43] Ibid., 37.

[44] Bruni, History, 1:4. 

[45] Ibid., 1.5.

[46] Ibid., 1.13. Wayne Shumaker, The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: Study in Intellectual Patterns (University of California Press, 2009), 43. The reference to "contemplation of clear skies" is a reference to observing the skies for zodiacal signs.

[47] Nancy de Grummond, "Cult of the Kiln," Archaeology 54, no. 1 (2001): 58-61.

[48] Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, Revised ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1969), 17.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Bruni, History, 1.20. 

[52] Ibid., 1.63. 

[53] Ibid., 2.13.

[54] Ibid., 5.153.

[55] Ibid., 6.91. 

[56] Ibid., 6.93. 

[57] Ibid., 7.22.

[58] Ibid., 7.49.

[59] Ibid., 1.73.

[60] Ibid., 4.11.

[61] Ibid., 5.156.

[62] Ibid., 6.5.

[63] Ibid. 

[64] Ibid.

[65] Manetti, 159.

[66] Gary Ianziti, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012). 

[67] Margaret King, Renaissance Humanism: an Anthology of Sources (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2014), 77.

[68] Ianziti, Writing History, 93.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid., 2, 5, 9. 

[71] Ibid., 9.

[72] Ibid., 224.

[73] Ibid., 278.

[74] Ibid., 8. 

[75] Ibid., 191, 147, 211.

[76] Ibid., 177. 

[77] Ibid., 171, 211, 233.

[78] Ibid., 46.

[79] Ibid., 60.

[80] Ibid., 83.

[81] Ibid., 281, 110.  

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid., 75.

[84] Ibid., 82.

[85] Ibid., 85.

[86] Ibid., 84.

[87] Ibid., 106.

[88] Ibid., 108.

[89] Ibid., 125. 

[90] Ibid., 130.

[91] Ibid., 150.

[92] Ibid., 180.

[93] Ibid., 80. 

[94] Ibid., 185.

[95] Ibid., 187.

[96] Ibid.

[97] Ibid., 188.

[98] Ibid., 191.

[99] Ibid., 197.

[100] Ibid., 210.

[101] Ibid., 215.

[102] Ibid., 221.

[103] Ibid., 240.

[104] Ibid., 255.

[105] Ibid., 41.

[106] Ibid., 32.

[107] Ibid., 66.

[108] Ibid., 75.

[109] Ibid., 86.

[110] Ibid., 75.

[111] Ibid., 92.

[112] Ibid., 98. 

[113] Ibid.

[114] Ibid., 106.

[115] Ibid.

[116] Ibid.

[117] Ibid., 107.

[118] Ibid., 109.

[119] Ibid., 118.

[120] Ibid.

[121] Ibid, 129.

[122] Ibid., 148.

[123] Ibid., 149. 

[124] Ibid., 150.

[125] Ibid., 178.

[126] Ibid., 187.

[127] Ibid., 189.

[128] Ibid., 203. 

[129] Ibid., 193.

[130] Ibid., 203.

[131] Ibid., 212.

[132] Ibid., 230.

[133] Ibid., 140. 

[134] Ibid., 141.

[135] Ibid., 139.

[136] Ibid., 280. 

[137] Ibid.

[138] Ibid., 295.

[139] Ibid.

[140] Ibid., 296.

[141] Ibid., 269.

[142] Ibid. 

[143] Ibid., 273.

[144] Ibid.

[145] Gene A. Brucker, Florentine Politics and Society, 1343-1378, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.

[146] Hans Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).

[147] Brucker, Florentine Politics, vii.

[148] Ibid.

[149] Baron, Crisis, xxvii-xxviii.

[150] Ibid., 3.

Share this article
The link has been copied!