Castiglione and Erasmus: Towards a Reconciliation?

Author(s): Guido Rebecchini

Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 61 (1998), pp. 258-260
Published by: The Warburg Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/751253 .
Accessed: 01/01/2015 09:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:43:33 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 258
and represented by juxtaposing painted
words with painted flesh, touches the series
painted just beneath the lunettes. This
contact emphasises the orderly apostolic
succession of the first thirty Popes.17 The
conjunction of the Ancestors of Christ and
the early Popes would not have been lost on
the Papal Court of the Renaissance, which,
during the ceremonial transitions into and
out of the space of the Chapel, itself
'generationis Christi seriem repraesentat,
quam Matthaeus euangelista describit'.1" In
these ceremonial processions, Julius II, the
living successor of the painted series of
Popes, together with his Court represented
the Matthean genealogy of Christ depicted
in the lunettes as well.
LISA PON
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
17 It has
long been noted that the zigzag disposition
across the Chapel's width of the Ancestors of Christ
follows that of the papal portraits, and that both series
have endpoints in the lifetime of Christ, one reaching
forward to the age of Constantine, the other reaching
back to the time of Abraham. See E. Steinmann, Die
Sixtinische Kapelle, i, Munich 1905, pp. 197-222.
18 The
quote is from De sacro altaris mysterio of Innocent
III (1198-1216), taken from the first printed edition
(Leipzig 1534, fol. 21'). Renaissance Masters of Cer-
emonies in the Sistine Chapel often cited Innocent's
text, which states that the succession of Ancestors of
Christ is symbolised in the acts of Pontifical Entrance
and Exit. See J. Shearman, 'The Chapel of Sixtus IV', in
C. Pietrangeli et al., The Sistine Chapel: The Art, the History,
and the Restoration, New York 1986, pp. 22-91, pp. 34-35;
idem, Raphael's Cartoons in the Collection of Her Majesty the
Queen and the Tapestriesfor the Sistine Chapel, London 1972,
p. 29, citingJohann Burchard, Liber notarum (1483), ed.
E. Celani, Citta di Castello 1907-42, i, pp. 112, 140, 143,
188-9, 227-8, and ii, p. 214, and for detailed accounts of
these processions by Paris de Grassis, London, British
Library MSS Add. 8440, fols 163", 173r, and Add. 8443,
fol. 221'.
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Volume 61, 1998
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:43:33 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES
CASTIGLIONE AND ERASMUS:
TOWARDS A RECONCILIATION?
recovery of the lists of books in
The Baldassarre Castiglione's library, which
I present in this same volume,' offers the
opportunity to reconsider the relationship
between Castiglione and Erasmus. This task
has already been tackled by Claudio Scarpati
in an article published in 1983,2 which seems,
however, to have had an impact only on
literary studies; it was not even mentioned
by Silvana Seidel Menchi in her book on
Erasmus's influence on Italian culture and
religion.:
Scarpati's article begins with a quotation
from a famous letter of Petrus Johannes
Olivarus to Erasmus, dated March 1527, only
a few weeks before the Sack of Rome.4 In
this letter, Castiglione and two Italian friends,
Andrea Navagero,"the Venetian ambassador
1 G. Rebecchini, 'The Book Collection and other
Possessions of Baldassarre Castiglione': see above, pp.
17-52.
2 C.
Scarpati, 'Dire la verita al principe (Sulle redazioni
di Cortegiano, iv, 4-48)', Aevum, lvii, 1983, pp. 428-49.
3 S. Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia. 1520-1580, Turin
1987.
4
Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami, ed. P. S.
Allen et al., Oxford 1906-52, vi, letter 1791, pp. 473-4:
... Baltasarus comes Castilioni, orator Pontificis, vir
utcunque eruditus, Navagerus venetus, vir utriusque
linguae eruditissimus, et Andreas Neapolitanus, indies
debacchantur in stylum tuum. Non potest ferre haec
natio quod unus Germanus ostentationem Italorum
depresserit. Nunquam sum apud eos quin illico faciant
mentionem de stylo Erasmi. "Erasmus" inquiunt "tuus
ex Latino factus est barbarus". "Tuus" dicunt in contu-
meliam, cum ipse nulla alia re iactem me ipsum quam
quod sis meus. Laudant artificium Moriae, Lucianicum
vocant. Obiiciunt uni Erasmo lovianum Pontanum,
hominem, quantum potui ex scriptis illius perspicere,
eruditum, sed mirum inmodum verba affectantem.
Stylum Erasmi dicunt nihil esse ad huius stylum. Ego
vero contra, Erasmum contendo longe eloquentiorem,
illum vero affectantem. Obieci illis inter pocula curi-
ositatem Pontani in suo dialogo qui inscribitur Actius,
ubi curiosissime agit de numeris orationis Vergilianae.
Fatentur hominem plus iusto curiosum, sed eruditum:
copiam verborum in te et facilitate velint nolint meis
argumentis laudant...
5 For Andrea Navagero (1483-1527) see the entry by
M. J. C. Lowry in Contemporaries of Erasmus. A Biographi-
cal Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. P. G.
Bietenholz, Toronto, Buffalo and London 1985, iii, pp.
8-9.
 CASTIGLIONE
to the imperial court, and Andrea Napole-
tano,6 are described as mocking Erasmus's
'stylus', his style. The three learned Italians
asserted the superiority of Giovanni Pon-
tano's Latin over that of Erasmus.7Although
the issue at stake here is a literary dispute
between Italian and Northern humanists,
this document has led historians to charac-
terise the relationship between Castiglione
and Erasmus as entirely negative. The same
letter, however, also informs us that Castigli-
one and his friends often spoke of Erasmus
and, most importantly, that they appreciated
his Praise of Folly.This work contains a strong
attack on the military policy of Pope Julius
II and on the moral decline of the clergy.
Castiglione's praise of it, although based on
its literary merits (the book is 'artificiosus'
and 'Lucianicus'), perhaps entitles us to as-
sume that they also appreciated its content.
Seidel Menchi has illustrated the wide-
spread diffusion of Erasmus's works in Italy
in the early 1520s and has also demonstrated
their influence in Mantua." Relevant to this
issue is a letter written by Mario Equicola to
Cardinal Sigismondo Gonzaga, in which
Erasmus, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, Giles of
Viterbo and the Mantuan bishop Ambrogio
Flandino are mentioned as having restored
Christian theology to its original simplicity, in
contrast to the distortions caused by scholas-
ticism.' During these years Erasmus's thought
profoundly influenced many prominent
members of the Roman church. The alliance
between humanism and religion, the neces-
sity for a moral reformation of the church,
6 A brief biographical account on this figure, whose
real name was Alessandro d'Andrea (documented 1527-
57), can be found in Contemporaries of Erasmus (as in n. 5),
i, p. 376.
7 For Pontano's influence on Castiglione see Scarpati
(as in n. 2), pp. 446-7; and P. Floriani, 'Esperienza e
cultura nella genesi del Cortegiano', in Bembo e Castiglione.
Studi sul classicismo del Cinquecento, Rome 1976, pp. 117-
51 (148-9).
8 Seidel Menchi (as in n. 3), pp. 34-40; eadem, 'La
discussione su Erasmo nell'Italia del Rinascimento:
Ambrogio Flandino vescovo a Mantova;Ambrogio Quis-
telli teologo agostiniano e Alberto Pio principe di Carpi',
in Societa, politica e cultura a Carpi ai tempi di Alberto III Pio
(Atti del convegno, Carpi 1978), ed. R. Avesani et al.,
Padua 1981, i, pp. 291-382.
9 Ibid., pp. 360-1. This is a prefatory letter which intro-
duces Flandino's work Quadragesimalium concionum liber
(Venice 1523). See Seidel Menchi, 'La discussione' (as
in n. 8), pp. 296-7 n. 4.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:43:33 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND ERASMUS 259
the desire for peace and reconciliation within
Christianity, were at the time notions openly
shared by many cardinals, who found in
Erasmus a spokesman for their own views.
He was not yet considered to be 'Lutheranus',
as later Catholic controversialists portrayed
him.
If one considers the cultural and religious
environments in which Castiglione lived, both
in Italy and in Spain, it is evident that these
were Erasmian in spirit. In Italy, among those
who took up at least some of Erasmus's ideas
were Jacopo Sadoleto and Marco Antonio
Flaminio. Sadoleto knew Castiglione well."'
In 1518 he was asked by Castiglione for
advice as to whether he should publish the
Cortegiano."Sadoleto was also a correspon-
dent of Erasmus. Flaminio, who was later
involved in the writing of the Beneficio di
Christo,one of the most controversial texts of
the Italian Reformation, was likewise a friend
of Castiglione. In a letter of 6 April 1525 from
Madrid, Castiglione asked his friend Andrea
Piperario to write to Flaminio and 'remind'
him that, since he was urged to have his Corte-
giano printed as soon as possible, Flaminio
should do the work on the text which they
had planned together in Mantua."1 It is also
interesting to note that Ortensio Lando, one
1( See R. M. Douglas,Jacopo Sadoleto 1477-1547. Human-
ist and Reformer,Cambridge, Mass. 1959, ad indicem.
11 Letter to Sadoleto of 20 September 1518, in Baldas-
sarre Castiglione, Le lettere,ed. G. La Rocca, Milan 1978,
p. 383: 'lo tra molti travagli ho scritto quel mio Dialogo
del Cortegiano, del quale parlai altre volte a V.S., et ben-
che a me non piaccia, sono sforzato dalla importunita
di qualche amico, che forse non sa piui oltre, a lasciarlo
andare. Et perche mi parera molta iscusatione con me
stesso il ricordarmi che V.S. l'abbia veduto, la priego
a dargli una occhiata, et dirmi il parer suo intorno al
tenerlo celato o publicarlo: che l'autorita di coloro che
me lo ricercano contra mia voglia, manchera presso di
me, quando V.S. mi consiglieri a tenerlo; et si anche a
publicarlo, rester6 io sicuro, et senza timore di quel sos-
petto che ragionevolmente haver mi pare.'
12 Baldassare Lettere inedite e rare, ed. G.
Castiglione,
Gorni, Milan and Naples 1969, p. 96: 'Pregovi scriviate
a m. Mar. Antonio Flamineo ch'io me raccomando a lui,
e che lo prego ad raccordarsi del corteggiano, perche
piai che mai sono stimulato a lassarlo andare; per6 s'el
mi fece mai piacere, pregolo ad exequire quello che
restassimo insieme a Mantua, et darmine aviso...' On
Flaminio see A. Pastore, Marcantonio Flaminio. Fortune e
sfortune di un chierico nell'Italia del Cinquecento, Milan 1981.
On the relationship between Flaminio and Castiglione
see V. Cian, Un illustre nunzio pontificio del Rinascimento.
Baldassar Castiglione, Vatican City 1951, pp. 154-7.
260 NOTES
of the most renowned Italian admirers of
Erasmus, in his caustic La sferza de' scrittori
antichi e modernidedicated to the Mantuan
ambassador Benedetto Agnello, gives high
This point
praise to Castiglione's Cortegiano."'
requires further investigation; but my aim
here is merely to demonstrate that Casti-
glione did not necessarily disapprove of
Erasmus's ideas.
The Spanish milieu in which Castiglione
operated during the last four years of his life
was even more Erasmian. As is well known,
Mercurino da Gattinara, the Great Chancel-
lor, played an important role in the diffusion
of Erasmus's ideas at the imperial court.
Mercurino also had great esteem for Casti-
glione. Marcel Bataillon has shown how
Erasmian ideas allowed Spanish officials to
regard an anti-Roman policy as compatible
with orthodox Catholicism.)4
The Sack of Rome was a disruptive and
shattering event. It brought to a conclusion a
long period of tension and forced individ-
uals to choose between defending Rome or
regarding the destruction as a divine punish-
ment for the sins committed by the papacy.
The latter view was expressed by the secretary
of Mercurino da Gattinara,Alfonso de Valdes,
in his Didlogo de las cosas acaecidasen Roma.l"
Castiglione, as papal nuncio, had to argue
that what had happened in Rome was a
horrible massacre, which threatened the ex-
istence of the Holy Church. The virulence of
Castiglione's lengthy attack on Valdes must
be seen in the light of his need to clarify his
13 Ortensio Lando, La sferza de' scrittori antichi e moderni
(1550), ed. P. Procaccioli, Rome 1995, p. 79: '... se ci
havrete il Cortegianodel Conte da Castiglione, ben dir
potrete d'haverci l'idea di tutte le virtfi. Sovviemmi che
sendo io in Napoli, detto mi fu da Signor Mario Galeota,
cavallier di finissimo giudicio, ch'egli vorrebbe pifi tosto
haver scritto il Cortegiano anzi che il Decamerone ...' In
Procaccioli's introduction there is a complete bibliog-
raphy of works by and on Lando.
14 M. Bataillon, Erasme et l'Espagne, ed. C. Amiel,
Geneva 1991. See also, for the policy of Pope Clement
VII, A. Prosperi, Tra evangelisnio e controriforma, G. M.
Giberti (1495-1543), Rome 1969. On the delicate pos-
ition of Castiglione at the court of Charles V seeJ. Guidi,
'L'Espagne dans la vie et dans l'oeuvre de B. Castiglione:
De l'equilibre Franco-Hispanique au choix Imperial',
Presence et influence de l'Espagne dans la culture Italienne de
la Renaissance,pp. 113-202 (for the reactions to the Sack
of Rome esp. pp. 192-199).
15 Alfonso de Valdes, Didlogo de las cosas acaecidas en
Roma,ed. R. Navarro Durin, Madrid 1994.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:43:33 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
personal position,16 especially since he had
been accused of failing to inform the pope
about what was going to happen.17
The only evidence which indicates any
antagonism towards Erasmus on Castiglione's
part is therefore related either to a human-
istic dispute or to a major political struggle.
There is no unequivocal proof that Castigli-
one was unsympathetic to Erasmus's moral
and religious ideas. On the contrary, and
as Scarpati has shown,1' Castiglione made
extensive use in his Libro del Cortegianoof
the InstitutioprincipisChristiani,paraphrasing
entire passages, as well as of Erasmus's trans-
lations of two of Plutarch's moral treatises.'1
The evidence brought to light by Castigli-
one's inventories shows that Erasmus was the
best-represented contemporary author in his
library. In Mantua Castiglione left behind
Erasmus's Institutio and the rarer Spongia." In
the 1530 inventory of books taken from Spain
to Mantua, three entries refer to Erasmus's
works: these are the famous editions of the
Gospels published in 1523-4.21
Castiglione was therefore well aware of
the value of Erasmus's works; and it seems
reasonable to assume that he appreciated the
Dutch humanist's philological approach to
the Scriptures. The presence in his library
of four volumes of the Biblia Complutensis"2
points to the same conclusion.
GUIDO REBECCHINI
THE WARBURG INSTITUTE
16 The letter is published in B. Castiglione, II libro
del 'Cortegiano' con una scelta delle opere minori di Baldesar
Castiglione,ed. B. Maier, Turin 1973, pp. 651-99. On this
dispute see M. Morreale, 'Para una lectura de la diatriba
entre Castiglione y Alfonso de Valdes sobre el saco de
Roma', Nebrija y la introduction del Renacimiento en Espaifa,
ed. V. G. de la Concha, Salamanca 1983, pp. 65-103.
17 See the letter of 9 November 1527 from Burgos to
Clement VII. The most accurate edition of this document
is in G. La Rocca, 'Una tradizione finora inavvertita di
autocensura editoriale su un testo politico del Cinque-
cento', Guerre, Stati e Mantova e lftalia Padana dal
secoloXII al XIX (Atti cittat.
del convegno Mantova 1986), ed.
C. M. Belfanti et al., Mantua 1988, pp. 345-74.
18 Scarpati (as in n. 2).
19 Both these translations were printed together with
Erasmus's Institutio principis Christiani in 1516; see my
article in this volume (as in n. 1), Appendix 11.268.
20o Ibid., 11.267-8.
21 Ibid., II.110-11, 113.
22 Ibid., III.77-8.