Consulte e Pratiche della Repubblica fiorentina: 1498-1505.

Nearly forty years ago, Felix Gilbert published a seminal article on "Florentine Assumptions in the Period of Savonarola and Soderini" [Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 20 (1957).] The article was based on a reading of the Consulte e Pratiche for the period 1494-1512, and its primary objective was to provide "a picture of the Florentine political mind" during this eventful period when Niccolo Machiavelli was an official of the republic. The Swiss scholar Denis Fachard has now published the surviving records of these deliberations for the years 1498-1505, following the earlier publication (1988) of the protocols of 1505-12 [see the review in RQ 43 (1990): 397-99].

This volume begins in 1498 with the trauma of Savonarola's final days. There followed the French invasion of Milan, the civil strife in Pistoia, the threat to Florentine security posed by the forces of Cesare Borgia, and the death of Pope Alexander VI and the election of his successor, Julius II. These events, and the perils that they created for the republic, were discussed and analyzed in great detail, as were such domestic issues as the establishment of a new office of permanent standard-bearer of justice (Piero Soderini), and the perennial problem of raising money to defend the city and its dominion.

Florence in these years was a beleaguered community, in a state of permanent crisis. The unstable republic sought to create viable institutions to replace the Medicean system, to preserve its independence and its vivere popolare in an Italy shaken to its foundations by foreign invasions, and to recover the rebellious city of Pisa. These debates reveal the citizenry's acute awareness of Florentine weakness and vulnerability, and the lack of agreement over solutions to their problems. Speakers tended to be more sharply critical of their government and its policies than was characteristic of earlier generations, and much less confident in their ability to survive as an independent republic. They frequently deplored the government's tendency to procrastinate and its inability to act decisively. As their ancestors had done since Dante's time (and earlier), they appealed for unity and an end to factional discord, for sacrifices in the defense of their liberty, and for strict compliance with the republic's obligations. Honor and reputation mattered greatly to these men: "Lo stato e in bilancia di essere sempre honorati et reputati, o disfacti et vituperati in aeterno" (350). Like the appeals to authority (classical, Biblical) and to experience, these traditional prescriptions had been articulated by Florentines throughout the fifteenth century. But more frequently than in the past, speakers also mentioned the role of divine intervention in human affairs and (as Gilbert had noted) some counselors developed the Machiavellian theme of necessita as a force that limited the possibilities of human action (38, 363, 622, 841).

These debates constitute the fullest extant record of the political thought of any Renaissance community. While they have recently been explored by several scholars (Bertelli, Butters) in addition to Gilbert, they can still yield much new information on Florentine politics and the principles, values and concerns of the citizenry. They can be studied to construct a more complex picture of divisions within the political class than the standard interpretation of "aristocratic" versus "popular" factions. The deliberations during the critical spring of 1498, when Savonarola's fate was being determined, provide a fascinating glimpse of the radically divergent views held by the friar's supporters and detractors (42-71). Students of the Tuscan volgare will find ample evidence concerning linguistic usage, and a rich treasure trove of motti; e.g., "che e meglio arossire che impalidire" (37); "et dolfesi [sic] . . . che sempre si ha ad andare colla acqua alia gola" (622).

Gene A. Brucker UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY