Budáról Rómába

Rome was the centre of European diplomacy from the middle of 15th century to the depredation of the city in 1527. The formation of certain countries’ foreign representations happened in this period, the appearance of the system of the residing envoys and their spread in a wide range. In this process, when the international relations were modernized, the Holy See, the Republic of Florence and of Venice served as a model. The Roman pope as the primary head of Christianity paid extra attention to the regular connections with the particular churches. As the centre of the Respublica Christiana in the second half of the 15th century, the Eternal City became the supranational heart of European diplomacy; as a consequence every princely court and Signoria was represented by an envoy on the banks of Tiber. The diplomatic representation of king Mathias Corvinus and the Jagiellonian dynasty in the Holy See was multilevel and continuous. In my paper, I am analysing the representation of the Kingdom of Hungary in Rome in the late Middle Ages by focusing on the following questions: What status and nationality did the appointed envoys have? What qualifi cations did they have and what was expected of the diplomats?

The Renaissance at a Glance

Since its inauguration in 1869, hardly anyone who travels to Florence will miss a visit to the Piazzale Michelangelo to enjoy the panoramic view of the city. But there is more than meets the eye. In this chapter it is argued that around 1800 the panorama of Florence started to grow into an iconic view, in line with the formative role that historians began to assign to the fifteenth-century Republic of Florence in Europe’s early cultural development; an idea that culminated in Burckhardt’s characterization of Florence as the cradle of modern man. Bearing this idea in mind, this chapter investigates how the panorama, at a glace, captures the Tuscan city in its almost unaltered early Renaissance state and how it slowly grew into a popular image that conjures up Florence’s historical achievements in a nutshell.

Ficino And Savonarola Two Faces of the Florence Renaissance

The Polish version of the article was published in “Roczniki Humanistyczne,” vol. 61 (2013), issue 4. Analysis of the mutual relations between the main intellectual and spiritual authority of the Plato Academy—Marsilio Ficino on the one hand, and Girolamo Savonarola, whose activity was a reaction to the secularization of de Medici times on the other, and a thorough study of their argument that turned into a ruthless struggle, are possible on the basis of selected sources and studies of the subject. The most significant are the following: Savonarola, Prediche e scritti; Guida Spirituale—Vita Christiana; Apologetico: indole e natura dell'arte poetica; De contempt mundi as well as Ficino’s letters and Apologia contra Savonarolam; and also Giovanni Pica della Mirandoli’s De hominis dignitate. The two adversaries’ mutual relations were both surprisingly similar and contradictory. They both came from families of court doctors, which gave them access to broad knowledge of man’s nature that was available to doctors at those times and let them grow up in the circles of sophisticated Renaissance elites. Ficino lived in de Medicis' residences in Florence, and Savonarola in the palace belonging to d’Este family in Ferrara. Ficino eagerly used the benefits of such a situation, whereas Savonarola became an implacable enemy of the oligarchy that limited the citizens’ freedom they had at that time, and a determined supporter of the republic, to whose revival in Florence he contributed a lot. This situated them in opposing political camps. They were similarly educated and had broad intellectual horizons. They left impressive works of literature concerned with the domain of spirituality, philosophy, religion, literature and arts, and their texts contain fewer contradictions than it could be supposed. Being priests, they aimed at defending the Christian religion. Ficino wanted to reconcile the religious doctrine with the world of ancient philosophy and in order to do this he did a formidable work to make a translation of Plato’s works. He wanted to fish souls in the intellectual net of Plato’s philosophy and to convert them. And it is here that they differed from each other. Savonarola’s attitude towards the antiquity was hostile; he struggled for the purity of the Christian doctrine and for the simplicity of its followers’ lives. He called upon people to repent and convert. He first of all noticed an urgent need to deeply reform the Church, which led him to an immediate conflict with Pope Alexander VI Borgia. In accordance with the spirit of the era, he was interested in astrology and prepared accurate horoscopes. Savonarola rejected astrology, and he believed that God, like in the past, sends prophets to the believers. His sermons, which had an immense impact on the listeners, were based on prophetic visions, especially ones concerning the future of Florence, Italy and the Church. His moral authority and his predictions that came true, were one of the reasons why his influence increased so much that after the fall of the House of Medici he could be considered an informal head of the Republic of Florence. It was then that he carried out the strict reforms, whose part were the famous “Bonfires of the Vanities.” Ficino only seemingly passively observed the preacher’s work. Nevertheless, over the years a conflict arose between the two great personalities. It had the character of political struggle. It was accompanied by a rivalry for intellectual and spiritual influence, as well as by a deepening mutual hostility. Ficino expressed it in Apologia contra Savonarolam written soon after Savonarola’s tragic death; the monk was executed according to Alexander VI Borgia’s judgment. The sensible neo-Platonist did not hesitate to thank the Pope for liberating Florence from Savonarola’s influence and he called his opponent a demon and the antichrist deceiving the believers. How deep must the conflict have been since it led Ficino to formulating his thoughts in this way, and how must it have divided Florence's community? The dispute between the leading moralizers of those times must have caused anxiety in their contemporaries. Both the antagonists died within a year, one after the other, and their ideas had impact even long after their deaths, finding their reflection in the next century’s thought and arts.

The Machiavellian Massacre

The Italian Wars dominated the life of Machiavelli (1469–1527) who from 1498 to 1512 served the republic of Florence. As a result of his contact with some of the key figures in the wars, including the French king and Cesare Borgia, and as a consequence of his experiences of establishing Florentine military measures which failed in 1512 with the bloody sack of Prato, Machiavelli wrote extensively on the causes of Italian weakness and offered possible military and political cures. For Machiavelli the harsh necessity of war, including massacres, was a vital part of the process of strengthening Italy just as the sack of Rome at the hands of the French in 390 BC had led the Roman republic on to greatness. In this way, the Machiavellian massacre was quite different from that envisaged by contemporary humanists and it owed very little to the sinful premise of just war theory.

A REPÚBLICA DE FLORENÇA COMO A SEGUNDA ROMA REPUBLICANA NA 'INVECTIVA IN ANTONIUM LUSCHUM VICENTINUM' DE LINO COLUCCIO SALUTATI | THE REPUBLIC OF FLORENCE AS THE SECOND REPUBLICAN ROME IN THE 'INVECTIVA IN ANTONIUM L. VICENTINUM' OF LINO C. SALUTATI

<p>Lino Coluccio Salutati, humanista e chanceler da República de Florença por mais de trinta anos, foi o primeiro humanista a ligar Florença à Roma republicana. Ele estabeleceu essa ligação não apenas como exercício de erudição humanística, mas, sobretudo, com objetivos políticos em um delicado momento da história e da política externa da sua república. Essa ligação estabelecida por Salutati é, ao mesmo tempo, fruto do restabelecimento dos estudos acerca da história, literatura e cultura da Antiguidade Clássica iniciado por Francesco Petrarca, de quem Salutati foi discípulo. Esse foi um dos momentos cruciais desse processo de restauração dos <em>studia humanitatis </em>que deixou marcas duradouras tanto nos estudos humanísticos como na história política da República de Florença e no pensamento político moderno. </p><p><strong>Abstract:</strong> <em>Lino Coluccio Salutati, humanist and chancellor of the Republic of Florence for over thirty years, was the first humanist to link Florence to Republican Rome. While this link was made partly as an exercise in the humanistic erudition, it was made mainly for political purposes during a delicate moment in foreign politics in the Florentine Republic. The connection established by Salutati between Florence and Republican Rome is the result of the return to the study of history, literature and culture of classical antiquity started by Francesco Petrarch, of whom Salutati was a disciple. This connection was also one of the critical moments in the process of the restoration of </em>studia humanitatis<em>, which left a lasting mark not only in humanistic studies but also in the political history of the Florentine Republic and in modern political thought</em>.</p>