Kitabı oku: «Exil und Heimatferne in der Literatur des Humanismus von Petrarca bis zum Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts», sayfa 6

Yazı tipi:

Poggio Bracciolini

On 31 December 1433 Poggio addressed a consolatory letter to Cosimo de’ Medici in exile, and then wrote a second letter on 28 October 1434, shortly after Cosimo’s return.1 As John W. Oppel has argued, these two letters reveal Poggio’s strategy of aligning himself with the Medici faction and indeed becoming their spokesman. The humanist, who was nine years older than the great banker, strove to consolidate his Florentine base after the crisis of the Roman papacy: for in May 1434 Poggio had like Eugenius IV escaped from Rome, only to be captured and then released by pirates. In his letter of consolation, Poggio tells Cosimo that he is neither the first nor the last just man to suffer exile at the hands of violent factions:

Illa vero cogitatio praecipuam vim habere potest ad te confirmandum; neque primum extitisse, neque postremum fore, qui benemeritus de patria civis fuerit explusus. Habes refertos historicorum libros eorum exemplis, quos excellentes ac singulares viros inique mulctavit sua respublica, cum ob res bene gestas summa praemia mererentur […] Nolo insistere domesticis exemplis, ne quam offensionem contrahat oratio. Attamen si quis praeterita tempora scrutetur diligenter, inveniet plure egregios cives invidia et contentione civili magis quam culpa se suis civitatibus fuisse eiectos.

(For this thought, in truth, may have the greatest power to fortify you: that you are not the first nor will you be the last well-deserving citizen to be expelled from his native land. You have the books of the historians, filled with examples of those excellent and singular men who were roughly handled by the respublica, when, on account of their good deeds, they merited the greatest rewards […]. I will not insist on familiar examples, lest someone take offense. However, if anyone examines past time diligently he will find many outstanding citizens who, more through jealousy and civil strife than for their own fault, were expelled from their countries).2

Poggio continues by adducing ancient examples but, as Oppel notes, cites only Roman examples of famed exiles – Camillus, Scipio, Rutilius, and Cicero – since he had apparently not yet begun to study Greek:

Sed non fuit nostre solum civitatis hec labes et ignominia, verum aliarum quoque, quarum facta summopere admiramur. Respublica romana, ut de Grecis sileam ac Barbaris, etiam tum cum omni virtutum genere florentem Annales describunt, hoc morbo ingratitudinis laboravit. Referam paucos, quo sermo effugiat satietatem. Non tulit sua etas neque virtute neque probitate neque rebus gestis Furio Camillo superiorem. Hic tamen tribunorum et plebis iniquitate pulsus in exilium abiit et quidem eo tempore, quo maxime patria suo auxilio egebat. Quid egerit superior Africanus in patria ex faucibus Hanibalis liberando, qua fuerit animi moderatio, qua continentia et morum gravitate vixerit, non est ignotum tibi; hunc tamen tribunorum insania exulare coegit. Publius Rutilius integerrimus vir fuit ac sanctissimus, quem quia iustior videretur quam vulgi opinio ferret, urbe eiecerunt, cuius in hoc precipue claruit virtutis splendor, quod cum ei per Syllanam victoriam liceret in patriam redire, perpetuum sibi exilium elegit, recusans in eam urbem reverti, in qua plus arma quam leges valerent. Nequitia Clodii conservatorem patrie expulit M. Tullium Ciceronem, quem postea gloriari solitum accepimus se Italie humeris in patriam reportatum. Quamplures preterea historie memorant summos ac clarissimos viros simile exitum sortitos. Sed hos quatuor tantum retuli, ne mireris casum tuum, cum videas tot patrie conservatores talia suorum meritorum premia reportasse.3

(Such disgrace and degradation is not found in our country alone, but also in others whose actions completely amaze us. To leave out the Greeks and barbarians, the Roman republic suffered from the disease of ingratitude even when the annalists describe it as flourishing with every kind of virtue. I shall only relate a few examples to avoid boring you. In his day no one surpassed Furius Camillus in virtue, honesty, and great deeds. But the villainy of the tribunes and the mob drove him into exile precisely when the country needed his aid. You are aware what the elder Scipio Africanus achieved in freeing his country from the jaws of Hannibal ‒ with what moderation, self-control, and high principles he lived. And yet the madness of the tribunes forced him into exile. Publius Rutilius was a very upright and blameless man, but because he seemed more just than public opinion would bear, they expelled him from the city. The splendor of his virtue shone all the more because, after Sulla’s victory allowed his return to his country, he chose perpetual exile, refusing to go back to a city in which arms were more powerful than laws. The villainy of Clodius banished Marcus Tullius Cicero, the savior of his country, although we learn that later he often boasted that he had been carried back to his homeland on Italy’s shoulders. Besides these, history records numerous lofty and famous men who shared a similar fate. But I have only mentioned these four so that you will not wonder at your plight, seeing that so many saviors of their countries received such rewards for their merits).

Antonio Pacini

Concerning Cosimo’s exile and return, the Ciceronian model is invoked by Antonio Pacini of Todi, often called Antonius Tudertinus. A translator of several of Plutarch’s Lives, Pacini dedicated two of them to the Medici brothers, Cosimo and Lorenzo. As Marianne Pade observes, Pacini’s version of the Camillus was “dedicated to Cosimo’s brother Lorenzo, but implicitly addressing also Cosimo himself, who was frequently compared to Camillus after his return from exile.”1 For Cosimo de’ Medici, Pacini translated the Timoleon sometime after 1434: for Pacini’s preface not only cites Cosimo’s contributions to the republic, but extols his triumphant return from exile.2 In the following passage, the humanist’s themes of the banker’s return (reditus), his personal esteem (dignitas), and the role of the “senate” clearly evoke Cicero’s orations Post reditum ad senatum and Post reditum ad Quirites:

Quid igitur dubii est, praestantissime Cosma, ut quemadmodum non solum in hac re publica tua, sed tota Italia consilio, auctoritate, opibus ac nominis claritate, quod apud omnes nationes celebratur, omnibus praestas, sic, si Romae aut Athenis natus fuisses, omnes egregios illos viros, Scipiones, Camillos, Fabricios ceterosque anteisses, cum divino ingenio, summa integritate summaque gravitate, omnibus virtutibus, ut uno verbo absolvam, praeditus sis et di atque homines, praeter quos livor edax excruciat, te ament, te observent. Quis dubitat nisi te hanc rem publicam in bello Lucensi tu vigilantia, consilio, prudentia tuisque opibus servavisse? Quis neget neminem nunquam fuisse, qui plus gloriae in reditu ad patriam habuerit quam tu, in qua tanta bonorum civium benivolentia, tam incredibili popularium voluntate una cum fratre tuo summo viro et singulari receptus es, tanta populari caritate? Cum iam omnes admirabili desiderio tui tenerentur atque animi augerentur, ut senatus omnes invidos omnesque, qui contra te egerant, in exilium eiecerit, necnon infinita nomina multorum, quos invidiosa illa et nepharia relegatione tua adversus te sensisse creditum est, a senatu ac magistratibus abdicata sunt atque deleta, continere non possum me quin in hoc sermone nostra versetur oratio. […] Sed nec illud quod magna admiratione dignum est praetereundum, quod nescio quomodo illis, qui contra reditum tuum contraque rem publicam arma capesserant, e manibus nullis repugnantibus arma ceciderant. Verum profecto deum immortalem hoc et cetera, quae ad te spectabant, egisse arbitror, ut pietati tuae auxilium ipse praestaret et huic rei publicae, quae iam in faucibus tyranni indies prolabebatur, prospiceret atque consuleret. At tu pro dignitate tua extra patriam vitam ducere poteras, patria autem sine te libera esse non poterat.3

(Can there be any doubt, most excellent Cosimo, that you surpass everyone, not only in this city but in all of Italy, by your judgment, authority, wealth, and by your fame that is celebrated in all nations. Indeed, if you had been born in Rome or Athens, you would have surpassed all those outstanding men – the Scipios, Camilluses, Fabricii, and others – for you possess divine wisdom, and the highest integrity and gravity – in a word, all the virtues – so that gods and men (except for those tormented by consuming envy) love and revere you. Who can doubt that only you saved our republic in the war with Lucca by your vigilance, discernment, prudence, and wealth? Who can deny that no one ever enjoyed more glory than you in returning to your country, where with your brother, an excellent and remarkable man, you were welcomed by the greatest goodwill of the best citizens, the most incredible sympathy of the masses, and the great love of the people? Everyone was gripped by such astonishing desire for you and their zeal was so heightened that the senate sent into exile all those envious men and all those who opposed you. What’s more, countless names of the masses – men known to have acted against you by that invidious and nefarious banishment – were abolished and deleted by the senate and the magistrates. Hence, I cannot contain myself in writing this discourse […]. Neither should I omit that fact most worthy of admiration, namely, that somehow those who had taken up arms against your return and the republic laid them down without any opposition. Indeed, I believe that immortal God did this and other actions on your behalf, so that he would confirm your sense of duty, and protect and sustain the republic, which was slipping daily into the tyrant’s maw. By virtue of your dignity, you could live outside your country, but without you the country could not be free).

Returning to the theme of his Plutarchan translation, Pacini adds a comment on Timoleon, who defeated the enemy and expelled the Sicilian tyrants:

Hic ille Timoleon Corinthius est, qui nobilissimam Siciliae insulam profligatis Carthaginensium copiis expulsisque omnibus tirannis in libertatem redegit […].

(This famous Timoleon from Corinth, having scattered the forces of the Carthaginians and driven out all the tyrants, restored the noble island of Sicily to freedom).4

The parallel with Cosimo is hard to miss.

Lapo da Castiglionchio

By the 1430 s Italian humanists were translating vast amounts of Greek literature into Latin, and the Lives of Plutarch offer a window into the political and cultural world of classical studies in the Quattrocento. One of the most productive of the new generation of translators was the short-lived Lapo da Castiglionchio (1406‒1438), a Florentine whose search for patronage was consistently frustrated. In 1434‒1436 he made a version of Plutarch’s Themistocles that he sent to Cosimo de’ Medici.1 His dedication draws exaggerated parallels between the Greek general and the Florentine banker. Where Poggio preferred to cite Roman examples, Lapo says that on the subject of exile he chooses to discuss eminent Greeks:

Ad clarissimum virum et sapientissimum civem Cosmam Medicem Lapi Castelliunculi prooemium in Themistoclis vitam incipit feliciter.

Themistoclis Atheniensis clarissimi et sapientissimi ducis vitam latine interpretatus ad te missurus eram, humanissime Cosma, cum eius exilii recenti memoria multorum ducum et principum civitatum cladibus in mentem mihi revocatis in eam sum, quam saepe soleo, dubitationem compulsus, fortuna ne magis an virtute consilioque opus esset iis, qui in florentissimus rebus publicis administrandis sine periculo vellent et cum dignitate versari. Nam cum me ad Graecorum summos viros, malo enim externa in tali re commemorare quam nostra, mente et cogitatione converto, video pene innumerabiles, in quibus iudicio omnium summa dignitas, summa virtus fuisset, quique in rebus perditis suo consilio et sapientia a gravissimis periculis ac prope interitu patriam vendicassent, partim interemptos esse a suis civibus, partim eiectos, quosdam etiam privatos honoribus misere atque ignominiose vixisse. Quo in loco huius ipsius, quem dico, Themistoclis fuga et persecutio et Miltiadis carcer aliorumque complurium omni dignitate principum non dissimiles exitus subeunt. Quae quidem ego saepe numero mecum repetens vehementer indignari soleo, qui maximis laboribus periculisque suis salutem et incolumitatem caeteris peperissent, tantum abfuisse ut digna suis virtutibus praemia reportarent, ut, quibus saluti fuissent et a quibus ornandi erant, ab ii, ut scelerati et impii, plecterentur […].2

(To the most renowned and wise citizen Cosimo de’ Medici, Lapo da Castiglionchio’s preface to the Life of Themistocles begins auspiciously.

Having translated into Latin the Life of Themistocles, a most renowned and wise Athenian general, I was going to send it to you, most humane Cosimo, but the recent memory of his exile called to mind the ruin of many generals and rulers of republics. I was seized by a doubt that often occurs to me, namely, whether those who seek to administer flourishing states without danger and with dignity have greater need of good fortune or of virtue and judgment. Now, when I turn my attention to the greatest of the Greeks (for on this topic I prefer to review foreign rather than domestic examples), I see nearly countless men universally regarded as endowed with great distinction and great virtue, whose judgment and wisdom in desperate time saved their countries from great perils and near destruction; yet some of them were killed by their fellow citizens, some exiled, and some stripped of their honors to live in distress and disgrace. On this topic, there occur to me the exile and hunting down of the aforementioned Themistocles, the imprisonment of Miltiades, the similar fates of other rulers of every rank. Now, as often as I review such things, I am usually shaken by violent indignation. For men who have obtained the safety and well-being of others by their own great labors and perils, far from reaping the rewards of their virtues are punished by those wicked and impious citizens who, owing their safety to them, should have honored them).

Nam acer et diligens gubernator nihil expavescit, sed fortis contra vim tempestatis insurgit […]. Quem sapientem aegregiumque civem proponere sibi in re publica decet, siquid indigne patitur, non se abicere, sed fortunae et tempori cedere et ad aliam oportunitatem se et suas vires servare, qualem Athenis Aristidem fuisse accepimus, et e nostris Furium Camillum, qui et pulsi irae civium concesserunt, et cum oportuna res cecidit, saluti non defuerunt. Itaque talium virorum quottidie magis gloria claret. A quorum institutis nihil tu mihi aberasse videris, qui nulla tua culpa seditionibus et quasi fluctibus civitatis eiectus patriae iniurias ita tulisti, ut in ea exilii calamitate fortunam tuam indolerent omnes, constantiam probarent, sapientiam mirarentur. Itaque meritissimo communi civium consensu et voluntate summa cum gloria in patriam revocatus perspicue declarasti tibi eiusmodi casum non delicti supplicium, sed illustrandae virtutis materiem extistisse.

(A brave and diligent helmsman fears nothing, but boldly rises up against the fury of the tempest […]. A wise and distinguished citizen in the state should hold up such a model, and if he suffers some injustice, should not be downcast but should yield to fortune and the moment, reserving himself and his strength for another occasion. Such, we hear, was Aristides of Athens, and Furius Camillus among the Romans: both of them yielded to the citizens’ wrath and went into exile, but when the right moment arrived they looked to their survival. The glory of such men shines forth more every day. You seem to me to follow their example, for through no fault of your own you were exiled by the republic’s factional strife and rough seas, as it were, but you bore the insults of your country so well that in the disaster of exile everyone lamented your ill fortune, lauded your constancy, and wondered at your wisdom. Hence by the well-deserved consensus and goodwill of all the citizens you were recalled in glory to your homeland, and you manifestly showed that what befell you was not punishment for a crime but material for displaying your virtue).

Lapo comments that Cosimo’s positive view of exile was not shared by Themistocles, who in all other respects was the greatest of Greek generals:

Quae una ex omnibus virtutibus Themistoci defuit, caeteris tamen ita excelluit, ut eum cunctis Graeciae ducibus anteferre non dubitem. Quare, etsi non me latet, quam imprudenter agam, qui tibi in hac tanta occupatione vitae atque urbis meis scriptis obstrepere audeam, praesertim cum tibi quottidie assit Leonardus Arretinus princeps eloquentiae huius aetatis, decus et ornamentum Latinae linguae, Ambrosius abbas, Nicolaus Nicolus, Poggius, Carolus Arretinus, doctissimi et eloquentissimi viri, qui te suis scriptis teneant, quorum sermonibus tuae assidue mulcentur aures, decrevi tamen meorum laborum ac vigiliarum tibi aliquid impartire, haud nescius ad summorum principum colloquia tenuissimos interdum homines admitti solere.3

(While Themistocles lacked this one virtue, he so far excelled in all the others that I would place him above all the other Greek generals. Now, I am aware how imprudently I act in daring to disturb you with my writings when you are busy with your career and politics, especially since every day you meet Leonardo Bruni – the prince of eloquence in our age and the glory and ornament of the Latin language – Ambrogio Traversari, Niccolò Niccoli, Poggio, and Carlo Marsuppini, all most learned and eloquent men whose writings engage you and whose conversation continually charms your ear. All the same, I resolved to share with you some product of my labors and studies, knowing that lesser men are sometimes admitted to the circle of great rulers).

Fretus igitus tua humanitate Themistoclis res gestas a me nuper ex Plutarcho versas, quod praeclarae mihi visae sunt atque imitatione imprimis dignae, ad te mitto, ut ex iis, si quid ad tuum usum pertinebit, deligere possis et te eum virum pietate simul et felicitate superasse laeteris. In quo si minus tibi meus labor gratus erit, debebis tamen eas et Themistoclis nomine et Plutarchi auctoritate libenter legere; itaque ut facias, te et oro et obsecro et me, si haec probari abs te percepero, plura ac maiora tuo nomine aggressurum esse profiteor.4

(Trusting in your generosity, I send you the deeds of Themistocles that I recently translated from Plutarch, since they seemed excellent and quite worthy of imitation. If something in them proves useful to you, you may select it for imitation, and will rejoice that you surpass this man in both piety and happiness. If any of my work displeases you, you should still gladly read these deeds, encouraged by Themistocles’ reputation and by Plutarch’s authority. I beg and beseech you to do this, and if I see that you are pleased, I promise that I shall undertake more and more important things in your name).

We may note that Guarino of Verona had already translated Plutarch’s 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, and Camillus:

Nec mirum est livor si vos exegit ab urbe.

Semper enim sequitur virtutem livor et una

gloria quae radiis livorem splendida perdit

denique. Thersitae nemo, nemo invidet Uti.

Thesea quin etiam, quod vulgo fertur, Athenae

ingratae nimiumque leves iecere parentem;

Scipiadae, patriam quem servavisse ruentem

et Poenum pressisse ferum dirumque rebelli

imposuisse iugum perhibent, stat gratia tanti

exilium meriti. Pateris nil durius omnes

quam clari consuere viri. Damnata Camilli

est pietas, cunctis invisa Themistoclis ingens