Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Biography

Alberto Pio, the son of Leonello and Caterina Pico, was born on July 23, 1475, in his ancestral castle in Carpi (Braghirolli 1877, p. 342; Semper et al. 1882, p. 3; Semper et al. 1999, p. 257, footnote 4). Only 2 years later, in 1477, he lost his father and was then entrusted to the protection of the other lord of Carpi, his father’s brother, Marco Pio. Alberto’s relative favored his son Giberto in the succession of the principality of Carpi (Semper et al. 1882, p. 3). However, since early childhood, Alberto had an exceptional educational experience, which was to leave an indelible mark on his personality (Silingardi 1876, pp. 66–69; Semper et al. 1882, p. 3; Morselli 1939, p. 7). He did not have a military education. At the express wish of his mother Caterina and on the suggestion of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Aldo Manuzio became the tutor of Alberto. The learned Marco Musuro (1470–1517) was Alberto’s teacher of Greek for some time during his stay at Carpi, probably until 1502 (Schück 1862, p. 107; Dionisotti 1975, p. 343 footnote 3; Vasoli 1978, p. 14; Sabattini 1994, p. 10; cf. Lowry 1986, p. 377; Pagliaroli 2004, pp. 213–93; Vasoli 2008, pp. 17–25; Pellegrini 2012, pp. 576–582).

Probably as early as in the mid-1480s, Alberto Pio was able to make numerous trips to Ferrara, where he had the opportunity to study and further his cultural interests.

Alberto was unable to devote his entire life to his studies, since, as heir of a part of a small Italian state, he was involved in the complex events that troubled the political structure of the peninsula between the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. In 1490, with the support of the Gonzaga and Pico families, Alberto received the investiture of half the domain of Carpi from the Emperor Frederick III, but clashes with Marco Pio and his sons, who wanted to rule over the whole Carpi, incessantly continued (Svalduz 2001, pp. 62–135). After 1494, with the death of his legal guardian Marco Pio, Alberto intensified his administrative activities, becoming more independent, as revealed by numerous letters, which he used to weave a subtle web of diplomatic relations. The young lord’s influential connections in pursuing this policy were the Marquis of Mantua, Francesco Gonzaga, and the Este family, in particular Duke Ercole I. The skillful diplomatic plots woven by the young Alberto obtained him imperial benevolence and reached the goal of preventing Giberto to steal his possessory rights to Carpi. However, on July 16, 1499, Giberto transferred the rights to his half of Carpi to the Duke of Ferrara. From that moment on, Alberto was forced to divide his power over Carpi with Ercole I d’Este. It is no coincidence that, at that time, Alberto began to function as a true diplomat. He realized then that the fate not only of Carpi but of the whole peninsula was to be decided between Paris and the imperial court (Sabattini 1994; cf. Forner 2005, p. 69). Upon request of Francesco Gonzaga, between 1505 and 1506, Alberto began a diplomatic mission at the court of King Louis XII of France. The mission failed, but from then on, Alberto Pio became one of the most prominent Italian diplomats (Rombaldi 1977, pp. 15–16). In 1507 he met Pope Julius II, who appreciated his eloquence, his culture, and, above all, his ability in handling political affairs. In April 1507, he was in France on behalf of the Holy See; in August of that year, he returned to Rome as a French ambassador. As result of his diplomatic activity, on June 14, 1509, Emperor Maximilian dispossessed the Duke of Ferrara of his half of Carpi and made Alberto sole ruler of the town, also bestowing on him the title of count and the right to coin money and to confer degrees (Semper et al. 1882, p. 6; Rombaldi 1977, pp. 17–18; Sabattini 1994, pp. 35–36). However, clashes with the Duke of Ferrara continued relentlessly. They ended only when the imperial troops in 1512, ousting the Duke of Ferrara, rapidly occupied the town and returned it to Alberto, who, from that moment on, became again the only master of Carpi (Sabattini 1994, p. 46). The years between 1513, with the election to the papacy of Giovanni de’ Medici (Leo X), and 1519, when Charles of Habsburg was elected emperor, marked the heyday of Carpi and its lord. At that time, Alberto resided mainly in Rome, where, in 1518, he had married Cecilia Orsini, a relative of Leo X, thereby consolidating his relationship with the Pope (Sabattini 1994, p. 49).

His situation changed abruptly in 1519 with the election of Emperor Charles V. He was driven by strong distrust of the Prince of Carpi, who was considered unreliable because of his previous dealings with the French. Alberto’s failed confirmation as imperial ambassador inaugurated his inexorable decline and fall. The Prince of Carpi, however, remained in Rome, officially at the service of Leo X, but secretly working in the service of the French. On January 3, 1523, Alberto was officially ousted from his possessions by the commander of the imperial army, Prospero Colonna, who confiscated all of Pio’s assets. Alberto was then forced to link his fate to the King of France, in an attempt to save his property. However, the disastrous defeat of the French army at Pavia (February 24, 1525) greatly weakened the French influence in Italy and with it the hopes of Alberto Pio (Semper et al. 1882, pp. 13–15; Rombaldi 1977, pp. 32–36; Sabattini 1994, pp. 71–72). From Rome, the deposed Prince of Carpi still tried to regain his possessions, but without success. During the Sack of Rome (1527), his palace was sacked, and Alberto, after a short stay at Castel Sant’Angelo with the Pope, was forced to take refuge in France, first at Lyon and then in Paris. There he dedicated the last years of his life to the controversy with Erasmus of Rotterdam. He died on January 8, 1531. He published a first Resposio paraenetica (1529) and the posthumous Tres et viginti libri (1531) (Minnich 1996; Forner 2009a; Forner 2014).

Heritage and Rupture with the Tradition

The education of Alberto Pio, led by Aldo Manuzio, is fully placed in the humanistic tradition, geared to the study of classical languages. However, Alberto cultivated a strong interest in the works of the philosophers of every age and later on was also a promoter of philosophical studies and in particular of Aristotelianism.

Alberto was educated to the inherent familiarity with the great literary and philosophical tradition of the classical world and had a sure knowledge not only of Latin but also of Greek. An essential part of his education was represented by the reading of medieval philosophical texts, which revealed the influence on his education of the cultural interests of his maternal uncle Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Alberto Pio made profitable use of all this knowledge in his controversy with Erasmus of Rotterdam (Dionisotti 1964, 220 ff; Vasoli 1978, pp. 16–19; Kristeller 1965, pp. 84–107; Forner 2002 passim). Throughout all his life, Alberto collected numerous Greek and Latin manuscripts (Mercati, 1938; Di Pietro Lombardi, 2004, pp. 215–227). The last decade of the fifteenth century was particularly important in the intellectual formation of Alberto Pio. In that period, he lived in Carpi (where, as mentioned above, he had exceptional tutors) and in wealthy Ferrara. Duke Ercole I d’Este had led the city at the height of its development and attracted artists and scholars among the most learned men of that time. In Ferrara, Alberto met and established friendship, among the others, with Ludovico Ariosto, Jacopo Sadoleto, Pietro Pomponazzi, Celio Calcagnini, Pietro Bembo, Thomas Linacre, and Ercole Strozzi (Morselli 1931, pp. 93–112 on the teachings of humanities at the University of Ferrara; Sottili 1998, xv–xvi). From 1513 onwards, Alberto lived mainly in Rome. There he was close to the circles of the Roman Academy and formed very friendly relations with Pietro Bembo, Jacopo Sadoleto (whom he already knew from the time of his stay at Ferrara), Girolamo Aleandro, Paolo Giovio, and Baldassarre Castiglione, as well as with renowned artists such as Bramante, Baldassare Peruzzi, and Raphael (Vasoli 1978, pp. 42–43).

During his last years in Paris, despite his age and illness, Alberto resumed his beloved studies, particularly in theology and philosophy. He needed a more in-depth knowledge of these disciplines in order to sustain his polemic against Erasmus of Rotterdam (Guaitoli 1877, p. 295; Solana Pujalte 2003, pp. 122–132).

Throughout his life, Alberto cultivated a great interest in classical wisdom, an interest, however, by no means confined to the belles lettres, and indeed all concentrated on the works of the ancient philosophers and also open to their medieval commentators. In this manner, he broke with the part of the humanistic movement that preferred to concentrate its attention on grammar texts or on poetic and historical works, expressing disdain for much of the medieval tradition. It should be pointed out that the only works of Alberto Pio that appeared in print were those related to the controversy with Erasmus of Rotterdam: the first was the Epistola paraenetica ad Erasumum Roterodamum, published in Paris in 1529, followed, shortly after the death of Alberto, by the Tres et viginti libri, also published in Paris in 1531.

In these two works, Alberto argued that the origin of the thought of Luther was to be found in the ancient conflict between theologians and humanists. Moreover, in his opinion, humanists gave too much importance to the study of ancient rhetoric at the expense of more robust studies in philosophy and theology. This emphasis on ancient rhetoric, according to Alberto Pio, created the fertile ground on which the Lutheran doctrine could take root. Thus, he compared the followers of Luther and their fate to those who promoted belles lettres in the German-speaking lands. Alberto had carefully and patiently collected the charges against Erasmus that had already been used in the previous years by many theologians, although with little success and somewhat limited influence. In the first letter printed in 1529, Alberto, while listing all similarities between Luther’s and Erasmus’s thought, also seemed to hope for a recantation and clear disowning of Protestant doctrine on Erasmus’s part. In the Tres et viginti libri, the tone of accusation against the learned Dutchman prevailed, and the work took the form of a pamphlet against Luther and all his supporters, Erasmus among them (Kristeller 1970; Gilmore 1975; Seidel Menchi 1987, pp. 43–63; Minnich 1988; Heesakkers 1993; Forner 2002, pp. xxiii–xxx).

Erasmus answered repeatedly and forcefully to these works, rightly accusing Alberto of using old had already answered. Moreover, Erasmus accused Alberto of having been secretly helped in the composition of his books by a scholar under his protection, namely, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Sepúlveda, however, denied the accusation of being the ghost writer of the works of the Prince of Carpi (Solana Pujalte 2005).

Yet, Alberto Pio should not be remembered only as the author of treatises against the doctrines of Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther, even though of primary importance. A proper evaluation of the activity of Alberto Pio must consider not only the works actually published under his name but also all those works that he, thanks to his role as a patron of the arts, helped publish. The prefaces to the cinquecentine of Aldus Manutius provide an example of his patronage. Not only did Alberto finance the publication of the editio princeps of Aristotle in Greek (Dionisotti 1975) but also aided a large number of philosophers and theologians, such as Pomponazzi, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, Joannes Montesdoch, Graziano da Brescia, and Andrea Barro (cf. Solana Pujalte 2003, pp. 124–26).

Innovative and Original Aspects

Impact and Legacy

Alberto Pio was one of the few Italian scholars who openly took sides against Erasmus and Luther as early as the 1520s. Alberto Pio’s arguments against Erasmus did not shine out for their originality. However, he raised the cultural level of the charges against Erasmus that were previously confined within the walls of some theological school. The success of his works in the Catholic countries inseparably tied, for better or worse, the thought of Erasmus with that of Luther and laid the theoretical foundations for the painful and controversial inclusion of the works of Erasmus in the Index librorum pohibitorum after the Council of Trent (Seidel Menchi 1987, 2000; Forner 2012, 2013).

Equally important, though mediated, was Alberto’s role in the field of philosophical studies, especially because of his efforts to promote studies on the Aristotelian corpus. Alberto Pio himself did not take an active role in the Aristotelianism of his time. Although he mentioned Aristotelian texts in his works, Alberto did not leave us any translations, editions, or expositions of Aristotelian texts. “However he was a patron of proponents for several different varieties of Aristotelian studies. If he was not at the forefront of Aristotelian studies himself […] he was operating steadily and effectively behind the scenes. For that reason he must be seen as one of the more important Aristotelians in Italy during the years from the editio princeps to the Sack of Rome” (Schmitt 1981, p. 64). In this sense, the legacy of Alberto Pio for the Aristotelian studies and for the medieval philosophy and theology is conspicuous.

Cross-References