Forms of Conflict and Rivalries in Renaissance Europe

283 Pages·2015·2.847 MB·English

by  Marc Laureys, Jill Kraye, David A Lines (eds.)

Super alta perennis
Studien zur Wirkung der Klassischen Antike
Band 17
Herausgegebenvon
Uwe Baumann, Marc Laureys und Winfried Schmitz
David A. Lines / Marc Laureys / Jill Kraye (eds.)
Forms of Conflict and Rivalries
in Renaissance Europe
V&R unipress
Bonn University Press
® MIX
Papierausverantwor-
tungsvollenQuellen
www.fsc.org FSC®C083411
BibliografischeInformationderDeutschenNationalbibliothek
DieDeutscheNationalbibliothekverzeichnetdiesePublikationinderDeutschen
Nationalbibliografie;detailliertebibliografischeDatensindimInternetüber
http://dnb.d-nb.deabrufbar.
ISBN978-3-8471-0409-4
ISBN978-3-8470-0409-7(E-Book)
VeröffentlichungenderBonnUniversityPress
erscheinenimVerlagV&RunipressGmbH.
GedrucktmitfreundlicherUnterstützungdes„LeverhulmeTrustInternationalNetwork“
(Großbritannien)zumThema„RenaissanceConflictandRivalries:CulturalPolemicsinEurope,
c.1300–c.1650“undderPhilosophischenFakultätderUniversitätBonn.
(cid:211)2015,V&RunipressinGöttingen/www.v-r.de
AlleRechtevorbehalten.DasWerkundseineTeilesindurheberrechtlichgeschützt.Jede
VerwertunginanderenalsdengesetzlichzugelassenenFällenbedarfdervorherigen
schriftlichenEinwilligungdesVerlages.
PrintedinGermany.
Titelbild:LucadellaRobbia,relieffortheFlorentinecampanile,c.1437(Foto:WarburgInstitute,
PhotographicCollection,outofcopyright)
DruckundBindung:CPIbuchbuecher.deGmbH,Birkach
GedrucktaufalterungsbeständigemPapier.
Contents
DavidA.Lines/MarcLaureys/JillKraye
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
JeroenDeKeyser
FrancescoFilelfo’sFeudwithPoggioBracciolini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ConcettaBianca
Contentiosaedisputationesagliesordidellastampa . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
DonatellaCoppini
LapolemicadeimitationefraAngeloPolizianoePaoloCortesi.Dalla
linguadiCiceroneallalinguadelcardinale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
ArnoldBecker
Hutten’sPolemicalDialogues:LiteraryPositioninganditsImpacts . . . 61
UweBaumann
TheHumanisticandReligiousControversiesandRivalriesofThomas
More(1477/8–1535):ATypologyofLiteraryFormsandGenres? . . . . . 79
GuidoGiglioni
ScaligerversusCardanoversusScaliger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
IreneReginato/EugenioBurgio
FoundationMythsandTradeConflicts:Ramusio,theFourthCrusade
andtheVenetianMerchants’CrisisintheSixteenthCentury . . . . . . . 131
AlessioCotugno
LeAnnotationidiPiccolominielaPoeticadiCastelvetroaconfronto:
tecnicaargomentativa,vocabolariocritico,dispositiviesegetici . . . . . . 161
6 Contents
EugenioRefini
TheCourtierandthePhilosopher’sStone:DialogueandConflictinFabio
Glissenti’sDiscorsimorali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
IreneVerziagi
FormedellapolemicaantiprotestanteeantigesuiticaneiRagguaglidi
ParnasodiTraianoBoccalini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Paul-AlexisMellet
Lesremontrances :uneexpressionparadoxaledelasociƒtƒpolitique
(XVI(cid:192)mesi(cid:192)cle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
IndexNominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
David A. Lines / Marc Laureys / Jill Kraye
Foreword
Betweenaround1300and1650,inaperiodoftenevokedforitsextraordinary
cultural ferment, Europe was riven by a series of momentous social, cultural,
intellectual,andreligiouscontrasts.Prominentaspectsofthenewstateofaffairs
werevehementdebates(regarding,forexample,thestatusofthefigurativearts,
the value of the vernacular, the relationship of the disciplines, or posed as
contrasts between Aristotle and Plato, mathematics and natural philosophy,
Gothic and Neoclassical styles, monarchy and republicanism, the Catholic
Church and Protestant reform), invectives, and physical clashes and violence,
culminatinginthedisastrousThirtyYears’War.Inaddition,newdevelopments
such as the invention of printing, the discovery of the Americas, the con-
frontationwithIslamandtheOttoman Empire,andtheapplicationofmathe-
maticstoscienceledtothecoexistenceofestablishedandnewerworldviewsand
practices,whichviedwitheachotherforacceptanceandstatus.Webelievethat
this culture of opposition, contention, confrontation, and competition (well
captured by the German term Streitkultur)1 was in many ways central to the
period’s cultural achievements. It was prominent in both the socio-political
realmandintheliterary,artistic,legal,religious,andphilosophicalproduction
of the Renaissance, and functioned as a catalyst for a wide range of cultural
developments.
Inordertoanalysethisrelationshipbetweenconflictandculturalproduction
onabroadscale,scholarsfromvariousinstitutionshavebandedtogetherinan
internationalnetwork.WiththesupportoftheLeverhulmeTrust,aprojecthas
1 ThetermStreitkulturfirstaroseinthe1980samongsocialscientistsandwasthenpickedupin
politicalcontextstodenotefairnessandopennessinpoliticaldebatesasanecessaryrequi-
rementofademocraticsociety;seeSarcinelli(1990).Itisnowusedinvarioussenses.Inthe
context of German scholarship surrounding the historical development of ‘the culture of
conflict’, especially, the term can denote either verbal and physical violence as a social
practice,amodeofcommunicationandinteractionornon-violentexchangeandnegotiation
ofconflictingviewsandinterests.ThisdistinctionispointedoutbySchwerhoff(2013),215–
216.
8 DavidA.Lines/MarcLaureys/JillKraye
beenformedon‘Renaissance Conflict and Rivalries:Cultural Polemics in Eu-
rope,c.1300–c.1650’.Theinitiative,whichrunsfromOctober2012untilSep-
tember2015, isledby theCentrefor theStudyoftheRenaissance attheUni-
versityofWarwick(PI:DavidLines,ItalianStudies)andincludesscholarsatthe
universitiesofBonn,Leuven,Ca’Foscari(Venice),Florence,andTheWarburg
InstituteinLondon,aswellas,mostrecently,theCentred’˚tudesSupƒrieuresde
laRenaissanceinTours.Oneoftheprincipalobjectivesofthenetworkhasbeen
toexaminetheissueofStreitkulturfrommultipledisciplinaryperspectives;and
wearethereforeverypleasednotonly tohavedifferentnationalandhistorio-
graphicaltraditionsrepresented,butalsotohaveobtainedtheparticipationof
scholarsfromaremarkablevarietyoffields,includingClassics,History,English,
French,andItalianStudies,Neo-LatinPhilology,HistoryofPhilosophy,History
ofReligion,andHistoryofArt.
Our Leverhulme International Network attempts to assess the role and
functionofconflictandrivalriesasapositiveagentofculturalproductionand
change during the Renaissance – the underlying assumption being that ever
sinceHesiod’sdistinctionbetweengoodandbadEris(WorksandDays,11–24)
thereexists,alongsidetheconceptofdestructiveconflictandstrife,anotionof
confrontation and management ofopposing interests thatcan be a catalyst of
intellectual creativity and cultural progress. Although there is by now a sub-
stantial literature onindividual aspects ofRenaissance Streitkultur,2 there has
been little in the way of international and interdisciplinary research into the
phenomenon. Our network therefore tries to bridge individual approaches
through a stronger contextualization of, for instance, ideas and artistic pro-
ductionwithin social and institutional realities. Although it does not exclude
physicalviolence,itparticularlyexplorestherealmofnon-violentconflictand
the nature and limits of its acceptance (artistic representations of violence,
pasquinades, invectives, disputations, and suchlike). In the process, we ask
whether‘conflict’,‘rivalry’,oranotherlabelismostusefulforunderstandingthe
confrontationsthattookplace–atboththeoreticalandpracticallevels–between
various forms and expressions of Renaissance philosophy, religion, art, and
literature(humanismandscholasticism,thedisputadellearti,orargumentsfor
thesuperiorityofpoetryoverotherliterarygenresorofChristianityoverIslam).
Importantpointsofourdiscussionsincludethefollowing:whywerepolemicsso
central to Renaissance culture, even for figures like Erasmus? How were po-
lemics exploitedto forge national/regional, confessional or professional iden-
2 BeforethecreationoftheLeverhulmeInternationalNetworkon‘RenaissanceConflictand
Rivalries’ the teammembersfromtheUniversityofBonnexploredthis topic,along with
severalothercolleagues,inaseriesofinterdisciplinaryworkshopsandconferences.Someof
theresultsofthisresearchhavebeenpublishedinBaumann/Becker/Steiner-Weber(2008),
Laureys/Simons(2010),andLaureys/Simons(2013).
Foreword 9
tities?Whatroledidthere-appropriationofclassicalrhetoricplayinmoulding
this picture of a conflictual Renaissance? And to what extent did rhetorical
formulaemaskprofessionalrivalriesandjealousiesratherthanstraightforward,
fundamentalideologicaldifferences?
Starting from the premise that polemics could be a positive producer of
cultureintheearly modernperiod,andthatthemechanisms whereby there-
lationship between culture and conflict worked deserve much more intense
scrutiny,ourNetworkhasformulatedresearchquestionsfallingintothreemain
categories:
– Forms:towhatextentwereconflictandrivalriesintheRenaissanceexpressed
through differing (e.g., verbal vs visual) media, languages (e.g., Latin vs
vernacular), and genres (e.g., invectives, pasquinades, rival translations of
theclassics,worksofscholarship,sculpturevspainting,religiousvssecular
art or literature)? What processes determined these differing forms and to
what extent was it acceptable to express notions of conflict and rivalries
throughthem?
– Spheres:inwhatwaysdidtheidentityofthewarringparties,theaudienceto
whichnarrativesofconflictweredirected,andtheparticularsocial,temporal
orgeographicalmilieu,affectthewaysinwhichconflictandrivalriescouldor
couldnot beculturally productive?Doesit, for instance, makeadifference
whether the audience is made up of Catholics or Protestants, of nobles or
merchants, of university students or academicians? What are the borders
between private and public or between personal and collective spheres in
termsofconflict?
– Management and resolution: can a trajectory be mapped of how European
conflictandrivalryunfoldedovertime,oratleastofthenorms,theories,laws,
techniques,andprocedureswhichweredevelopedinordertocontainit?In
reaction to war-torn Europe, for instance, Justus Lipsius and his con-
temporaries resurrected particular aspects of Stoic philosophy. How suc-
cessfulweretheseeffortstomanageandcontainconflict?
These topics are being explored through annual dedicated workshops. The
questionof‘Forms’wasdiscussedthroughacolloquiumthattookplaceon9–10
May 2013 at the University of Warwick. The eleven speakers approached the
subjectfromavarietyofviewpointsthatcanbesubsumedundertwoheadings:
first,the(literary)fashioningofthedebate,dispute,oraltercation;andsecond,
the (strategic) choice of medium and genre for the conflict at hand. The first
notionpertainstomattersofexpressioninspecificlanguagesandstyles,specific
techniquesandproceduresofargumentation,referencestoexemplary models
or writings,fromwhichquotationsweredrawninvariousconstructiveorde-
structiveways,and–lastbutnotleast–theappropriationofearlier,classicalor