The Fruits of Migration in the Italian Liberal Historiographical Tradition

Chapter 12 On the Origins of Enlightenment: The Fruits of Migration in the Italian Liberal Historiographical Tradition Neil Tarrant Studies of the Italian religious exiles of the sixteenth century have a long and rich history. It is not my intention in this paper to attempt to provide an over- view, let alone a critique of this entire corpus of writings. Instead, I offer a discussion of some distinctive features of one highly influential interpretation of this diaspora, developed within what I have elsewhere termed the ‘Italian liberal historiographical tradition’.1 I focus particularly on the work of three histo- rians, active between the beginning and middle of the last century: Benedetto Croce (1866–1952), Delio Cantimori (1904–1966) and Luigi Firpo (1915–1989). It is, of course, unnecessary to assert the centrality of their work to our under- standing of the historiography of the Italian Reformation. Studies of their work have summarised and critiqued their central arguments, described the numer- ous programmes of research that they stimulated and reconstructed aspects of the genealogy of their thought. One crucial dimension of their work has not yet been discussed in sufficient detail, however. That is, the broader narrative that structured their accounts, and the manner in which it framed their interpretation of the thought of the individuals and communities that they studied, including the Italian exiles.2 It may be helpful to justify my use of the term ‘Italian liberal historiographical tradition’. I refer to a ‘tradition’ in the sense that it is possible to identify successive generations of scholars who, from at least the mid nineteenth 1 I have previously used this term in Tarrant N, “Concord and Toleration in the Thought of Francesco Pucci, 1578–81”, Sixteenth Century Journal 46, 4 (2015) 983–1003, here 983–987. 2 For a detailed discussion of the historiography of the Italian Reformation, with frequent ref- erence to the role of the exiles, see Firpo M., “Historiographical Introduction”, The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature (ca. 1750–1997), compiled by J. Tedeschi in association with J.M. Lattis (Modena: 2000) xviii–xlix. See also Tedeschi J., “I contributi culturali dei riforma- tori protestanti italiani nel tardo Rinascimento”, Italica 64, 1 (1987) 19–61; Prosperi A., “Italy,” in H.J. Hillebrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, 4 vols. (Oxford: 1996) vol. 2, 324–329. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/9789004371125_014 ON THE ORIGINS OF ENLIGHTENMENT 363 century, consciously engaged with a shared body of questions and concerns.3 Many of the tradition’s core ideas were developed by a group of liberal scholars and political activists – often referred to as the ‘Neapolitan Hegelians’ – that in- cluded the brothers Bertrando (1817–1883) and Silvio Spaventa (1822–1893), and their contemporary Francesco De Sanctis (1817–1883). These thinkers sought not only to trace, but also to explain the course of Italy’s development from the period of the Renaissance to the modern age. Although there were differ- ences within their respective accounts of the early modern period, they argued that during the Renaissance Italians had enjoyed intellectual liberty. This freedom enabled contemporaries to develop new forms of rational thought that anticipated those of the Enlightenment. From the late sixteenth century, their narrative continued, Italian liberty was suppressed, inaugurating a period of intellectual, social and political decline. Human progress nevertheless continued in other nations, notably Germany. Italy remained largely unaffected by these developments until the early nineteenth century, when the rebirth of Italian liberty triggered their nation’s resurgence or Risorgimento.4 In this article, I trace the manner in which these earlier liberal histories shaped the writings of Croce, Cantimori and Firpo. It would be misleading either to reduce the thought of these scholars to a slavish adherence to this tradition, or to suggest that they were all arguing precisely the same case. It is also clear that not all were avowed political Liberals; Cantimori is perhaps the most obvious example.5 There are, nonetheless, clear points of continuity both between their respective accounts of Italian history, and with those provided in the earlier tradition. Croce, Cantimori and Firpo each believed that intellectual history could provide a key to interpret the political and social vicissitudes of their homeland from the Renaissance to the modern age. Their accounts were also structured by a history of the development of liberty conceived in a specific sense: the freedom to think rationally and to debate ideas, unfettered by religious or political authority. 3 On the connections between the thought of individuals such as Vincenzo Cuoco, Vincenzo Gioberti, Bertrando Spaventa, Francesco de Sanctis, Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile, see Rubini R., The Other Renaissance: Italian Humanism between Hegel and Heidegger (Chicago – London: 2014), chapter 1. 4 On the Neapolitan Hegelians and their influence see for example Oldrini G., Gli hegeliani di Napoli: Augusto Vera e la corrente ortodossa (Milan: 1964) especially chapter 1; Garin E., Filosofia e politica in Bertrando Spaventa (Naples: 1983); Gli hegeliani di Napoli e la costruzione dello stato unitario (Rome: 1989). 5 See Pertici R., “Mazzinianesimo, fascismo, comunismo: l’itinerario politico di Delio Cantimori (1919–1943)”, Chromohs 2 (1997) 1–128..

Load more