Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (review)

112 Reviews as possible in order to keep fdth with our suppoitng publishers, otherwise they will desert us. Overlenght reviews jeopardize the publication of a review of abother book. In particular, can I ask reviewers to keep the number of page references to the books being reviewed to an essentid minimum, Findly, an apolgy to our N e w Zedand members. I have made a deliberate attempt to distribute books for review outside the Sydney area but none have found their way across the Tasman as yet. This is partly m y fault. 1 did not obtdn a list of N e w Zedand members until very recently. Many of you I do not know persopdly and consequently do not know your fields od expertise. Unfortunately, I received no books for review this last year in thefieldsof those who responded to my imtid request for expressions of interest in doing reviews. However, now that Paul Sorell has kindly supplied a list of N e w Zedand members and I am receiving information about yourfieldsod expertise, I will try to atone for past sins. N e w expressions of interest in reviewing, particularly in the fields of history, Middle English and Shakespeare studies (in which the majority of the books received lie), will be most welcome. John Pryor Department of History University of Sydney Bentley, J.H., Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples, Princeton, P.U.P., 1987; hardback, pp.xii, 327; 1 map; R.R.P. A U S $89.00. This is a valuable, elegantly-written, thoroughly-researched, and handsomely-printed book. It focuses on a subject which has been largely neglected, especially by English-speaking scholars: the development of humanism infifteenth-centuryNaples. The emphasis fdls quite rightly, on the period of Aragonese dominance, 1442 to 1504. For it was the Aragonese conqueror, Alfonso, who introduced humamstic cultural paradigms as a matter of both personal taste and consciouslypursued policy. Unlike Florence, where humanism was generated by sparks of a collective nature, Naples offers a case of humanism being imposed from above. Neopolitan humanism is fully identifiable with the Aragonese court, which makes one wonder to what extent the adjective 'Neapolitan' isreallyapplicable. Of the five majorfigureswhose careers are traced in chapter three - Panormita (Pdermo), Facio (La Spezia), Vdla (Rome), Manetti (Florence), and Pontano (Umbria) - none are from Naples or even from the sunounding region. Their presence in the city was clearly a function of Alfonso's desire to promote humanistic culture. Reviews •, •,* Given this fact, it is not surprising that interest in the early chapters centres on the question of patronage. Specid attention is given to thetiesthat bound the humanists to the Aragonese court, as well as to the services they performed in return for monetary rewards of a more or less stable kind. The bulk of the book, however, is concerned with another issue. A number of chapters show how humanist involvement in the politicd, diplomatic, and propagandists activities of the regime led them to elaborate 'realistic' assessments of politicd action. This is an important point, as scholars have generally categorized the humanists as moralizing idealists concerned only with , mapping out ethicd behaviour. Bentley argues convincingly that a sort of Machiavellian politicd redism pre-dated Machiavelli and that the Aragonese humamst secretaries were in the vanguard of those developing this sort of approach to politics. The book is of course not without its faults. In the chapters on patronage the court and the library are singled out as the m d n career options for aspiring humanists. Little or no mention is made of the Aragonese chancery, a surprising oversight in view of the fact that the later chapters confer primary importance on the politicd insights of figures like Panormita, Facio, and Pontano; dl of w h o m worked extensively as secretaries in the chancery. One is tempted to think that the chancery might well have been one of the m d n instruments of patronage, especially under Alfonso. More disturbing is the conservative concept of humamsm that dominates the work, dmost in spite of the evidence it presents. Kristeller is cited as the ultimate authority, whereas much of what Bentley is saying potentidly explodes the Kristellerian view...