Exil und Heimatferne in der Literatur des Humanismus von Petrarca bis zum Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts
Themistocles in 1417 and dedicated his version to the Venetian admiral Carlo Zeno (1333–1418). His dedication says nothing about exile. Instead, he characterizes Themistocles as a great statesman and general, and adds that his teacher Manuel Chrysoloras had stressed the inspiration one derives from the study of history and biography.5
Francesco Filelfo
After Cosimo’s return to Florence, the most noted humanist victim of the 1434 purge was Francesco Filelfo, a friend of Palla Strozzi who first took refuge in Siena and later in Milan at the court of Visconti, the traditional enemy of the Florentine republic. The most vocal and prolific of Medici adversaries, he responded to his misfortune in at least three literary genres: first, in various letters destined to form 48 books of Epistolae Familiares; then in poems he included in Book 5 of his Latin Satyrae; and third, in the Latin dialogue Commentationes Florentinae de exilio that he dedicated to the Milanese count Vitaliano Borromeo (1391–1449).
While most of Filelfo’s writings express an implacable hatred, in 1440 he composed two letters proposing a reconciliation between Florence and Milan. In Epistle 4, 2, dated 1 July 1440 and addressed to the “senate and people of Florence,” Filelfo deplores the plight of Florentine exiles, for which he blames the kind of civil discord that plagued ancient Athens and Rome:
Quid Atheniensium civitate illustrius? Quid praeclarius? Quid denique gloriosius? Quid splendidius? Haec bonarum omnium et laudatissimarum artium inventrix ac parens. Haec belli pacisque disciplina domi forisque insignis. Haec et dignitate et opibus in universum terrarum orbem praepollens atque admirabilis, ubi ad id magnitudinis ac virium ascendisset, ut nulla re prorsus ad foelicitatem egere videretur, nonne mox, posteaquam partium studia fovere, factiones conplecti, pestiferas aemulationes ambitionesque civium alere coepisset, repente ac praeceps in obscuram et sordidam servitutem corruit? Nam de Romanis quis est qui nesciat eos, alia nulla causa quam contrariis inter se voluntatibus et studiis, periisse funditus? Sive enim incipiamus dominatu regio, ab ipso usque Romulo repetentes, sive post exactos reges, senatus ac populi principatum consyderemus, intueri licet quantis ii semper in tempestatibus ac fluctibus iactarentur, quantis laborum et calamitatum praemerentur molibus ob infestas inter se mentes atque contentiones.1
(What is more illustrious than the city of Athens? What more splendid? What, in a word, more glorious? It was the inventor and begetter of all the fine and noble arts; distinguished in the practice of war and peace both at home and abroad. It was eminent and admirable throughout the world for its importance and wealth. But when it had risen to such greatness and power that it seemed to lack no element of happiness, and soon had fostered the heat of partisanship, embraced factions, and nourished the deadly rivalry and ambition of its citizens, did it not suddenly plunge headlong into obscure and sordid servitude? Is there anyone who does not know how the Romans were utterly destroyed by their conflicting desires and parties? Whether we begin with the royal kingdom going back to Romulus himself, or after the expulsion of the kings, when we contemplate the rule of the senate and people, we see clearly that because of their hostile passions and rivalries the Romans were continually tossed by great tempests and rough seas, and overwhelmed by massive struggles and disasters).
He calls for sympathy on the part of the Florentine commune:
Est enim his istis innocentibus et fortissimis vestris civibus, quos solo patrio eiecistis, caritate patria nihil carius, nihil antiquius. Qui si exilium suum patriae conducturum arbitrarentur, modice aequissimoque animo patria carerent. Sed cum manifesto cernunt per huiuscemodi naufragium suum civitatis Florentinae non modo miserabilem iacturam, sed etiam extremam summersionem atque interitum, ut et se patriae et patriam pristinae libertati dignitatique restituant, omni ope, omni opera moliuntur. Cui enim obscurum sit quibus hominibus vos talis ac tantos viros in praesentia parere oportet, qui Florentinum populum omni pecunia exhauriunt, diminuunt dignitate, spoliant gloria, libertate privant. Haec dolent viri optimates, haec ingemiscunt, haec queruntur. Nullo in vos odio sunt affecti, nulla simultate.2
(Those innocent and courageous citizens, whom you expelled from their homeland, hold nothing dearer or more important than love of their country. If they thought that their exile would aid their country, they would forego it with moderation and equanimity. But since they clearly see that their disaster entails not only the pitiful ruin of the city of Florence, but its final downfall and demise, they strive by every means and method to restore themselves to their homeland, and their homeland to its former freedom and dignity. Is it not clear to everyone that you great men must presently obey such fellows as drain the Florentine people of all their money, diminish their dignity, strip them of glory, and rob them of freedom? The men of the best party lament, bewail, and protest this. They bear you no hatred, no animosity).
In a passionate appeal, Filelfo calls for two related measures of reconciliation:
Duo vobis faciunda censeo, viri Florentini, quo rectissime et pacatissime vobis vestraeque civitati consultum sit, ut et civis vestros, viros optimatis, quos exules agitis, in urbem recipiatis, et cum hoc divino principe, Philippo Maria Anglo, in gratiam redeatis.3
(I believe that you must do two things, men of Florence, to take most just and peaceful measures for your city: you must welcome back to the city your fellow-citizens, the optimates, whom you have exiled; and you must make peace with this divine ruler Filippo Maria Anglo Visconti).
In Epistle 4, 3, written only three days later and addressed to Cosimo de’ Medici, the accomplished Hellenist cites a Plutarchan anecdote as an exemplum of rivals – both famous exiles, we recall – who set aside personal differences for a common good:
Aristides Atheniensis, cognomento iustus, cum legatus una cum Themistocle, qui cum ei erant inimiciciae, mitteretur. Ubi ad Atticae fines ventum est, ‘Vis, ait, o Themistocles, nostras hic inimicicias relinquamus? Nam si videbitur, eas rursus cum reverterimus, capiemus.’ Et pie ut semper Aristides, et quam prudentissime monuit. Intelligebat enim utilitati publicae nullo sane pacto per eos consuli posse, qui privato inter se odio dissiderent, at par esse privatam causam publicae semper cedere […]. Cum his igitur de rebus mihi tecum agendum esset, quae et ad publicam pertinent et ad tuam utilitatem, ut […] idem te monerem quod Themistoclem Aristides, operae precium duxi […]. Ex Mediolano. IIII Nonas Iulias MCCCCXXXX.4
(Aristides of Athens, nicknamed the Just, was sent on an embassy together with Themistocles, with whom he was on bad terms. When they came to the border of Attica, he said, “Themistocles, would you like us to forget our differences? If you agree, we may resume them after our return.” Thus Aristides offered advice that was pious, as usual, and extremely practical. For he saw that men divided by private hatred could in no wise serve the public good, but should regard their private interest as equal to the public […]. Since I needed to discuss these matters with you, I thought it worthwhile to advise you just as Aristides did Themistocles […]. 4 July 1440).
If only Cosimo would pardon the exiles, he would truly become the Father of his Country:
Si malueris patriae exules civis restituere quam id pervicacius expectare, ut patriam ipsi pristinae libertati dignitatique restituant, tum eris sane adversante nemine in republica princeps, tum pater patriae appellabere, tum omnes te colent, omnes admirabuntur.
(If you prefer to restore the exiled citizens to their patria instead of awaiting with determination for them to restore their patria to its ancient liberty and dignity, then you will most certainly, with no opposition, be called princeps of the republic and Pater Patriae, then all will honor you, all admire you).5
These two missives seem to represent an isolated moment in which Filelfo thought that Cosimo might be open to compromise. But in several poems in Book 5 of the Satyrae, written in 1435 or shortly thereafter, Filelfo reflects on the exile of the Florentine optimates. Emblematic in this regard is Satire 5, 5, which addresses Onofrio Strozzi, son of the famous Palla and with him an interlocutor in Filelfo’s dialogue On Exile. In the poem, which Filelfo sent on 25 January 1435 from Siena to Strozzi in Padua, Filelfo observes that envy afflicts only the most distinguished citizens, and he cites the legendary exiles (listed by Valerius Maximus) Theseus, Scipio, Themistocles,