Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE RENAISSANCE
INTERSECTIONS
yearbook for early modern studies
volume 6 – 2005
Editorial Board
W. van Anrooij (University of Leiden)
B. Blondé (University of Antwerp)
K.A.E. Enenkel (University of Leiden)
J.L. de Jong (University of Groningen)
E.E.P. Kolfin (University of Amsterdam)
W. Neuber (Free University of Berlin)
P.J. Smith (University of Leiden)
R.K. Todd (University of Leiden)
M. van Vaeck (Catholic University of Louvain)
C. Zittel ( University of Frankfurt/M.)
Advisory Board
K. van Berkel (University of Groningen) · F. Egmond · A. Grafton (Princeton University)
A. Hamilton (Warburg Institute) · C.L. Heesakkers · H.A. Hendrix (Utrecht University)
F.J. van Ingen · J.I. Israel (Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.)
M. Jacobs (Free University of Brussels) · K.A. Ottenheym (Utrecht University)
K. Porteman · E.J. Sluijter (University of Amsterdam)
General Editor
Karl Enenkel
Chair of Neo-Latin Literature
Faculty of Arts, University of Leiden
P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden-NL
e-mail: K.A.E.Enenkel@let.leidenuniv.nl
PETRARCH
AND HIS READERS IN
THE RENAISSANCE
EDITED BY
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2006
Illustration on the cover: Petrarch Master, Petrarch in his study. Woodcut, Franciscus Petrarcha,
Von der Artzney bayder Glue ck […], Augsburg 1532, fol. <V>v.
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISSN 1568-1181
ISBN 90 04 14766 7
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Acknowledgements .................................................................... ix
Notes on the Editors of this Volume ...................................... xi
List of Contributors .................................................................. xiii
of 1974,1 we are far from having a clear picture of the way in which
the reception of Petrarch actually worked. Partly, this may be due
to the sheer quantity of his reception, and partly to the explicit and
massive self-presentation of the ‘father of Humanism’. For almost all
of his writings are characterised by an unusually strong and expres-
sive autobiographical drive. To modern readers, it may seem that
this expressive autobiographical self-presentation must have left little
room for ‘alternative’ interpretations: the author made perfectly clear
what he stood for and what his opinions were. In this respect, he
was even hailed to be the ‘first modern man’ in the sense that he
was the first writer who can be regarded as an ‘individual’ in mod-
ern terms. It is somewhat difficult to imagine that earlier readers,
from the 14th to the 16th century, did not ‘understand’ these clear
self-expressions or have understood them in a way very much different
from the ‘author’s intention’. However, it is especially this peculiar-
ity which makes Petrarch an interesting test-case for modern recep-
tion theory.
Modern reception theory (‘Rezeptionsästhetik’, ‘Wirkungsästhetik’)
was founded at the end of the 1960s by German scholars such as
Wolfgang Iser and Hans Robert Jauß as an inspiring antidote for
sometimes all too authoritative, all too hierarchical and exclusive
readings of ‘text-immanent’ scholars such as Emil Staiger and Wolfgang
Kaiser.2 The healthy and challenging provocation of traditional text-
1
Whereas the commemoration of 1904 saw the birth of the ‘Commissione per
l’Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Francesco Petrarca’ and started the production
of numerous important critical editions, scholarship from 1974 onwards turned to
a new inventory and study of manuscripts. Parallel to this the Italian, French and
German scholarly tradition—initiated and continued by scholars such as Dario
Cecchetti, Giuseppe Billanovich, Aldo Scaglione, Pierre Vianey, Marius Pieri, Franco
Simone, Paul Piur, Konrad Burdach, Nicolas Mann and Joseph Burney Trapp—
gave new impetus to investigate Petrarch’s influence on their ‘national’ cultural her-
itage. A good impression of the 1974 status quaestionis in Petrarch-scholarship can
be found in Scaglione A. (ed.), Francis Petrarch, Six Centuries Later. A Symposium (Chapel
Hill-Chicago: 1975). On the French tradition, see now Balsamo J., “«Nous l’avons
tous admiré, et imité: non sans cause». Pétrarque en France à la Renaissance: un
livre, un modèle, un mythe”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance
et Pétrarque (Genève: 2004) 13–32 (esp. 13–14).
2
Iser W., Die Apellstruktur der Texte. Unbestimmtheit als Wirkungsbedingung literarischer
Texte (Konstanz: 1970); id., Der implizite Leser (Munich: 1972); id., Der Akt des Lesens
(Munich: 1976); Jauß H.R., Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft
(Konstanz: 1967); id., Literaturgeschichte als Provokation (Frankfurt a.M.: 1970); id., Kleine
Apologie der ästhetischen Erfahrung (Konstanz: 1972); id., Ästhetische Erfahrung und liter-
3
arische Hermeneutik (Frankfurt a.M.: 1982); id., Die Theorie der Rezeption—Rückschau auf
ihre unbekannte Vorgeschichte (Konstanz: 1987); Link H., Rezeptionsforschung (Stuttgart:
1976); Müller J.E., Literaturwissenschaftliche Rezeptionstheorien und empirische Rezeptionsforschung
(Frankfurt a.M.-Bern: 1981).
3
See Iser, Der implizite Leser.
4
See Iser, Die Apellstruktur der Texte. Unbestimmtheit als Wirkungsbedingung literarischer
Texte.
5
Iser, Der implizite Leser 60.
6
Richter M., “Wirkungsästhetik”, in Arnold H.L. – Detering H., Grundzüge der
Literaturwissenschaft (Munich: 2001 [4th edition]) 516–535 (esp. 520).
4 .. ‒
7
See for example Iser, Der Akt des Lesens passim.
8
Ansgar Nünning proposed in a paper published in 1993 to dismiss the notion
of the ‘impliziter Leser’. See Nünning A., “Renaissance eines anthropomorphen
Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf ein literarisches Phantom? Überlegungen und
Alternativen zum Konzept des ‘implied author’”, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literatur-
wissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 67 (1993) 1–25.
5
9
Cf. Enenkel K.A.E., “Der andere Petrarca: Francesco Petrarcas De vita solitaria
und die devotio moderna”, Quaerendo 17 (1987) 137–147.
10
Foucault M., Archäologie des Wissens (Frankfurt a.M.: 1973, originally in French
Paris: 1969).
6 .. ‒
If all this, however, does not give the impression of being new, but
rather to follow in the footsteps of traditional comparative literature,
a discipline which in the case of Petrarch has been extremely rich,
it remains to be clarified in which way the approach presented in
this book differs from recent scholarship on the reception of Petrarch.
A short look at recent scholarship, especially the one presenting
itself at the various conferences commemorating Petrarch, reveals
how the traditional hierarchical and ‘authorial’ approach remains
common practice. A striking example is the volume Petrarca e la cul-
tura europea from 1997,11 in which articles are devoted to Bernardo
Lapini da Montalcino’s 15th-century allegorical commentary on
Petrarch’s Trionfi,12 on “Ronsard imitateur infidèle de Pétrarque”13
or to the “Presenza del Petrarca nella letteratura francese” (Lionello
Sozzi, pp. 243–262). However important and revealing these stud-
ies may be—all of them detailed and elucidating on various aspects
11
Rotondi Secchi Tarugi L. (ed.), Petrarca e la cultura europea, Istituto di Studi
Umanistici Francesco Petrarca: Mentis Itinerarium—Caleidoscopio, VII (Milan:
1997).
12
Eric Haywood, “‘Inter urinas liber factus est’: il commento dell’Ilicino ai Trionfi
del Petrarca”, in Petrarca e la cultura europea 139–159.
13
By Yvonne Bellenger, Petrarca e la cultura europea 223–242.
8 .. ‒
14
Two international conferences, both of them held in 2004, deserve special
attention: first, Petrarca e il Rinascimento, was held in Calcutta at the Jadavpur University,
Centre for Advanced Studies in English—Istituto Italiano di Cultura di New Delhi,
from 14 to 16 October 2004. Second, Petrarca, l’Umanesimo e la civiltà europea, was
held at Florence from 5 to December 2004. Here one paper touches, albeit indi-
rectly, on the theme of the reader: Francisco Rico’s contribution on ‘Petrarca ed
Erasmo’.
15
In 2004, two major conferences were devoted to this theme: Il Petrarchismo: un
modello di poesia per l’Europa. Convegno internazionale di studi, Bologna, 6–9 ottobre
2004, organized by the Dipartimento di Italianistica of the Università di Bologna;
and Petrarca y el petrarquismo en Europa y América. Jornadas Internacionales, Facultad
de Filosofía y Letras de la UNAM, Ciudad de México (18–23 October 2004).
16
Exhibition catalogues such as Aurnhammer A. (ed.), Petrarca in Deutschland,
Ausstellung zum 700. Geburstag (20. Juli 2004) (Heidelberg: 2004); Petrarca nel tempo.
Tradizione lettori e immagini delle opere. Catalogo della mostra (Arezzo, Sottochiesa di
San Francesco, 22 novembre 2003–27 gennaio 2004).
17
Published as volume 6 in 2004 in the series Quaderni di Filologia Medievale e
Umanistica at Messina.
18
Blanc P. (ed.), Dynamique d’une expansion culturelle. Pétrarque en Europe XIV e–XX e
siècle. Actes du XXVIe congrès international du CEFI, Turin et Chambéry, 11–15 décembre
1995. A la mémoire de Franco Simone (Paris: 2001).
19
La postérité répond à Pétrarque. Sept siécles de fortune Pétrarquienne en France, Sœur latine
et seconde patrie du poéte, Avignon, 22–23–24 janvier 2004. Some titles of the papers
read might be revealing examples of the approach defined by us as traditional
“reception history”: Jean Balsamo, “Premier cercle de réception pétrarquienne en
France entre 1535 et 1545”; Romana Brovia, “La fortune du De remediis en France,
du XIVe au XVIe siécle”; François Fabre, “Pétrarque poète chrétien? La critique
de l’Africa par Jean Gerson”; Yves Hersant, “Un adversaire de Pétrarque: Giordano
Bruno”; Pierre Laurens, “Pétrarque, Montaigne, Chateaubriand”.
20
Mondo tedesco in Petrarca—Petrarca nel mondo tedesco. XXVII Simposio Internazionale
di Studi Italo-Tedesco, Merano, 22–23 November 2004 and Petrarca in Deutschland.
Seine Wirkung in Literatur, Kunst und Musik, Internationales Kolloquium Freiburg im
Breisgau, 26.–29. September 2004.
21
O Petrarquismo entre Portugal e a Itália. Segundo Encontro de Italianística, Instituto
de Estudos Italianos 75 anos—Petrarca 700 años, Coimbra, 4–5 March 2004.
9
22
Petrarca e il Petrarchismo nella letteratura croata, Split, 27–29 September 2004.
23
The conference Petrarca nel mondo, organised at Incisa in Val d’Arno (19–20
June 2004), is a striking example. Next to Petrarch’s influence in various European
countries, non-European countries have equally been discussed. Tadahiko Wada
presented a paper on “La fortuna del Petrarca in Giappone”, Harry Wayne Storey
on “Petrarca in America”, and Anna Bujatti on “Petrarca in Cina”.
24
A similar focus was used by an international conference Petrarca v strednej Európe—
Petrarca nella Mitteleuropa, held at Nitra from 22 to 23 October 2004.
25
Mann N., Pétrarque: Les voyages de l’esprit. Quatre études (Grenoble: 2004) 111.
10 .. ‒
Selective Bibliography
Jan Papy
Dykmans M., “Les premiers rapports de Pétrarque avec les Pays-Bas”, Bulletin de
l’Institut Historique belge de Rome 20 (1939) 51–122 (p. 108). In addition, we find an
additional argument in favour of Dykmans’s reading mirica (which is a perfect antithesis
to the fertile tellus Ausoniae) in Petrarch, Epistole metrice, I, 6, 81: ‘Et Cererem, sterili
vix hospita terra mirice’. For a full discussion of this problem, see Papy J., Ludovicus
Sanctus, vriend van Francesco Petrarca (unpubl. diss. Leuven: 1987) 6–13.
2
De Sade J.-F., Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, 3 vols (Amsterdam:
1764–1767) I, 160–161.
3
Berlière U., Un ami de Pétrarque, Louis Sanctus de Beeringen (Rome-Paris: 1905).
Berlière presented his discovery first in a lecture delivered on 12 December 1904
at the inauguration of the Belgian Historical Institute in Rome. It was Mgr. Georges
Monchamp, vicar-general of Liège and director of the Royal Academy of Arts of
Belgium, who in a lecture delivered in January 1905 revealed the discovery for the
first time in Belgium, though omitting to mention Berlière’s fundamental role in
this research! Monchamps, however, was the first to connect Sanctus’s family name
with the Dutch name ‘Heyligen’, commonly found in Beringen. See Monchamp G.,
“Pétrarque et le pays liégeois”, Leodium 4 (1905) 1–16.
4
Cochin H., “Sur le Socrate de Pétrarque, le musicien flamand Ludovicus Sanctus
de Beeringhen”, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’Ecole française de Rome 37 (1918–1919)
3–32.
5
Dykmans, “Les premiers rapports” 51–122. In the meanwhile, Sanctus had
been mentioned in other studies preceding the one by Dykmans, such as Auda A.,
’ ‘’ 15
La musique et les musiciens de l’ancien pays de Liége. Essai bio-bibliographique sur la musique
liégeoise (Brussels: 1930) 64–65; Ceyssens J., “Écoles et savants de Campine aux
siècles passés”, Verzamelde opstellen uitgegeven door den Geschied- en Oudheidkundigen Studiekring
te Hasselt 6 (1930) 166–192 (esp. 176–179); and Ypes C., Petrarca in de Nederlandse
letterkunde (Amsterdam: 1934) 3–5.
6
Billanovich G., “Tra Italia e Fiandre nel Trecento. Francesco Petrarca e Ludovico
Santo di Beringen”, in Verbeke G. – IJsewijn J. (eds.), The Late Middle Ages and the
Dawn of Humanism outside Italy. Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May
11–13, 1970, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia I/1 (Louvain-The Hague: 1972), 6–18; Id.,
“Il Petrarca e gli storici latini”, in Dionisotti D. (ed.), Tra latino e volgare (Padua:
1974), 67–145.
7
Welkenhuysen A., “Louis Sanctus de Beringen, ami de Pétrarque, et sa Sentencia
subiecti in musica sonora rééditée d’après le ms. Laur. Ashb. 1051”, in Sapientiae doc-
trina. Mélanges de théologie et de littérature médiévales offerts à Dom Hildebrand Bascour O.S.B.,
Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, numéro spécial 1 (Louvain: 1980)
386–427; Id., “La peste en Avignon (1348) décrite par un témoin oculaire, Louis
Sanctus de Beringen (édition critique, traduction, éléments de commentaire)”, in
Lievens R. – Van Mingroot E. – Verbeke W. (eds.), Pascua mediaevalia. Studies voor
Prof. J.M. De Smet (Louvain: 1983) 452–492.
8
See, for instance, Petrarch, De vita solitaria II, 14 (ed. Martellotti, 560): ‘Nosti
hominem, quem et stabilis amicitie fides carum et Musarum multa familiaritas
clarum facit; cum quo ita gaudium viteque iucunditas aderit, ut consilium non absit;
ita vis ingenii vigorque animi ut, que his nonnumquam iungi solet, mestitie nulla
nubes interveniat’.
16
Petrarch and Ludovicus Sanctus, alike in age9 and both looking for
security through an ecclesiastical career in a centre which was intel-
lectually stimulating, met in Avignon. This new residence of the Holy
See had undergone an impressive metamorphosis. As a new centre
of international relations organised in a powerful network of admini-
strative, juridical and doctrinal activities, the city underwent a unique
intellectual and cultural revival reflected in the erection of a papal
university and library but also in a flowering of architecture, paint-
ing and music. Whereas new manuscripts, containing important
ancient texts and commentaries on ancient history, culture and phi-
losophy alike, were easily accessible, the new vogue of adding lus-
tre to liturgical services with the recently developed polyphonic music
also met with increasing success.10
Petrarch himself, who already as a law student in Bologna
(1320–1325) had entertained friendly relations with the Colonna fa-
mily, arrived in Avignon in March 1330 while accompanying Giacomo
Colonna. Through Giacomo, the 26-year old Petrarch got to know,
either in Lombez or Avignon, the Roman nobleman Lello Stefano
dei Tossetti and Ludovicus Sanctus—his ‘Lelius’ and ‘Socrates’—,
both in the company of Giacomo’s brother, Cardinal Giovanni
Colonna.11 Like many other talented musicians from the renowned
music school of St Lambert in Liège, Sanctus had been invited to
Avignon in 1330 by the Cardinal who, because of Sanctus’s remark-
9
Petrarch, Familiares IX, 2 (ed. Rossi, II, 215): ‘Hec [sc. mirica Campinie] te
[. . .] genuit atque in lucem misit illo ipso tempore quo ego procul alio terrarum
orbe nascebar’.
10
Guillemain B., La cour pontificale d’Avignon (1309–1376). Etude d’une société (Paris:
1962) 711–715; Mollat G., Les papes d’Avignon (1305–1378), 10me édition, revue,
remaniée et augmentée (Paris: 1965), 467–503; Laclotte M., L’École d’Avignon. La
peinture en Provence aux XIV me et XV me siècles (Paris: 1960); Roques M., “Les apports
néerlandais dans la peinture médiévale du Sud-Est de la France”, Revue du Nord 42
(1960) 293–303.
11
See, for instance, Petrarch’s description in Trionfo d’Amore, IV, vv. 67–78: ‘Poco
era fuor della comune strada,/Quando Socrate e Lelio vidi in prima:/Con lor più
lunga via convien ch’io vada./O qual coppia d’amici! Che nè ’n rima/Poria nè ’n
prosa assai ornar nè ’n versi,/Se, come de’, virtù nuda si stima./Con questi duo
cercai monti diversi,/Andando tutti tre sempre ad un giogo;/A questi le mie piaghe
tutte apersi./Da costor non mi può tempo nè luogo/Divider mai (siccome spero e
bramo)/Infin al cener del funereo rogo’.
’ ‘’ 17
12
Petrarch also testified that, if Sanctus’s friends had not decided to give him
the cognomen ‘Socrates’, he would have called him ‘Aristoxenus’, this being the Greek
philosopher and musical theorist who became the pupil of Xenophilus and Aristotle
and whose reputation was such that he was expected to succeed to headship of the
Lyceum. See Petrarch, Familiares IX, 2 (ed. Rossi, II, 215): ‘cumque te ars musica
in qua regnas, Aristoxenum dici vellet, vicit iudicium amicorum ut noster Socrates
dicereris’.
13
See the documents quoted in Berlière, Un ami de Pétrarque 31.
14
Petrarch, Epistola Posteritati 15 (ed. Enenkel, 266): ‘ab illustri et incomparabili
viro Iacobo de Columna [. . .] in Vasconiam ductus, sub collibus Pireneis estatem
prope celestem, multa et domini et comitum iucunditate, transegi, ut semper tem-
pus illud memorando suspirem’.
15
See the autograph note on fol. 15v of his manuscript Vat. Lat. 3196: ‘1353.
Veneris. 15 februarii circa solis occasum. Digresso ante vesperos Ludovico magi[stro]’,
quoted in Rossi V., Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari I, XLIX (“Introduzione”).
16
Petrarch, Familiares XX, 13 (ed. Rossi, IV, 38): ‘vir sapientissimus atque opti-
mus’.
17
As has been stated by Tatham E.H.R., Francesco Petrarca: The First Man of Letters.
His Life and Correspondence, 2 vols (London: 1925–1926) 424: ‘The Fleming Ludwig
(‘Socrates’) we should picture as a placid man of sound common sense and unruffled
good temper—a little phlegmatic perhaps, but with none of those “angles” which
sometimes cause a strain upon the closest friendship’.
18
Petrarch, Familiares VII, 6 (ed. Rossi, II, 108).
18
19
Enenkel K.A.E., “Die Grundlegung humanistischer Selbstpräsentation im Brief-
Corpus: Francesco Petrarcas Familiarium rerum libri XXIV ”, in Van Houdt T. – Papy
J. – Tournoy G. – Matheeussen C. (eds.), Self-Presentation and Social Identification: The
Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times (Leuven: 2002) 367–384
(esp. 371).
20
Petrarch, Familiares VIII, 3 (ed. Rossi, II, 178): ‘Sumus, frater, sumus—quid
dissimulem?—vere soli [. . .] preclaram illam Epycuri vocem iure possimus dicere:
“Satis magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus”’.
21
Petrarch, Familiares I, 1 (ed. Rossi, I, 6–7): ‘Sed non omnes tales iudices habeo;
neque enim aut idem omnes sentiunt aut similiter amant omnes’.
’ ‘’ 19
22
Petrarch, Seniles I, 3, 14 (ed. Nota, 29): ‘Socratem meum defles, quem michi,
orbe alio genitum, primo statim congressu, frons, ingenium, virtus unanimem fece-
rant’; Petrarch, Epistole metrice III, 27, vv. 27–30: ‘Tua dulcis, amice,/ interpellat item
facies? sed forsitan aequum/ id fuerat, tua quum totiens me traxerit isthuc,/ ut mea
te tandem semel huc rapuisset imago?’; Petrarch, De vita solitaria II, 14: ‘sed ea sem-
per lete frontis uniformitas quam in Socrate illo sene et mirari solemus et laudare’.
23
Petrarch, Familiares IX, 2 (ed. Rossi, II, 215): ‘mirum in tam longe natis quanta
vicinitas animorum, quanta sit coniunctio voluntatum’.
24
Petrarch, De vita solitaria II, 14 14 (ed. Martellotti, 560): ‘ille pars nostri est’.
25
Petrarch, Familiares IX, 2 (ed. Rossi, II, 215): ‘Te ergo, quem cum aliis in con-
silium mittere solebam, iam solum hortor ut consulas: tu orator confutatorque, tu
iudex electorque sententie, cui ego libens obsequor’.
26
Petrarch, Familiares I, 1 (ed. Rossi, I, 6): ‘amicitie tue laus est’.
27
Petrarch, Familiares I, 1 (ed. Rossi, I, 14): ‘Vellem ex his paucis esse, qui famam
promittere possunt et prestare’.
20
sent to him a copy in 1360,28 the Seniles and the Laurea Occidens, a
bucolic poem in which a dialogue on Laura’s death is staged between
Petrarch and ‘Socrates’.29 Not surprisingly, in fact, for it was Sanctus
who had informed Petrarch, then in Parma, that his beloved Laura,
victim of the plague in Avignon, had died.30 In his bucolic poem
Petrarch even represented ‘Socrates’ as having been present at Laura’s
death and apotheosis.
Yet the historical Sanctus is also clearly present in Petrarch’s let-
ters, especially in those which were written during periods of long
separation when Petrarch retired in Vaucluse or returned to his
native Italy. Various feelings and experiences found their place in a
lively correspondence. Among them Petrarch’s desire to live with his
‘Socrates’ is a prominent one. The humanist poet not only quoted
Horace’s verse—‘Tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam libens’ (‘With
you I would love to live, with you I would gladly die’)31—but, to
show his deep longing in this regard, he also boldly asked Pope
Clement VI that both he and his friend, ‘who is to him like a brother
and who desires to be together with him until death’, might receive
28
Petrarch, Variae 14 (ed. Fracassetti, III, 330–331); the date of this letter is
uncertain. See Foresti A., Aneddoti della vita di Francesco Petrarca, Nuova edizione corretta
e ampliata dall’ autore, Studi sul Petrarca 1 (Padua: 1977) 464.
29
See Pétrarque, Bucolicum Carmen. Texte latin, traduction et commentaire par
M. François et P. Bachmann. Avec la collaboration de F. Roudaut. Préface de
J. Meyers, Textes de la Renaissance 43 (Paris: 2001); M. Berghoff-Bührer, Das
Bucolicum Carmen des Petrarca. Ein Beitrag zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Vergils Eclogen. Einführung,
lateinischer Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Gedichten 1–5, 8 und 11, Europäische
Hochschulschriften, Reihe XV/52 (Bern: 1991). For a discussion, see Papy J.,
“Petrarca’s witte godin? Het Bucolicum Carmen XI en het graf van Laura opnieuw
bezocht”, Lampas (2005) [forthcoming].
30
As Petrarch himself wrote on the fly-leaf of his Vergil-codex, a manuscript
now preserved in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S.P. 10/27 (fomerly A. 29inf.) fol.
Av: ‘Rumor autem infelix per literas Ludovici mei me Parme repperit, anno eodem
mense Maio die xix° mane’. A facsimile reproduction can be found in Francisci
Petrarcae Vergilianus codex ad Publii Vergilii Maronis diem natalem bis millesimum celebran-
dum quam simillime expressus atque in lucem, ed. G. Galbiati – A. Ratti (Milan: 1930).
We follow de Nolhac P., Pétrarque et l’humanisme, 2 vols (Paris: 1907 = Paris-Geneva:
2004) II, 285–287. On Petrarch’s Vergil-codex, see Billanovich G., “Il Virgilio del
Giovane Petrarca”, in Lectures médiévales de Virgile. Actes du Colloque organisé par l’École
française de Rome (Rome, 25–28 octobre 1982) (Rome: 1985) 49–64; Alessio G.A. –
Billanovich G. – de Angelis V., “L’alba del Petrarca filologo: Il Virgilio Ambrosiano”,
Studi petrarchesi n.s. 2 (1985) 15–52, reprinted in Billanovich G., Petrarca e il primo
umanesimo (Padua: 1996) 3–40.
31
Petrarch, Familiares VII, 12 (ed. Rossi, II, 120); Petrarch quotes Horace, Odes
III, 9, 24.
’ ‘’ 21
the income of all their benefices jointly so that they would be able
to establish a comitatus.32 This idea of a comitatus with friends such as
Philippe de Cabassole, Ponzio Sansone, Guido Sette, and Sanctus,
had been launched earlier in De vita solitaria (II, 14).33
However much these periods of separation weighed upon them,
and however much others envied and tried to destroy their unique
friendship, the unfaltering loyalty displayed by his ‘Socrates’ made
their friendship, as Petrarch demonstrates, equal to those four famous
examples from Antiquity mentioned in Cicero’s De amicitia: Achilles-
Patroclus, Theseus-Pirithoüs, Orestes-Pylades and Damon-Phinthias.
Besides, Francesco Nelli, another of Petrarch’s loyal friends, also
testifies: ‘Socrates, that new faithful friend, even a second heart to
you, made dear by equable and straightforward disposition, and long
familiarity.’34 Finally, Nelli spared no pains to immortalize Petrarch’s
friend’s loyalty: ‘An unfailing artist and devotee of loyalty himself,
he recognized the ardour of my own, as I can truly say’.35 Thus,
‘Socrates’ has become the incarnation of Loyalty itself: ‘if there is
any probity and loyalty, they dwell in this man’s breast’,36 he is ‘one
whose faithfulness in friendship makes him dear’.37 Thus ‘Socrates’
became the very icon of friendship to the humanist and poet:
To be short, a friend is like a second self, he is the support that sus-
tains us, the light of our mind, the guide of our judgement, the torch
that lights our studies and brings peace in place of dispute, a sharer
in our cares and troubles, a companion on our travels and a comfort
when at home. He is a friend who attends us not only at home or in
times of peace, but also in the country and times of war, on land and
sea alike. And not only while we are alive, but when we after the
32
‘qui sepe sibi exstitit loco fratris et secum usque ad mortem inseparabiliter esse
cupit’, quoted in Berlière, Un ami de Pétrarque, 41.
33
See also Petrarch, Familiares XIX, 16 (ed. Rossi, III, 346).
34
Cochin H., Un ami de Pétrarque. Lettres de Francesco Nelli à Pétrarque (Paris: 1892)
244, epist. XVIII: ‘Socratem hunc novum virum fidelem ac secundum cor tuum,
quem tibi equus et simplex animus longaque consuetudo conciliant’.
35
Cochin H., Lettres de Francesco Nelli (note 34) 293, epist. XXVIII: ‘velut infalli-
bilis artifex, et summus fidei cultor, intrinsece fidei mee, licet enim fateri, inspiciebat
ardorem’.
36
Petrarch, Epistole metrice III, 27, 69–70: ‘siqua est probitasque fidesque/Pectore
in hoc habitant’.
37
Petrarch, De vita solitaria II, 14 (ed. Martellotti, 560): ‘Nosti hominem, quem
et stabilis amicitie fides carum et Musarum multa familiaritas clarum facit; cum quo
ita gaudium viteque iucunditas aderit, ut consilium non absit; ita vis ingenii vigor-
que animi ut, que his nonnumquam iungi solet, mestitie nulla nubes interveniat’.
22
funeral pyre he still remains a vital and immortal consolation, and this
to the extent that the dead, in the eyes of their surviving friends, seem
to live especially when they have departed.38
Petrarch’s friendship with his ‘Socrates’ is not confined by the lim-
its of death. The poet realizes that his own old age has begun when,
in May 1361, he learns of his friend’s death. He starts a new col-
lection of letters, his Seniles, which he opens with the words: ‘But I
return to my ‘Socrates’ who will not return to me’.39 Although death
has taken it away, it puts a seal on their friendship. Hearing that
‘Socrates’ and his own son Giovanni had died, Petrarch wrote on
the fly-leaf of his Vergil codex—the famous codex he used as his
diary—: ‘Lord Jesus, admit these two [. . .] into your eternal dwelling
so that they who can no longer be with me here may by a most
blessed transformation be with You’.40 Referring to ‘Socrates’ alone,
he concluded his note: ‘Amisi comitem ac solatium vite mee’ (‘I have
lost the companion and the consolation of my life’).
Nevertheless, however important this friendship may have been,
there remains the question of what it has to do with ‘Socrates’/Sanctus
as a reader of Petrarch’s works.
38
Petrarch, Familiares IX, 9 (ed. Rossi, II, 239): ‘Et ad summam amicus est alter
idem, status nostri basis, animi lux, consilii dux, studii fax, dissidentum pax, curarum
negotiorum particeps, peregrinationum comes refrigeriumque domesticum, neque
domi tantum sed ruri militieque assiduus et terris et pelago, neque solum spatio
vite par sed post busta vivax atque immortale solatium, usque adeo ut qui super-
stitibus obeunt amicis, tum maxime vivere videantur cum obierint’.
39
Petrarch, Seniles I, 3, 14 (ed. Nota, 33): ‘Sed redeo ad Socratem qui ad me
non redit, nec me tamen animo deserit, ut puto, corpore licet abscesserit, cum
unum et triginta mecum annos fidelis explesset amicitie’.
40
Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S.P. 10/27 (fomerly A. 29inf.) fol. Av. We quote
after de Nolhac, Pétrarque et l’humanisme II, 285: ‘Recipe, Christe Iesu, hos duos et
reliquos quinque, in eterna tabernacula tua, ut qui iam hic mecum amplius esse
non possunt permutatione felicissima tecum sint’.
’ ‘’ 23
eloquence,41 the wide reading and open mind of his Northern friend
all impressed the Italian humanist, and did so to the extent that he
wanted him to be regarded as an Italian. In a letter to his loyal
Roman friend Lello Stefano dei Tossetti—called Lelius after Gaius
Laelius, the closest friend of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
(185/4–129 BC) and central figure in Cicero’s De amicitia—Petrarch
once again played down Sanctus’s Northern origin: ‘Born outside Italy
though he was, nobody lives a truer Italian in spirit and disposition.’42
One can get a first impression of Sanctus’s learning and cultural
baggage from the letters which Petrarch addressed to him—either
in fact or as literary fiction. All Petrarch’s letters addressed to his
‘Socrates’—the letters written by the latter have not been preserved—
are scattered with quotations and references from the Bible, from
various Classical authors and Church Fathers. While Cicero, Vergil,
Horace, Ovid and Seneca are prominent, Plautus, Terence, Sallust,
Pliny the Elder, Apuleius, Lucan, Macrobius and St Jerome also
occur in their correspondence. Even if this learned correspondence
does not prove Sanctus’s own erudition, it certainly reveals that which
was shared by both friends.
Moreover, Sanctus’s background of learning is well documented
in another way. Giuseppe Billanovich has already studied several
manuscripts which belonged to Ludovicus Sanctus himself.43 One
striking item from Sanctus’s library in Avignon is the manuscript
containing Cicero’s rhetorical works and the Rhetorica ad Herennium,
a manuscript which he purchased one week after his arrival in the
papal city, viz. on 6 March 1330. The manuscript, composed in the
12th–13th century in (Southern?) France by one scriptor and now in
41
Petrarch, Familiares VII, 6 (ed. Rossi, II, 108): ‘facundia loquentis’.
42
Petrarch, Familiares XX, 13 (ed. Rossi, IV, 37–43): ‘Licet enim extra orbem
italicum natus sit, nemo tamen animo et voluntate magis italicus vivit’.
43
Billanovich, “Tra Italia e Fiandre nel Trecento” 6–18. Billanovich also offers
photographic reproductions of some of Sanctus’s glosses, such as the mark of own-
ership on fol. 57v of ms. Class. 261: ‘Ego Ludovicus Sanctus emi hanc Rethoricam
Marci Tullij Ciceronis in Avinione VI die mensis Marcii Anno Domini MCC-
CXXX’. (‘I, Ludovicus Sanctus, bought this Rhetoric of Marcus Tullius Cicero in
Avignon on the sixth day of March in the year of the Lord 1330’). Other glosses
are but small additions or indications of key-words (e.g. ‘De exordio’ (f. 7v); ‘De
narratione’ (f. 8r); ‘De partitione’ (f. 9r); ‘De confirmatione’ (f. 9v); ‘Quid sit tem-
pus’ (f. 10v). Sanctus also put a little hand (manicula) on fol. 32v thus marking the
sentence ‘Temperancia est rationis in libidine [. . .]’ (= Cicero, De inventione I, 26,
39: ‘Temperance is the use of reason in passion [. . .]’)!
24
44
Petrarch, Familiares XVI, 6 (ed. Rossi, III, 188–193), and Familiares XVII, 5,
a letter to Guido Sette (ed. Rossi, III, 249): ‘Utere libellis nostris, qui crebro nimis
absentem dominum lugent’.
45
Our account is based on Billanovich, “Il Petrarca e gli storici latini” 67–145.
46
Petrarch, Familiares XVI, 1 (ed. Rossi, III, 176): ‘quam in filiam adoptavi’. On
Petrarch’s library in Vaucluse, see de Nolhac P., “Le catalogue de la première bi-
bliothèque de Pétrarque à Vaucluse”, Revue des bibliothèques 16 (1906) 341–344; Ullman
B.L., “Petrarch’s favorite books”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 54
(1923) 21–38.
’ ‘’ 25
47
This is the view of Hamoir H., Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen over de latijnsche school
en het College van Beeringen (Hasselt: 1900) 7.
48
Kurth G., La cité de Liège au Moyen-Age, 3 vols (Brussels-Liège: 1909–1910) I,
50.
49
Smits van Waesberghe J., Muziekgeschiedenis der middeleeuwen. Eerste deel: de Luiksche
muziekschool als centrum van het muziektheoretisch onderricht in de middeleeuwen (Tilburg:
1936–1939) I, 66–69 and 105; Welkenhuysen, “Louis Sanctus de Beringen” 414.
50
Welkenhuysen, “Louis Sanctus de Beringen” 401–412 and 420, n. 108; Dykmans,
“Les premiers rapports” 70.
26
51
A full analysis with a detailed commentary is offered by Welkenhuysen, “La
peste en Avignon” 452–492.
52
Sanctus had become a canon of St Donatian in Bruges on 22 May 1342; on
30 August of the same year he was appointed cantor of the St Donatian’s Chapter
in Bruges. See the documents quoted in Berlière, Un ami de Pétrarque 34–35. On
the duties of procuratores with the Curia in Avignon, see Guillemain, La cour pontificale
d’Avignon 567–572.
53
A detailed survey of Latin letters or verses written by Sanctus is given in Papy,
Ludovicus Sanctus, vriend van Francesco Petrarca 68–74.
54
IJsewijn J., “The Coming of Humanism to the Low Countries”, in Oberman
H.A. – Brady T.A. jr. (eds.), Itinerarium Italicum: the Profile of the Italian Renaissance in
the Mirror of its European Transformations, dedicated to Paul Oskar Kristeller on the Occasion
’ ‘’ 27
We are thus confronted on the one side with Petrarch who in his
eulogies spared no pains to ascribe to his ‘Socrates’ characteristics
such as loyalty, fidelity, open-mindedness and multifaceted cultural
education and erudition. On the other side we are faced with Sanctus’s
own writings in which but little of Petrarch’s influence is to be dis-
cerned.55 Is Sanctus an ambiguous figure living most of his life in
the lucrative clerical milieu of Avignon and adopting the standards
and ways of the Church—even in 1348, after losing his patron
Cardinal Colonna,56 he decided to enrol in the theological school of
Avignon57 and to stay in that Papal city58—, yet, owing to his friend-
ship with Petrarch, marked by the secular studia humanitatis which
open the way to a deepened sense of the self in a world governed
by divine law and free will?
This question brings us to another: to what extent is Petrarch’s
‘Socrates’ the product of a literary atmosphere created by himself in
his correspondence, and to what extent does the historical Ludovicus
Sanctus correspond to the literary character ‘Socrates’? A possible
answer to this apparent paradox is to be sought in Petrarch’s liter-
ary friendship with his ‘Socrates’, a friendship which was experi-
enced as the friendship between Cicero and his Atticus and in which
the literary layers were an essential part of Petrarch’s perception of
his northern friend.59 If ‘Socrates’ is his ‘theater’, he is also his
of his 70th Birthday, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 14 (Leiden: 1975)
193–301 (esp. 204).
55
Tournoy G., “La fortuna del Petrarca nei Paesi Bassi”, in Blanc P. (ed.),
Dynamique d’une expansion culturelle. Pétrarque en Europe XIV e–XX e siècle. Actes du XXVI e
congrès international du CEFI, Turin et Chambéry, 11–15 décembre 1995. A la mémoire de
Franco Simone (Paris: 2001) 583–594 (esp. 584) points at the possibility that it was
Sanctus who, in 1333, opened to Petrarch the doors of the rich libraries in Liège
so that he was able to discover the pseudo-Ciceronian Ad equites Romanos and Cicero’s
Pro Archia. Tournoy does, however, not forget to mention that Petrarch had an
Italian friend in Liège too, viz. Matteo Longhi, Archdean in Saint Lambert, who,
a few years earlier, had provided him with Statius’s Achilleis.
56
Cardinal Giovanni Colonna died on 3 July 1348; see, for instance, Petrarch,
Familiares VII, 13 (ed. Rossi, II, 147–157) and Canzoniere 269: ‘Rotta è l’alta colonna
e ’l verde lauro’.
57
Berlière, Un ami de Pétrarque 42–43.
58
Despite Petrarch’s letters describing the horrors of 1348 (Familiares VIII, 7; ed.
Rossi, II, 174–179) and inviting him to Italy (Familiares VIII, *2–5; ed. Rossi, II,
194–203).
59
Petrarch, Familiares I, 1 (ed. Rossi, I, 14): ‘tu olim Ydomeneus, tu Athicus, tu
Lucilius meus eris’. See Papy J., “Francesco Petrarca en Ludovicus Sanctus: een
‘Ciceroniaanse’ vriendschap?”, Handelingen van de Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal-
28
Selective Bibliography
Editions
Studies
A A., La musique et les musiciens de l’ancien pays de Liége. Essai bio-bibliographique sur
la musique liégeoise (Brussels: 1930).
B U., Un ami de Pétrarque, Louis Sanctus de Beeringen (Rome-Paris: 1905).
——, “Louis Sanctus de Beringen”, Leodium 8 (1909) 6–9.
B G., “Tra Italia e Fiandre nel Trecento. Francesco Petrarca e Ludovico
Santo di Beringen”, in Verbeke G. – IJsewijn J. (eds.), The Late Middle Ages and
the Dawn of Humanism outside Italy. Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May
11–13, 1970, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia I/1 (Louvain-The Hague: 1972) 6–18.
——, “Il Petrarca e gli storici latini”, in Dionisotti D. (ed.), Tra latino e volgare (Padua:
1974) 67–145.
——, “Il Virgilio del Giovane Petrarca”, in Lectures médiévales de Virgile. Actes du
Colloque organisé par l’École française de Rome (Rome, 25–28 octobre 1982) (Rome: 1985)
49–64.
C J., “Écoles et savants de Campine aux siècles passés”, Verzamelde opstellen
uitgegeven door den Geschied- en Oudheidkundigen Studiekring te Hasselt 6 (1930) 166–192.
C H., Un ami de Pétrarque. Lettres de Francesco Nelli à Pétrarque (Paris: 1892).
——, “Sur le Socrate de Pétrarque, le musicien flamand Ludovicus Sanctus de Beeringhen”,
Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’Ecole française de Rome 37 (1918–1919) 3–32.
D S J.-F., Mémoires pour la vie de François Pétrarque, 3 vols (Amsterdam: 1764–1767).
D M., “Les premiers rapports de Pétrarque avec les Pays-Bas”, Bulletin de
l’Institut Historique belge de Rome 20 (1939) 51–122.
E K.A.E., “Die Grundlegung humanistischer Selbstpräsentation im Brief-
Corpus: Francesco Petrarcas Familiarium rerum libri XXIV ”, in Van Houdt T. –
Papy J. – Tournoy G. – Matheeussen C. (eds.), Self-Presentation and Social Identification:
The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times (Leuven: 2002)
367–384.
F A., Aneddoti della vita di Francesco Petrarca, Nuova edizione corretta e ampliata dall’
autore, Studi sul Petrarca 1 (Padua: 1977).
30
G B., La cour pontificale d’Avignon (1309–1376). Etude d’une société (Paris: 1962).
IJ J., “The Coming of Humanism to the Low Countries”, in Oberman H.A. –
Brady T.A. jr. (eds.), Itinerarium Italicum: the Profile of the Italian Renaissance in the
Mirror of its European Transformations, dedicated to Paul Oskar Kristeller on the Occasion
of his 70th Birthday, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 14 (Leiden:
1975) 193–301.
M N., Pétrarque: les voyages de l’esprit. Quatre études. Préface de Marc Fumaroli,
Collection nomina (Grenoble: 2004).
M G., “Pétrarque et le pays liégeois”, Leodium 4 (1905) 1–16.
N P. , Pétrarque et l’humanisme, 2 vols (Paris: 1907 = Paris-Geneva: 2004).
——, “Le catalogue de la première bibliothèque de Pétrarque à Vaucluse”, Revue
des bibliothèques 16 (1906) 341–344.
P J., Ludovicus Sanctus, vriend van Francesco Petrarca (unpubl. diss. Leuven: 1987).
——, “Ludovicus Sanctus: Petrarca’s alter idem”, Millennium: Tijdschrift voor Middeleeuwse
Studies 2 (1988) 110–117.
——, “Francesco Petrarca en Ludovicus Sanctus: een ‘Ciceroniaanse’ vriendschap?”,
Handelingen van de Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis
43 (1989) 87–98.
T E.H.R., Francesco Petrarca: The First Man of Letters. His Life and Correspondence,
2 vols (London: 1925–1926).
T G., “La fortuna del Petrarca nei Paesi Bassi”, in Blanc P. (ed.), Dynamique
d’une expansion culturelle. Pétrarque en Europe XIV e–XX e siècle. Actes du XXVI e congrès
international du CEFI, Turin et Chambéry, 11–15 décembre 1995. A la mémoire de Franco
Simone (Paris: 2001) 583–594.
U B.L., “Petrarch’s favorite books”, Transactions of the American Philological
Association 54 (1923) 21–38.
W A., “Louis Sanctus de Beringen, ami de Pétrarque, et sa Sentencia
subiecti in musica sonora rééditée d’après le ms. Laur. Ashb. 1051”, in Sapientiae doc-
trina. Mélanges de théologie et de littérature médiévales offerts à Dom Hildebrand Bascour
O.S.B., Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, numéro spécial 1 (Louvain:
1980), 386–427.
——, “La peste en Avignon (1348) décrite par un témoin oculaire, Louis Sanctus
de Beringen (édition critique, traduction, éléments de commentaire)”, in Lievens
R. – Van Mingroot E. – Verbeke W. (eds.), Pascua mediaevalia. Studies voor Prof.
J.M. De Smet (Louvain: 1983), 452–492.
W E.H., Petrarch’s Later Years, The Mediaeval Academy of America (Cambridge,
MA: 1959).
Y C., Petrarca in de Nederlandse letterkunde (Amsterdam: 1934).
ANTIQUARIANISM AND POLITICS IN
14TH-CENTURY AVIGNON:
THE HUMANISM OF GIOVANNI CAVALLINI
Marc Laureys
1
Of seminal importance for the vast subject of spolia is Esch A., “Spolien. Zur
Wiederverwendung antiker Baustücke und Skulpturen im mittelalterlichen Italien”,
Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 51 (1969) 1–64; see more recently, among other studies, De
Lachenal L., Spolia. Uso e reimpiego dell’antico dal III al XIV secolo (Milan: 1995);
Poeschke J. (ed.), Antike Spolien in der Architektur des Mittelalters und der Renaissance
(Munich: 1996).
2
The name of Nicolaus’s father that appears in the inscription is, however,
Crescens, not (as often erroneously indicated in modern literature) Crescentius. For
a brief discussion of the Casa de’ Crescenzi and its ideological implications see
Krautheimer R., Rome. Profile of a City, 312–1308 (Princeton, NJ: 1980) 197–198;
Claussen P.C., “Renovatio Romae. Erneuerungsphasen römischer Architektur im
11. und 12. Jahrhundert”, in Schimmelpfennig B. – Schmugge L. (eds.), Rom im
32
hohen Mittelalter. Studien zu den Romvorstellungen und zur Rompolitik vom 10. bis zum 12.
Jahrhundert (Sigmaringen: 1992) 87–125, at 119–122; Strothmann J., Kaiser und Senat.
Der Herrschaftsanspruch der Stadt Rom zur Zeit der Staufer (Köln-Weimar-Wien: 1998)
78–84. All endorse a date ‘around 1100 or shortly after’ on the authority of Bernhard
Bischoff and Rudolf M. Kloos. For the theory of an earlier date see the evidence
quoted by Barbanera M. – Pergola S., “Elementi architettonici antichi e post-antichi
riutilizzati nella c.d. Casa dei Crescenzi. La ‘memoria dell’antico’ nell’edilizia civile
a Roma”, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 98 (1997) 301–328,
at 303; but they note cautiously (ibid.): ‘In realtà l’epoca della costruzione, in base
alle circostanze storiche, rimane allo stato attuale ancora incerta’.
3
‘NON FUIT IGNARUS CUIUS DOMUS HEC NICOLAUS|QUOD NIL
MOMENTI SIBI MUNDI GLORIA SENTIT|VERUM QUOD FECIT HANC
NON TAM VANA COEGIT|GLORIA QUAM ROME VETEREM RENOVARE
DECOREM’. These are the first lines of the inscription, which in its entirety con-
tains quite a few problems of grammar, meter, and interpretation. Strothmann,
Kaiser und Senat (note 2) 81, remarks oddly: ‘Eine Übersetzung würde den Sinn unter
Umständen entstellen, scheint hier doch eine rein inhaltliche Wiedergabe sinnvoller
zu sein’. I, for one, fail to see any reason why in whatever possible case a para-
phrase might make more sense than a translation. Strothmann’s paraphrase of the
first lines reveals at any rate that he seriously misunderstood the text.
4
On the renovatio senatus see above all Benson R.L., “Political renovatio: two mod-
els from Roman Antiquity”, in Benson R.L. – Constable G. (eds.), Renaissance and
Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA: 1982) 339–386, at 340–359; Baumgärtner
I, “Rombeherrschung und Romerneuerung. Die römische Kommune im 12.
Jahrhundert”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 69 (1989)
27–79; Strothmann, Kaiser und Senat 28–216.
33
5
A sympathetic attitude of the canons of St. Peter towards the Senate is explic-
itly attested for a slightly later period, so that such a political orientation does not
preclude the authorship of Benedict; see Strothmann, Kaiser und Senat (note 2) 223–227.
The recent scholarship on the political orientation of the Mirabilia is critically and
convincingly reviewed by Herklotz I., Gli eredi di Costantino. Il papato, il Laterano e la
propaganda visiva nel XII secolo, La corte dei papi 6 (Rome: 2000) 215–217.
6
The recent attempt by Nine Robijntje Miedema, therefore, to categorize and
interpret the Mirabilia as a purely literary descriptio urbis fails to do full justice to all
facets of the treatise: see Miedema N.R., Die ‘Mirabilia Romae’. Untersuchungen zu ihrer
Überlieferung mit Edition der deutschen und niederländischen Texte, Münchener Texte und
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 108 (Tübingen: 1996)
445–453. Before Miedema, the Mirabilia (as well as the Graphia aureae Urbis Romae)
had been discussed as a special kind of laus Romae by Hyde J.K., “Medieval
Descriptions of Cities”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 48 (1965–1966) 308–340,
at 320–324. The De mirabilibus urbis Romae of Magister Gregorius is treated as such
by Zanna P., “’Descriptiones urbium’ and Elegy in Latin and Vernaculars, in the
Early Middle Ages. At the Crossroads between Civic Engagement, Artistic Enthusiasm
and Religious Meditation”, Studi medievali 32 (1991) 523–596, at 577–582.
7
For this contextualization of the Mirabilia see especially Seibt G., Anonimo romano.
Geschichtsschreibung in Rom an der Schwelle zur Renaissance, Sprache und Geschichte 17
(Stuttgart: 1992) 164–177.
8
See Kinney D., “Mirabilia urbis Romae”, in Bernardo A.S. – Levin S., The
Classics in the Middle Ages, Medieval & Renaissance texts & studies 69 (Binghamton,
NY: 1990) 207–221.
34
9
See Seibt, Anonimo romano 164: ‘Man hat die Mirabilienbücher fast immer als
Dokumente eines aufblühenden archäologischen Interesses interpretiert; es läßt sich
jedoch zeigen, daß man sie besser versteht, wenn man sie als besondere, der Stadt
Rom eigentümliche Form von Geschichtsschreibung begreift’.
10
The mnemotechnical dimension of this kind of historical topography seems
clear; see Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum 5, 2: ‘tanta vis admonitionis inest in
locis, ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina’ (‘Such a great force
of reminding lies in places, that the art of memory is not without reason drawn
from them’). It has not yet, however, been explored in depth.
11
See Kinney, Mirabilia 210, with n. 25. Seibt, Anonimo romano 175–176, aptly
adduces the eloquent testimonies of Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum V, 1–6 and
Vergil, Aeneid, VIII, 310–312, but does not take the Fasti into consideration.
12
Authors of surveys of Roman history include Giovanni Crivelli, Pier Candido
Decembrio, and Andrea Fiocchi; they are mentioned by Voigt G., Die Wiederbelebung
des classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, dritte Auflage, ed.
M. Lehnerdt (Berlin: 1893) II, 490–491. Much better known and far more suc-
cessful was Pomponio Leto’s Romanae historiae compendium ab interitu Gordiani iunioris
usque ad Justinum III (first edition published posthumously in 1499); on this work see
now Niutta F., “Il Romanae historiae compendium di Pomponio Leto dedicato a Francesco
Borgia”, in Canfora D. – Chiabò M. – De Nichilo M. (eds.), Principato ecclesiastico e
riuso dei classici. Gli umanisti e Alessandro VI, Pubblicazione degli Archivi di Stato, Saggi
72 (Roma: 2002) 321–354.
35
13
On the connections between Roman humanist scholarship and the political
ideals of the Renaissance popes see, among others, Stinger Ch.L., The Renaissance
in Rome (Bloomington, IN: 1985) 156–291.
14
For a biographical profile of Giovanni Cavallini and a discussion of his work
see Laureys M., “Between Mirabilia and Roma instaurata: Giovanni Cavallini’s Polistoria”,
in Pade M. – Ragn Jensen H. – Waage Petersen L. (eds.), Avignon & Naples. Italy
in France – France in Italy in the fourteenth-century, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici,
Supplementum XXV (Rome: 1997) 100–115, where all relevant earlier literature
can be found. The first complete edition of the text is Ioannis Caballini de Cerronibus
Polistoria de virtutibus et dotibus Romanorum, ed. M. Laureys, Bibliotheca scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Stuttgart-Leipzig: 1995).
15
For indications suggesting further chapters or sections of the Polistoria, that
Cavallini possibly planned but failed to execute, see Polistoria (ed. M. Laureys) XX.
36
of the city. At the same time, he firmly and more explicitly than
ever before set his account in contemporary politics by inextricably
linking Roman history and antiquities to papal authority and exploit-
ing that link to plead for a return of the papacy to Rome.
Even if Cavallini wrote his Polistoria in Avignon, his previous expe-
rience and career in his native city no doubt prepared him well for
his scholarly endeavor. For we know that Cavallini, besides being a
canon of S. Maria Rotonda, was also for some time one of the 12
rectores of the Romana fraternitas, a corporation uniting the local sec-
ular clergy of Rome. By 1325, when Cavallini is mentioned as rec-
tor in a papal document, the Romana fraternitas had definitely passed
the peak of its power, but it nonetheless still exercised a consider-
able control over religious life and ecclesiastical matters in Rome.16
Cavallini’s position as rector made him intimately familiar with sev-
eral facets of Roman social life and politics, as well as with the eccle-
siastical topography of the city, since the supervision of divine services
in the churches and the organization of funerals and processions also
fell under the responsibilities of the fraternity. Less clear, admittedly,
is Cavallini’s place in the intellectual and cultural life in Rome. The
title magister he used in Avignon does not necessarily imply that he
had obtained an academic degree, but still most likely means that
he had enjoyed some form of higher education, possibly at the Studium
Urbis.17 In what way, if any, Cavallini participated at the literary life
in Rome, is a question that to date can hardly be resolved, as the
16
On the Romana fraternitas see especially Ferri G., “La Romana Fraternitas”,
Archivio della Reale Società Romana di Storia Patria 26 (1903) 453–466, as well as the
documentary survey in Kehr P.F., Italia pontificia. I. Roma (Berlin: 1906) 8–14.
Additional information and insights can be found in Barone G., “Chierici, monaci
e frati”, in Vauchez A. (ed.), Roma medievale, Storia di Roma dall’antichità a oggi
(Roma-Bari: 2001) 187–212, at 204–208; di Carpegna Falconieri T., Il clero di Roma
nel medioevo. Istituzioni e politica cittadina (secoli VIII–XIII) (Rome: 2002) 241–268. A
full-fledged investigation remains a desideratum.
17
On the interpretation of the title magister in the milieu of the papal Curia see
Herde P., “Öffentliche Notare an der päpstlichen Kurie im dreizehnten und begin-
nenden vierzehnten Jahrhundert”, in Thumser M. – Wenz-Haubfleisch A. – Wiegand P.
(eds.), Studien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters. Jürgen Petersohn zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart:
2000) 239–259, at 245–246. The intellectual level of the Roman clergy in late
medieval Rome remains difficult to assess; for a very rich survey of the available
evidence concerning the canons of S. Pietro in Vaticano, S. Giovanni in Laterano,
and S. Maria Maggiore, see Rehberg A., “ ‘Roma docta’? Osservazioni sulla cul-
tura del clero dei grandi capitoli romani nel Trecento”, Archivio della Società Romana
di Storia Patria 122 (1999) 135–167.
37
18
For three interesting case-studies, including Giovanni Cavallini, see Petoletti
M., “ ‘Nota valde et commenda hoc exemplum’: il colloquio con i testi nella Roma
del primo Trecento”, in Fera V. – Ferraù G. – Rizzo S. (eds.), Talking to the text:
Marginalia from papyri to print (Messina: 2002) I, 359–399. One particular facet of
this literary culture, namely the poetry produced in the milieu of the papal Curia
in the 13th and early 14th centuries, is surveyed by Marco Petoletti in his edition
and study of the work of Bonaiuto da Casentino; see his “Il Diversiloquium di Bonaiuto
da Casentino, poeta di curia ai tempi di Bonifacio VIII”, Aevum 75 (2001) 381–448,
at 385–393.
19
See Laureys, “Giovanni Cavallini’s Polistoria” 104, with n. 23. Around the same
time, the Fourth Decade of Livy’s Ab Urbe condita became known and was exploited
in Northern Italy as well; for its use in the Chronicon of Benzo d’Alessandria, see
Petoletti M., Il ‘Chronicon’ di Benzo d’Alessandria e i classici latini all’inizio del XIV secolo.
Edizione critica del libro XXIV: ‘De moribus et vita philosophorum’ (Milan: 2000) 80–81.
20
For a discussion of Dionigi’s commentary see Schullian D.M., “Valerius
Maximus”, in Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. V (Washington, DC: 1984)
287–403, at 324–329; the dedicatory epistle is transcribed ibid. 325–326.
38
21
See Petoletti M., “ ‘Nota pro consilio Polistorie mee orationem predictam’:
Giovanni Cavallini lettore di Livio”, Italia medioevale e umanistica 39 (1996 [published
in 1999]) 47–76.
22
There is no evidence to prove conclusively that Petrarch and Cavallini knew
each other personally, as there are no explicit references in their respective works,
but it is hard to believe they never met. It may be noted that Landolfo Colonna,
who played such an instrumental role in Petrarch’s work on Livy, is not mentioned
once by Petrarch.
39
23
In previous scholarship on Cavallini, his notes on Valerius Maximus have
attracted far more attention than his Polistoria; see the literature mentioned in Laureys,
“Giovanni Cavallini’s Polistoria” 112, n. 14. For a succinct appraisal see, besides the
analysis included in my doctoral dissertation (An edition and study of Giovanni Cavallini’s
Polistoria de virtutibus et dotibus Romanorum, 2 vols [Harvard University: 1992] 1, 33–46),
also Miglio M., “ ‘Et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma’: attualità della tradizione
e proposte di innovazione”, in Aspetti culturali della società italiana nel periodo del papato
avignonese, Convegni del Centro di Studi sulla spiritualità medievale. Università degli
Studi di Perugia 19 (Todi: 1981) 311–369, at 359–366, as well as, more recently,
Petoletti, “Il colloquio con i testi” 371–379.
24
Dorothy M. Schullian, therefore, was absolutely right in being reluctant to
consider Cavallini’s notes on Valerius Maximus a “genuine commentary”; see
Schullian, “Valerius Maximus” 334.
25
See Petoletti M., “Il colloquio con i testi” 399.
26
Trevet was ‘lector sacri palatii’ (see Weiss R., “Notes on the popularity of the
writings of Nicholas Trevet, O.P.”, Dominican studies 1 [1948] 261–265, at 264), but
this may have been merely a honorary title; see Burnham, Jr. Ph. E., Cultural life
at papal Avignon, 1309–1376 [Doct. dissertation, Tufts University: 1972] 244, with
n. 48).
40
27
The single most important Classical author for Malaspina’s chronicle was, quite
differently from Cavallini’s Polistoria, Vergil; see Koller W., “Vergil in der Chronik
des Saba Malaspina”, in Leonardi C. (ed.), Gli umanesimi medievali. Atti del II Congresso
dell’“Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee” (Firenze: 1998) 297–306. Cavallini was famil-
iar with Malaspina’s work and quoted a passage from it in Polist., 8, 4, 5; he most
likely used the manuscript P (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5696), a mis-
cellaneous codex, partly assembled in Avignon in the 1340s; for a description of
this manuscript, which would deserve further study, see Die Chronik des Saba Malaspina,
ed. W. Koller – A. Nitschke, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores XXXV
(Hannover: 1999) 42–52.
28
Vat. Lat. 1927, fol. 93v: ‘Aliquas concordantias apposuit manu sua ex dictis
Titi et Tullii et plurium aliorum ystoriographorum’.
29
I discussed Cavallini’s principles and method of compilation in my “Giovanni
Cavallini’s Polistoria” 104–108.
41
which the city of Rome is described on the basis of what the avail-
able sources tell about its history, institutions, and monuments. In
that sense, Cavallini continues and combines two specific variants of
historiographical writing attested in Rome, the antiquarian type rep-
resented by the Mirabilia and the encyclopedic type, inaugurated in
Rome by Martinus Polonus in the late 13th century.30 The novelty
of Cavallini’s Polistoria lies in the selection and appreciation of his
source texts. Whereas Landolfo Colonna in his Breviarium historiarum,
as well as his nephew fra Giovanni Colonna in his Mare historiarum,
still attempted to amass all relevant material from all periods, Cavallini
conspicuously focussed on selected Classical authors to construct his
account and endowed them with an exemplary status.
The literary background of the Polistoria elucidates both the affinity
to and the distance from Petrarch’s interest in Classical authors and
Roman history. The strong invective used by Cavallini with respect
to contemporary history and politics remind one of Petrarch’s atti-
tude. Among the copious annotations, with which Petrarch filled the
margins of his books, one can find, alongside evidence of his philo-
logical work, much criticism of his own society and many attacks
against individual persons.31 He, too, obviously held up the Classical
authors as a mirror for his contemporaries to contemplate. The his-
torical writings of both Petrarch and Cavallini arose not just out of
an interest in Classical Antiquity, but were also prompted by their
dislike of their own times, just as their most important common
model author, Livy, had produced his History of Rome ‘from the
sight of the evils which our age saw for so many years’.32 But both
in his reception of Classical authors and in his criticism of his own
times, Petrarch of course went much further than Cavallini was ever
capable of going. While Cavallini’s scholarly annotations always deal
with specific details extracted from texts that are considered author-
itative, Petrarch’s reception of Classical authors stands out above the
similar pursuits of all his contemporaries not only on account of his
30
A third variant, less important for the literary format of the Polistoria, was the
papal historiography, known as the Liber Pontificalis. The three traditions are distin-
guished by Seibt, Anonimo romano 66–67.
31
An early example (if it is effectively Petrarch’s) is recalled by Petoletti, “Il col-
loquio con i testi” 367, with n. 1.
32
Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Preface 5: ‘a conspectu malorum quae nostra tot
per annos vidit aetas’.
42
33
See especially Fera V., “La filologia del Petrarca e i fondamenti della filologia
umanistica”, in Il Petrarca latino e le origini dell’umanesimo, Quaderni petrarcheschi 9–10
(Firenze: 1992–1993) 367–391, at 373–378.
34
The Familiarium rerum libri too, however, yield similar examples, such as Familiares
IX, 13, in which Petrarch inveighs against his friend Philippe de Vitry, who had
complained about the diplomatic mission of his protector to Rome. Petrarch’s crit-
icism of Philippe de Vitry’s stance leads him to a (not very nuanced) discussion of
the historical supremacy of Italy over France; see Crevatin G., “L’idea di Roma”,
in Berra C. (ed.), Motivi e forme delle Familiari di Francesco Petrarca, Quaderni di Acme
57 (Milano: 2003) 229–247, at 234.
35
See Quillen C.E., Rereading the Renaissance. Petrarch, Augustine, and the Language of
Humanism (Ann Arbor: 1998) 88–89. Petrarch’s invectives are of central importance
for the arguments Quillen develops in her book.
43
36
Polistoria, PR., 1: ‘ad laudem et gloriam perpetuam Romane urbis’.
37
Polistoria, PR., 3: ‘Verum et si omnium gentium istorie revolvantur, nullarum
gentium gesta clarius elucescunt quam gesta magnifica Romanorum.’
38
For an excellent recent contribution to the topic of the laus urbis, with very
full references to previous scholarship, see Thurn N., “Deutsche neulateinische
Städtelobgedichte: Ein Vergleich ausgewählter Beispiele des 16. Jahrhunderts”,
Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 4 (2002) 253–269.
44
39
Polistoria, 9, 3, 4: ‘De quorum virtutibus et omnibus supra dictis qui ad plenum
predicta et ystoricos libros perlegerit ac cronicas poetarum et ut Iohannes orator
huiusmodi opusculi ad plenum scrutaverit, persentiet non solum priscis Romanis ab
olim conpetisse sed etiam hodie eisdem concivibus convenire modernis, si modo per-
petuus huiusmodi quo vivimus pacis amor et civilis cura concordie haberentur hodie inter eos,
secundum Livium .VIIII. Ab urbe condita c. X in fine capituli’ (Livy, Ab Urbe condita
IX, 19, 17).
40
This concept was, of course, also known in the Middle Ages and should, there-
45
least from afar and I may at least in this manner fulfil the duty of a
Roman citizen.43
On hardly any other occasion, Petrarch perceived the Romans of
his time to be so closely united with their ancestors of Classical
Antiquity, and was so proud to associate himself with them.44
Cavallini, on the other hand, considered this bond an exclusive
privilege of the Romans: by virtue of their Roman citizenship, they
were the heirs of Rome’s glorious past and assured the historical
continuity of their city.45 In his view, a reading and assimilation of
the Classical authors did not create, but simply explicated the sin-
gular relationship between ancient and modern Romans. The Roman
Cola di Rienzo, however, is conspicuously and strikingly absent from
Cavallini’s Polistoria and makes only one modest appearance in his
notes to Livy.46 On the basis of his absence from the Polistoria, the
year 1347 has been posited as terminus ante quem for the completion
of the treatise, but this chronological argument is not quite con-
vincing, especially since the literary format of the Polistoria easily
allowed the insertion of additional chapters.47 Cavallini, furthermore,
must have been familiar with Cola at least since 1343, when Cola
visited the Curia in Avignon to implore the support of Clement VI
for his political plans. Cavallini’s silence as to Cola’s political initia-
tive is most likely a conscious choice, because he deemed it not com-
patible with his own interpretation of the political reality and the
role and place of Rome in that context. Cola di Rienzo essentially
intended to restore the imperium Romanum under Italian leadership
and with Rome as capital; above all, he wanted to cut off any con-
nection with the German Empire. Even if Cola chose for himself
43
Burdach K. – Piur P., Briefwechsel des Cola di Rienzo, Dritter Teil. Kritischer Text,
Lesarten und Anmerkungen, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation. Forschungen zur Geschichte
der deutschen Bildung 2 (Berlin: 1912) Nr. 23, ll. 383–386 (p. 81): ‘Itaque cala-
mum festinabundus arripui, ut in tanto tam celebri libertatis populi consensu vox
mea de longinquo saltem audiretur et vel sic Romani civis officio fungerer’.
44
Petrarch was a civis Romanus ever since his coronation as poet laureate on the
Capitol in 1341; see Mommsen T.E., “Petrarch’s Conception of the ‘Dark Ages’”,
Speculum 17 (1942) 226–242, at 233.
45
See Miglio M., “La Polistoria di Giovanni Cavallini ed un manoscritto scom-
parso”, Roma nel Rinascimento (1996) 5–14, at 10.
46
See Petoletti, “Giovanni Cavallini” 70 and “Il colloquio con i testi” 377.
47
Cavallini probably conceived at least some chapters that in the end did not
materialize; see above n. 15.
47
48
As is plausibly suggested by Burdach K. – Piur P., Briefwechsel des Cola di Rienzo,
Fünfter Teil. Nachlese zu den Texten. Kommentar, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation.
Forschungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Bildung 2 (Berlin: 1929) 90; see ibid.,
88–93, for a very detailed discussion of the various titles Cola awarded himself.
49
Cola’s spectacular exploitation of the lex regia, too, can be seen as a conscious
response to the papal claims to universal power, asserted throughout the first half
of the 14th century; see Miglio M., “Il Senato in Roma medievale”, in Il Senato
nella storia. II: Il Senato nel medioevo e nella prima età moderna (Rome: 1997) 117–172,
at 162–163. On the legal action undertaken by church authorities against Cola see
Burdach – Piur, Kommentar 245–252. On the associations Cola drew between him-
self and Constantine the Great, as well as his judgment on the Donation of
Constantine see Seibt, Anonimo romano 135–142.
50
For a brief evocation of the role of early Italian humanists in this conflict, see
Billanovich G., “I primi umanisti italiani nello scontro tra papa Giovanni XXII e
Ludovico il Bavaro”, Italia medioevale e umanistica 37 (1994) 179–186.
48
51
I have not discovered any single text, which Cavallini might have followed in
particular detail. The papal position had been codified most clearly in famous and
influential treatises, such as Aegidius Romanus’s De ecclesiastica potestate (written in
1301–1302), and his follower Augustinus of Ancona’s Summa de potestate ecclesiastica
(written in 1320). Their arguments are repeated in numerous other tracts. On this
whole complex see, after the groundbreaking work by Richard Scholz, especially
Wilks M., The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages. The Papal Monarchy with
Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and
Thought, new series IX (Cambridge: 1963). No major theologian was active in
Avignon itself, after the doctrinal struggle surrounding the Visio beatifica was settled
in 1335, as is noted by Burnham, Jr. Ph.E., Papal Avignon 296–297.
52
The ideological significance of this association was, to my knowledge, first
stressed by Kajanto I., “Pontifex maximus as the title of the pope”, Arctos 15 (1981)
37–52, at 46–51; id., Papal Epigraphy in Renaissance Rome, Annales Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae, ser. B, tom. 222 (Helsinki: 1982) 62–63.
49
to what great extent will he cause the death of the state, when he
lives abroad! And if his power could pass elsewhere, the nature of this
place, however, cannot be transferred to another location, according
to Livy’s History 5, final chapter.53
In the same chapter Cavallini underlined the privileged status of
Rome by suggesting a similar typological connection between two
stories that evince the providential basis of this status,54 namely the
story of the Roman centurion, who after the liberation of Rome
from the Gauls cried out the ominous message: ‘Standard-bearer,
place your standard; here is the best place for us to stay’,55 and the
legend of the Apostle Peter, who, as he attempted to flee, returned
to the city when he encountered Christ answering: ‘I am going to
Rome to be crucified again’ to his question: ‘Lord, whither goest
thou?’.56 Particularly this last legend had often been adduced to illus-
trate the providential character of Rome’s capital status, and appears,
e.g., in the decretal Per venerabilem of Pope Innocent III, one of the
most powerful statements of papal sovereignty during the Middle
Ages.57 The peculiar associations proposed by Cavallini, however,
were to my knowledge not suggested by any earlier author; the con-
nection with the flamen dialis seems to be unique in the literature on
the papal office.
Petrarch, too, often insisted in his letters and treatises on the neces-
sity of binding both the offices of pope and emperor to the city of
53
Polistoria, 1, 3, 3: ‘Extra quam per noctem unam permanere nephas est summo pontifici
[flamini Diali Livy!], et flamen .i. summus sacerdos peregre habitando quantum sibi pia-
culi .i. culpe reique publice mortem contrahet (Livy, Ab Urbe condita V, 52, 13–14)! Et
si virtus sua transire alio possit, forma [fortuna Livy] tamen loci huius alibi transferri non
potest, secundum Livium .V. Ab urbe condita c. ultimo’ (Livy, Ab Urbe condita V,
54, 6). In my edition I expunged ‘mortem’; I now concur with Marco Petoletti
(“Giovanni Cavallini” 56, n. 24) in leaving it in the text; see ibid. for a transcrip-
tion of Cavallini’s explanatory notes, copied alongside the relevant passages in the
apograph of his Livy and in the oldest extant manuscript of the Polistoria.
54
I discussed these texts in my “Giovanni Cavallini’s Polistoria” 109.
55
Valerius Maximus, I, 5, 1 (cf. Livy, Ab Urbe condita 5, 55, 1): ‘Signifer, statue
signum: hic optime manebimus.’
56
‘Domine, quo vadis?’ – ‘Vado Romam iterum crucifigi’. The legend is first
attested in apocryphal Bible texts; for references see my “Giovanni Cavallini’s
Polistoria” 115, n. 47.
57
On this decretal and its exploitation in the later Middle Ages see Burdach
K. – Piur P., Briefwechsel des Cola di Rienzo, Erster Teil. Rienzo und die geistige Wandlung
seiner Zeit, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation. Forschungen zur Geschichte der
deutschen Bildung 2 (Berlin: 1913–1928) 249–255.
50
Rome; only when firmly rooted in the ground in which they were
born, could they uphold their aspirations of universal power.58 For
Petrarch, however, this demand fitted into a larger historical vision,
determined by a fundamental opposition between the Roman and
subsequent “barbarian” domination of the world.59 Petrarch set the
decisive turning point of world history on one occasion, in his famous
letter to fra Giovanni Colonna (Familiares, VI, 2, 16), at the move
of Constantine the Great from Rome to Constantinople, and else-
where, in an evocation of Roman history in the Africa (II, 274–278),
at the demise of the Flavian dynasty, when non-Italian emperors first
appeared on the scene. Both scenarios have in common a sense of
the detrimental impact of the course of history on its natural and
solely legitimate focal point. Radically condemning any concept of
translatio imperii, Petrarch maintained that reinstalling papacy and
empire in Rome would mean restoring universal power to the only
rightful center of the world. Whereas Petrarch developed a new
understanding of world history, focussed on the moral values and
political prerogatives enshrined in Classical Rome, Cavallini exploited
his Classical learning to find new arguments for endorsing the unlim-
ited and unconditional supremacy of papal power. For Cavallini, the
timeless and exemplary character of Rome as spiritual center of the
world lay fundamentally in its status as seat of the papacy. His anti-
quarian reconstruction of ancient Rome was essentially meant to
reveal the Classical foundations and origins of that status; beyond
this point, world history and Rome’s place in it were of no concern
to him.
In his study and exploitation of Roman history, Cavallini adopted
perspectives and developed arguments that can be recognized through-
out the ages in treatises devoted to Rome. More specifically, the
Polistoria shares with all other scholarly literature surrounding the city
of Rome some basic characteristics of the reception of Roman
Antiquity in Rome itself. The presence of Antiquity in Rome always
remained so powerful that Romans of any generation were tempted
58
See Piur P., Petrarcas ‘Buch ohne Namen’ und die päpstliche Kurie. Ein Beitrag zur
Geistesgeschichte der Frührenaissance, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft
und Geistesgeschichte, Buchreihe 6 (Halle/Saale: 1925) 78–82; Seibt, Anonimo romano
188–189.
59
See Mommsen, “‘Dark Ages’” 233–239.
51
60
Rietbergen P., De retoriek van de Eeuwige Stad. Rome gelezen (Nijmegen: 2003)
48–49. The period immediately preceding the generation of Giovanni Cavallini,
too, has been characterized as a ‘Roman Renaissance’; see Frugoni A., “Il carme
giubilare del ‘Magister Bonaiutus de Casentino’”, Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano
per il Medio Evo 68 (1956) 247–258, at 253.
61
As was clearly perceived by Percy Ernst Schramm in his scholarship on medieval
antiquarianism. See, e.g., his “Graphia aureae Urbis Romae”, in id., Kaiser, Könige
und Päpste. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 3 (Stuttgart: 1969)
313–359 [originally published in Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio. Studien und Texte zur Geschichte
des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Ende des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit,
2. Teil. Exkurse und Texte, Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 17 (Leipzig-Berlin: 1929)],
at 359: ‘Da die späteren Kopisten immer freier mit dem Texte schalten, so daß
sich die Grenze zwischen Benutzern und Ausschreibern verwischt, wird sich eine
erschöpfende Textgeschichte [der Mirabilien] wohl zu einer Geschichte des archäol-
ogischen Studiums in Rom auswachsen, die einen interessanten Beitrag zur Genesis
und Entwicklung der Renaissance darstellen würde—denn welcher Autor, der sich
mit Rom und seinen Altertümern beschäftigt hat, steht nicht in irgendeiner Beziehung
zu den Mirabilien und ihren Ableitungen?’.
62
In its mixture of medieval characteristics and traces of the new humanist cul-
ture, Cavallini’s Polistoria clearly precedes the Tractatus de rebus antiquis et situ urbis
Romae, attributed to the so-called Anonimo Magliabechiano (early 15th century),
who, therefore, does not play the pioneer role accorded to him by some scholars,
including, e.g., Accame Lanzilotta M., Contributi sui Mirabilia urbis Romae (Genova:
1996) 25–27.
52
Selective Bibliography
Ursula Kocher
1
„vo’ ragionar d’un marchese, non cosa magnifica ma una matta bestialità, come
che ben ne seguisse alla fine; la quale io non consiglio alcun che segua, per ciò
che gran peccato fu che a costui ben n’avenisse“. Giovanni Boccaccio, Decameron,
54
Auf diese Weise hat er die Rezeption der Zuhörer gelenkt, das
Verhalten des Markgrafen wird von Anfang an kritisch betrachtet.
Und das mit Recht, denn der Markgraf Gualtieri, der seine treue
und liebevolle Ehefrau mehrfach höchst grausamen Proben aussetzt,
empört und verstört bis heute die Leser. Letztlich verhält sich Gualtieri
aber nicht mehr oder minder vernünftig als die Protagonisten zuvor –
mit dem Unterschied, dass das zweifelhafte Verhalten der Hauptfigur
noch vor dem Erzählen der Novelle offen angesprochen wird.
Was aber ist damit gemeint, wenn dem Helden der Griseldis-
Novelle der Charakterzug der ‚matta bestialità‘ zugeschrieben wird?
In Dantes Divina Commedia erscheint dieser Ausdruck im 11. Gesang
des Inferno. In ihm befinden sich Dante und Vergil im sechsten
Höllenkreis, dem der Ketzer. An dieser Stelle wird erläutert, wie das
Inferno aufgeteilt ist. Die Aufteilung ergibt sich aus den Begriffen
‚incontinenza‘ (Zügellosigkeit), ‚malizia‘ (Laster) und ‚matta bestiali-
tade‘.2 Es handelt sich um Begriffe aus der Ethik des Aristoteles.
Boccaccio kommentiert diese Stelle in seinen Esposizioni sopra la
Comedia folgendermaßen:
Dieses Adjektiv ‚matta‘ setzt hier der Autor mehr aus Gründen des
Reims als aus inhaltlicher Notwendigkeit, die von der Grausamkeit
bestimmt würde. Deshalb kann man sagen, dass ‚bestialità‘ und ‚mat-
tezza‘ eine ähnliche Sache sind. Es ist also diese ‚bestialità‘ einer
schlechten Angewohnheit der Seele ähnlich, die, wie es Aristoteles im
7. Buch der Ethik gefällt, der göttlichen Weisheit entgegengesetzt ist.3
‚Bestialità‘ und ‚mattezza‘ sind für ihn demnach Synonyme. Sie sind
mit Dummheit und Unvernunft zu übersetzen und stellen genau das
Gegenteil göttlicher Weisheit dar. ‚Matta bestialità‘ bedeutet also
nicht, dass Gualtieri sehr grausam und roh sei. Er ist nach der
Meinung Dioneos blind und handelt unvernünftig. Er verhält sich
wie eine bestia und kann absolut keine Exempelfigur sein, wie aus
Panfilos Worten hervorgeht.
Griseldis dagegen bleibt von Anfang bis Ende ein lebendig gewor-
denes Exempel. Sie wird geschildert und behandelt wie das personi-
fizierte Beispiel der Tugendhaftigkeit, eine Puppe, erschaffen vom
Erzähler und der Hauptfigur Gualtieri. Gerade dadurch wird Griseldis
aber zur einzigartigen Dulderin. Ihre extreme Form des Akzeptierens
ist an der Grenze des Vernünftigen. Weder der Markgraf noch
Griseldis eignen sich deshalb als Exempel.
Entsprechend sind die Leser bis heute irritiert. Ihnen wird eine
Erzählung geboten, die zwar als Exempel gestaltet ist, jedoch als
Anti-Exempel bewertet wird und zudem einen Erzähler hat, der sich
während des ganzen Decameron als unzuverlässig erweist und der von
seinem Redegegenstand selbst absolut nicht überzeugt ist. Dieses
narrative Merkmal öffnet die Novelle einer Vielzahl von Interpretationen.
Sie ist trotz exempelhaft-klarer Sprache nicht eindeutig zu verstehen
und soll das auch gar nicht sein.
Diese Ausführungen zeigen zweierlei: Erstens kann man aus der
Beschäftigung mit dieser Novelle erneut feststellen, wie intensiv sich
Boccaccio mit Dante auseinandergesetzt und wie sehr er dessen
Darlegungen mit seinen eigenen Gedanken verbunden hat. Dante
Alighieri war eines der Vorbilder für Boccaccio, dem er neben der
Kommentierung seiner Comedia eine Biografie widmete. Petrarca, ein
nicht minder großes Vorbild für den jüngeren Boccaccio, war diese
Vorliebe allerdings ein Dorn im Auge. Eine Antwort auf die Frage,
weshalb Petrarca dieser Wertschätzung Dantes durch Boccaccio skep-
tisch gegenüberstand, wird weiter unten noch gegeben.
Zweitens gibt gerade die Griseldis-Novelle einen guten Einblick in
Boccaccios Verständnis von literarischen Texten, der Rolle des Autors
und von volkssprachlichen Novellen im Besonderen. Literatur ist für
ihn – ob in lateinischer oder in italienischer Sprache verfasst—glei-
chermaßen ein Anlass für den Leser, unter die Oberfläche zu blicken.
Erzählungen enthalten für ihn „unter der Schale der Fiktion ein
Beispiel oder eine Lehre [. . .]. Wenn die Hülle entfernt ist, liegt die
Absicht des Erzählers offen“.4 Die narrative Offenheit eines Textes
4
Hege B., Boccaccios Apologie der heidnischen Dichtung in den ‚Genealogie deorum genti-
lium‘, Buch XIV: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar und Abhandlung (Tübingen: 1997)
71: „Fabula est exemplaris seu demonstrativa sub figmento locutio, cuius amoto
cortice, patet intentio fabulantis“ (70). In dieser Hinsicht ist Boccaccio natürlich
nicht originell. Es handelt sich um eine beliebte Argumentation, die Dichtung zu
verteidigen. Übernommen werden im Folgenden im wesentlichen die Übersetzungen
56
ist nach seinem Verständnis eine Einladung für den Rezipienten, sich
mit dem Geschriebenen intensiv auseinander zu setzen und Wider-
sprüchen nachzuspüren.
Petrarca bearbeitete die Griseldis und beseitigte dabei die Offenheit
der Decameron-Erzählung. Er verwandelte das Pseudo-Exempel in einen
moralphilosophischen, lateinischen Traktat. Die lateinische Griselda ist
als narratio-Teil an einen Brief angebunden. Dieser Brief vom März
1373 ist an Giovanni Boccaccio gerichtet und beschreibt, wie Petrarca
das Decameron überflogen und Gefallen an der letzten Geschichte
gefunden habe.5
Ansonsten hat Petrarca einiges am Decameron auszusetzen, was er
seinem Freund allerdings verzeihen kann, da dieser zur Zeit der
Abfassung noch jung gewesen sei und sein anvisiertes Publikum wohl
ein derartiges Schreiben erfordert habe.6 Unter dem Mantel des
Verzeihens kritisiert Petrarca damit genau das, was das Decameron
auszeichnet: Vielfalt in jeder Hinsicht. Eben diese löst jedoch, wie
schon gezeigt, Interpretationsprobleme aus.
Die Griseldis-Geschichte kannte Petrarca bereits vor seiner Decameron-
Lektüre, und er konnte ermessen, was für eine große Wirkung sie
auf Zuhörer und Leser ausüben musste. Aus diesem Grund schien
es ihm wichtig, sie in eine Sprache zu übertragen, die über die
Grenzen Italiens hinaus verstanden werden konnte:
Zum anderen aber habe ich die letzte Geschichte den vielen vorange-
henden bei weitem als unvergleichlich empfunden, sie hat mir so gefallen
und mich so gefesselt, dass ich zwischen so vielen Aufgaben, die mich
kaum meiner selbst eingedenk sein lassen, sie dem Gedächtnis erhalten
wollte, damit ich—so oft ich selbst Neigung dazu hätte—sie nicht ohne
Vergnügen wiederholen könnte und traulich plaudernden Freunden—
wie es vorkommt—wiedererzählte, wenn irgendwann sich hierzu solche
Gelegenheit ergeben könnte. Da solche Erwägung, wenn ich bald darauf
7
„In altero autem ystoriam ultimam et multis precedencium longe dissimilem
posuisti, que ita michi placuit meque detinuit ut, inter tot curas que pene mei ipsius
immemorem me fecere, illam memorie mandare voluerim, ut et ipse eam animo
quociens vellem non sine voluptate repeterem, et amicis ut fit confabulantibus renar-
rarem, si quando aliquid tale incidisset. Quod cum brevi postmodum fecissem
gratamque audientibus cognovissem, subito talis interloquendum cogitatio supervenit,
fieri posse ut nostri etiam sermonis ignaros tam dulcis ystoria delectaret, cum et
michi semper ante multos annos audita placuisset [. . .]“. Siehe Boccaccio – Petrarca,
Griselda 75f.
8
„historiam tuam meis verbis explicui, imo alicubi aut paucis in ipsa narratione
mutatis verbis aut additis, [. . .]“. Siehe Boccaccio – Petrarca, Griselda 76.
9
Bertelsmeier-Kierst C., ‚Griseldis‘ in Deutschland. Studien zu Steinhöwel und Arigo,
GRM-Beiheft 8 (Heidelberg: 1988) 129.
10
„Hanc historiam stilo nunc alio retexere visum fuit, non tam ideo ut matronas
58
nostri temporis ad imitandam huius uxoris patientiam, que michi vix imitabilis vide-
tur, quam ut legentes ad imitandam saltem femine constantiam excitarem, ut quod
hec viro suo prestitit, hoc prestare Deo nostro audeant; [. . .]“. Siehe Boccaccio –
Petrarca, Griselda 61f.
11
Bertelsmeier-Kierst C., ‚Griseldis‘ in Deutschland 130.
12
Worstbrock F.-J., „Petrarcas ‚Griseldis‘ und ihre Poetik“, in Grubmüller K. –
Schmidt-Wiegand R. – Speckenbach K. (Hrsg.), Geistliche Denkformen des Mittelalters
(Münster: 1984) 245–256 (252).
13
Knape J., De oboedientia et fide uxoris. Petrarcas humanistisch-moralisches Exempel
‘Griseldis’ und seine frühe deutsche Rezeption (Göttingen: 1978) 44. Zu der Auseinandersetzung
Petrarcas mit dem Unterschied zwischen fabula und historia generell sowie speziell
mit der Wahrheit von Boccaccios Novelle vgl. ebd. 42ff.
14
Stierle K., Petrarcas Landschaften. Zur Geschichte ästhetischer Landschaftserfahrung (Krefeld:
1979) 31.
59
nun nicht mehr in einen Rahmen eingebettet ist, und vermittle dem
Rezipienten außerhalb Italiens einen Eindruck von der Landschaft,
in dem die Geschichte angesiedelt wird. Zudem unterstreiche Petrarca
mit diesem Anfang den „Wahrheits- und Neuigkeitsgehalt seiner
Fassung“.15 Dieser Aspekt ist der wichtigere. Die Landschaftsbeschrei-
bung weist den Rezipienten auf die Diskurstradition hin, in der sich
Petrarca bewegt. Wollte er ein christlich-mittelalterliches Exempel ver-
fassen, müsste er mit einer Moral beginnen, in der bereits erste
Hinweise für das Lesen der nachfolgenden Erzählung zu finden sind.
So aber bezieht er sich auf die antike Literatur, vor allem die
Geschichtsschreibung, und beginnt die Novelle mit einer Beschreibung,
wie man sie ähnlich bei Vergil, Livius, Tacitus oder Plinius dem
Jüngeren finden könnte.16
Die Landschaftsschilderung, mit der Petrarca beginnt, unterwirft den
Leser einem ästhetischen Eindruck, der aufs Ganze wirkt, einem
Schönheit und Würde vermittelnden Eindruck, den Boccaccios Erzählung
an keiner Stelle aufkommen läßt, der ihrem Geist der Desidealisierung
zutiefst fremd ist.17
Eine weitere Änderung betrifft die Figur des Markgrafen Valterius,
der sehr viel positiver dargestellt wird.
Mit Ausnahme der Jagdleidenschaft, die seine vitalen Kräfte und
Interessen so absorbiert, daß er darüber die landesväterlichen Pflichten
als Erzeuger eines Thronerben vergißt, stellt ihn Petrarca als untadeli-
gen Mann dar: Jugendlich an Gestalt und Jahren und nicht weniger
durch Charakter als durch Herkunft edel und alles in allem in jeder
Hinsicht ein ausgezeichneter Mann. (,,forma virens atque etate, nec
minus moribus quam sanguine nobilis et ad summam omni ex parte
vir insignis [. . .].“)18
Der Einschätzung von Hess, die Persönlichkeitsschilderung des Valte-
rius bringe keinen „Zuwachs an Individualität gegenüber Boccaccio“,19
15
Hess U., Heinrich Steinhöwels ‚Griseldis‘. Studien zur Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte
einer frühhumanistischen Prosanovelle (München: 1975) 113.
16
Nicht umsonst wird Vergil in dieser Exposition erwähnt: „fluviorum a Virgilio
rex dictus“. Siehe Boccaccio – Petrarca, Griselda 29, 1.
17
Worstbrock, „Petrarcas ‚Griseldis‘“ 247. Insistieren muss man an dieser Stelle
darauf, dass Dioneo, nicht Boccaccio, der Erzähler der Novelle ist. Boccaccio hätte
sie isoliert an anderer Stelle eventuell ebenfalls ganz anders erzählt.
18
Hess, Heinrich Steinhöwels ‚Griseldis‘ 113f.
19
Hess, Heinrich Steinhöwels ‚Griseldis‘ 114.
60
20
„Quicquid in homine boni est, non ab alio quam a Deo est. Illi ego et status et
matrimonii mei sortes, sperans de sua solita pietate, commiserim; ipse michi inveniet
quod quieti mee sit expediens ac saluti“. Siehe Boccaccio – Petrarca, Griselda 33, 6.
21
„ut omnes ad salutem publicam demissam celo feminam predicarent“. Siehe
Boccaccio – Petrarca, Griselda 41, 19.
22
Die intertextuellen Verweise auf Hiob stellt Bessi R., „La Griselda del Petrarca“,
in La novella italiana. Atti di Convegno di Caprarola, 19–24 settembre 1988 (Rom: 1989)
II, 711–726 heraus.
23
Worstbrock, „Petrarcas ‚Griseldis‘“ 251.
61
24
„Cepit, ut fit, interim Valterium, [. . .] mirabilis quedam – quam laudabilis
doctiores iudicent – cupiditas sat expertam care fidem coniugis experiendi altius et
iterum atque iterum retentandi“. Siehe Boccaccio – Petrarca, Griselda 43, 21.
25
Bertelsmeier-Kierst‚ ‚Griseldis‘ in Deutschland 131.
26
„Die Prüfungen, die er Griseldis erdulden läßt, bereiten ihm selbst, wenn sie
vollzogen werden, heftigen Schmerz – erstaunlich genug aber, daß er sie überhaupt
betreibt. In dieser Rolle, seiner wichtigsten, ist er merkwürdig gespalten, als Figur
der Erzählung kaum mehr begreiflich.“ Worstbrock, „Petrarcas ‚Griseldis‘“ 252.
27
Es entbehrt nicht einer gewissen Komik, dass diese letzte Novelle eben nicht
in der üblichen Weise gestaltet ist.
62
war Gelehrter, er war auch Dichter, aber stilisierte sich nicht als
solcher. Stattdessen zeigen seine Briefe an Petrarca eine merkwürdige
Form von Unterwürfigkeit und Verehrung, die sich selbst durch
offensichtliche Arroganz des Freundes nicht beirren ließ.28
Dass Petrarca das Decameron erst 1373 zur Kenntnis nahm, wie er
im oben behandelten Griseldis–Brief behauptet, ist angesichts der
Begierigkeit, mit der Boccaccio jede Zeile Petrarcas aufsog, ein Affront.
Es verwundert überhaupt, wie Boccaccio Spitzen dieses, von ihm so
hoch gelobten „vir optimus“29 geflissentlich übersah und stets zu
dieser Freundschaft unter den vorgegebenen Bedingungen stand.
So redet er beispielsweise Petrarca in einem Brief aus dem Jahr
1367 als „preceptor inclite“ an und bedauert, ihn nicht in Venedig
angetroffen zu haben. Sein Lob des Freundes ist in diesem Brief
besonders deutlich, weshalb Petrarca dieses Schriftstück wohl als
„l’una ex mille“ allen anderen Boccaccio-Briefen vorgezogen hat.
Durch den Briefwechsel mit Petrarca, so Boccaccio, ist er sich sicher,
„dass mein Name wenigstens deshalb für viele Jahrhunderte den
nachfolgenden Generationen verehrungswürdig sein wird“.30
Petrarca schätzte Boccaccio zweifellos ebenfalls, aber dessen
Volksnähe und damit auch die Sympathie für Dante konnte er nur
schwer akzeptieren. Im 15. Brief des 21. Buchs der Familiares geht
er als Replik auf ein Gespräch mit und einen Brief von Boccaccio
über Dante auf den großen Dichter Dante und sein Verhältnis zu
ihm ein, ohne den Namen Dantes ein einziges Mal zu erwähnen.31
Die durchaus größtenteils lobenden Ausführungen zu Dante stufen
Boccaccio als dessen Verehrer herab. Denn wenn Petrarca Dantes
Bemühungen um die Volkssprache lobt und sich selbst als jeman-
den beschreibt, der als junger Mann dem Ideal Dante nacheiferte,
28
Es verwundert, dass die Freundschaft zwischen Petrarca und Boccaccio zwar
Allgemeingut der Forschung, aber offensichtlich kein Thema, dessen Beleuchtung
sich lohnt, darstellt. Zwar erscheinen beide Namen in mehreren Titeln von Unter-
suchungen, aber keine davon hat das Verhältnis der beiden Autoren zum Gegenstand.
Es geht in derartigen Abhandlungen bestenfalls um Quellen, die beide benutzt
haben.
29
„Queso Franciscum nostrum salutes, et vale, virorum optime“. Siehe Giovanni
Boccaccio, Epistole e lettere, ed. G. Auzzas (Mailand: 1992) Brief XV, 640.
30
„certus quia saltem in hoc apud posteros per multa secula erit venerabile
nomen meum“. Siehe Boccaccio, Epistole e lettere XV, 640. Petrarca hat den Brief mit
dem erwähnten Zusatz „l’una ex mille“ versehen. Vgl. den Kommentar zum Brief.
31
Petrarca Francesco, Le Familiari, ed. V. Rossi – U. Bosco (Florenz: 1942) IV,
94–100.
64
32
„Quam tandem veri faciem habet ut invideam illi qui in his etatem totam
posuit, in quibus ego vix adolescentie florem primitiasque posuerim?“. Siehe Petrarca,
Le Familiari IV, 98.
33
„unum illud oblivisci nunquam possum, quod tu olim me Italie medio iter fes-
tinantius agentem, iam seviente bruma, non affectibus solis, qui quasi quidam animi
passus sunt, sed corporeo etiam motu celer, miro nondum visi hominis desiderio
prevenisti, premissio haus ignobili carmine, atque ita prius ingenii et mox corporis
tui vultum michi quem amare decreveras, ostendisti. [. . .] renovasti illum poeticum
cum Anchise congressum regis Archadii, cui ,mens iuvenili ardebat amore Compellare
virum et dextre coniungere dextram‘. Quamvis enim ego non ut ille cuntis altior
irem sed humilior, tibi tamen non minus ardens animus fuit.“ Petrarca, Le Familiari
IV, 100, 27–29. Übersetzung nach Neumann F., Francesco Petrarca (Reinbek bei
Hamburg: 1998) 101f.
65
34
„Qui si cepto heres, ut studia hec, que pridem post tergum liquimus, literasque
omnes – quantum innuis – ac, distractis libris, ipsa etiam velis literarum instru-
menta proicere atque ita unidque persuasum tibi est, gratum, hercle, habeo me
librorum avidum, ut tu ais [. . .], in hac emptione omnibus tuo iudicio prelatum.
[. . .] nolim tamen tanti viri libros huc illuc effundi aut prophanis, ut fit, manibus
contrectari“. Siehe Francesco Petrarca, Le Senili, testo a cura di E. Nota, introduzione
e traduzione e note di U. Dotti. vol. 1. (Rom: 1993) Brief I, 5, 63f. Übersetzung
nach Petrarca Francesco, Dichtungen, Briefe, Schriften (Frankfurt am Main: 1956) 139f.
35
Interessant wäre an dieser Stelle zu untersuchen, ob Petrarca damit einem be-
stimmten amicitia-Ideal folgt. Anzunehmen ist ein Bezug auf Cicero, bekannt für
Freundschaft als Erziehungsprojekt ist allerdings eher Seneca.
66
36
„Audio senem illum Ravennatem, rerum talium non ineptum iudicem, quo-
tiens de his sermo est semper tibi locum tertium assignare solitum. [. . .] Nimirum
enim primum cito locum mereri poterit qui secundum pati potest; qui non potest
autem, ipsum quoque quem respuit incipiet non mereri“. Siehe Francesco Petrarca,
Senile V 2, ed. M. Berté (Florenz: 1998) 77, 32ff.
37
Der Unterschied zu der Freundschaftsbeziehung mit Ludovicus Sanctus ist in
diesem Punkt erheblich, vgl. den Beitrag von Jan Papy in diesem Band.
67
38
Giovanni Boccaccio, De casibus virorum illustrium, ed. P.G. Ricci und V. Zaccaria
(Mailand: 1983) 652, 6.
39
„Quid iaces, ociorum professor egregie? Quid falsa inertie suasione torpescis?“.
Siehe Boccaccio, De casibus 652, 7.
40
„Non equidem nil magis suasi verbis quam laudabiliter exerceri“. Siehe Boccaccio,
De casibus 652, 8.
68
höchste Licht bis zum Ende der Welt erhebe und ihm so Glückseligkeit
schenke.41 Beispiele dafür hat Petrarca zahlreiche – von dem Assyrer-
könig Ninus bis Hieronymus und Augustinus.
Dabei sei es kein Argument gegen die Anstrengung, wenn die
eigene Arbeit mitunter anderen und nicht dem Urheber selbst zum
Ruhm verhelfe. „Sag mir, ich bitte dich, was der Nächstenliebe mehr
entgegensteht als das Glück eines anderen zu beneiden? Warum
versuchst du, durch deine Faulheit das deinem Nächsten zu entziehen,
was Gott ihm durch deine Mühe vielleicht geben wollte? Ist es
eventuell nicht besser, für einen anderen gearbeitet zu haben, als
sich allein unglücklich in Tatenlosigkeit zu verzehren?“42 Schließlich
hat Boccaccio einen Ruf zu verlieren, zumindest eventuell, denn er
ist bzw. könnte vielen Leuten bekannt sein.43 Ein lächerliches Argument
zwar, aber zu beachten nach Ansicht des ‚praeceptor‘.
Die Rede endet mit einem Appell: Boccaccio solle sich schämen,
erheben und weiterarbeiten: „Steh also auf und verzweifle nicht an
meiner Großmut und vermeide weiterhin dich von dummen Rat-
schlägen in solch eine bedauernswerte Faulheit lenken zu lassen“.44
Dieser traut sich wieder, nach oben zu blicken, um die Milde des
Lehrers, der über ihm steht, zu schauen.45 Doch der ist bereits
verschwunden. Der Autor nimmt in neuem Pflichtbewusstsein die
Feder wieder in die Hand und verdammt die vorherige, falsche Sicht
auf die Herausforderung, tätig zu sein.
Diese kleine Episode spiegelt exakt die Konstellation dieser
Freundschaft und die Haltung Petrarcas wider. Der arbeitende
Boccaccio, der einschläft, wird von dem Lehrer geweckt und getadelt.
Petrarca selbst ist über jeden Zweifel an seinem Fleiß erhaben. Da
Fleiß und aus der Arbeit resultierender Ruhm den Menschen in die
41
„Hec morientium corporum animas, quasi per stratum iter, summa cum cla-
rite deducit in celos, in terris relictis nominibus perpetuo splendore conspicuis“.
Siehe Boccaccio, De casibus 654, 10.
42
„Quid queso caritati magis contrarium est quam felicitati alterius invidere?
Quid ocio tuo conaris subtrahere quod forsan Deus alteri labore tuo attribuere velit?
Nonne satius est alteri laborasse quam sibi ipsi misere tabuisse?“. Siehe Boccaccio,
De casibus 658, 19.
43
„Addebas ridiculum, desidia involutus tua, nomen scilicet tuum esse aut futu-
rum esse (quod possibile est) commune multis“. Siehe Boccaccio, De casibus 658, 19.
44
„surge ergo nec de humanitate mea desperes caveasque de cetero ne in segnitiem
tam damnandam stultis suasionibus trahi te sinas“. Siehe Boccaccio, De casibus 662, 29.
45
„inspecturus praeceptoris mei clementiam in celum faciem extuli“. Siehe
Boccaccio, De casibus 662, 30.
69
46
Vgl. den Kommentar der Ausgabe, der ein komplett anderes Verständnis des
Textes signalisiert: „Lunga parentesi riflessiva nel discorso narrativo: sostenuta, nobil-
mente ispirata, nel culto devoto del maestro; ma prolissa e priva di quel nerbo che
altrove il Boccaccio sa dimostrare anche in queste digressioni“. Siehe Boccaccio, De
casibus 1015. Dass Boccaccio sein Verhältnis zu Petrarca ironisieren könnte, kommt
bezeichnenderweise keinem einzigen Forscher in den Sinn.
70
Auswahlbibliografie
Ugo Dotti
At the end of the tenth book of the Rerum familiarium libri (together
with the Seniles the ideal autobiography of the poet) we read a short
letter in which Petrarch, in moderation yet with satisfaction, announces
to his readers and us, his posterity, that his name has passed the
Alps and is now famous, under the German sky, among the most
learned German people. The letter in question is Familiares X, 6,
without an exact date but to be dated in 1353, probably soon after
the poet’s definitive return to Italy or in the second half of that year.
The letter is a response to an extremely kind, if not direct and enthu-
siastic letter from the Imperial Chancellor and bishop of Naumburg,
Johann von Neumarkt ( Jan ze St®eda),1 which starts with the words
Utinam Parnasei. In the letter, the writer asked Petrarch to send him
some of his poetry. One thing may be certain: in the middle of the
Trecento the poet singing the praises of Laura was not only known
in Italy and France, but also under the German sky and in ‘barbaric’
lands. In Prague, where Emperor Charles IV resided, a ‘Prague
circle’ of admirers had just been formed, as in Italy where intellectuals
letters with the question of imperial power (whereas in the Seniles the
main political problem will be that of the Church, its exile from
Avignon, and, most of all, its return to Rome). The figure of the
Emperor and his Chancellor are in fact, even if this would not be
obvious at first sight, closely linked: the first becomes the true suc-
cessor of Emperor Augustus aiming at a restoration of order and
peace; and the second is depicted as the organizer of a cultural
revival, that essential component of the Emperor’s objective of peace
and order. Of the first, Petrarch will thus be the persistent instiga-
tor and inciter; of the latter, the cordial esteeming beholder. The
poet’s rather long stay in Prague in 1356 is of particular importance
to this second ambition.
Is it a pure coincidence that the very first letter directed by Petrarch
to Johann von Neumarkt (answering, as has been stated, to the
Imperial Chancellor’s Utinam Parnasei ) is to be read at the end of
the tenth book of the Familiares? I would say no, for this tenth book
is an important and particular one in the collection for at least two
reasons. First, only six letters have been included in this book, let-
ters which have been ordered in a meticulous structure so as to show
Petrarch’s double face—on the one hand, Petrarch the humanist and
public man, and, on the other, Petrarch the penitent Christian (the
first, in my belief, outshining the second, if the disposition of the
texts is taken into consideration). Second, this book contains the first
shimmering exhortation to Charles IV to come to Italy, this being
the letter which opens the tenth book and in this way opens a theme
which is dear to Petrarch: the intellectual’s two-fold cultural and
political mission. Further, with the four most intimate letters placed
in the middle, the book opens and closes—viz. with the letter to
Charles IV and the letter to his Chancellor—with a look on the
welfare of Italy and the world, as well as on the authoritative recog-
nition (by the Prague court) that this issue was one to be dealt with
by a writer and scholar. In any case, one thing remains—as if it
were an anticipation of what is to come to the surface in a most
clear way in the 21st and, above all, in the 23rd book (which, in
fact, is the last book of the Familiares, if one, following the ‘most
illustrious ancients’, considers the 24th as a sort of hors d’oeuvre)—
that where the political objective appears, by introducing the Emperor’s
name, there the cultural objective also emerges by introducing the
name of his Chancellor. Or, the spread of a knowledge and a cul-
ture by submerging its own roots in the ancient Roman world and
76
2
This letter has recently been edited in Francesco Petrarca, Lettere disperse: Varie e
Miscellanee, ed. A. Pancheri (Parma: 1994) 230–244.
78
3
See Wilkins E.H., Petrarch’s Correspondence (Padova: 1960) 82.
80
German lands, was actually not the enthusiasm evolving from secret
hopes, but the recognition of a historical reality. The Empress would
never have honored Petrarch by announcing to him the birth of her
first-born (cf. Familiares XXI, 8), nor would the high dignitaries at
court have directed themselves to him as a dominus and a magister
while constantly asking—and the Emperor among the first ones—
for his physical presence at court (like Vergil’s and Horace’s pres-
ence at Augustus’s court), if Petrarch would actually not have been
the person who, after Ennius’s words, could say of himself: ‘Volito
vivos per ora virum’. Furthermore, on the part of the great courtly
circles, they did not limit themselves simply to praise Petrarch’s Latin
style as a point of reference for an authentic and unquestionable
Latin speech. They asked, and with ever more growing insistence,
for his works: the De viris illustribus in the Stili magistralis (of Johann,
probably in 1358); the expositio of the Bucolicum Carmen of which
Petrarch had sent a copy on 21 March 1361 (Familiares XXIII, 6);
the De remediis utriusque fortune together with all other ‘arche tue grata
pigmentaria quibus melius nosti imbecilles animos sacre tue doctrine
remedio confoveri’ (in the letter Sicut Astaroth of Johann, dated early
1362). At court he was hoped for—as the Visconti would want him
in Milan and, later, the Carraresi in Padua—because the figure of
the new intellectual, personified by Petrarch, gave splendor to this
same political world. From this point of view, the intellectual’s mis-
sion was a success.
Let us now turn to the 23rd book of the Familiares where the pres-
ence of the Prague world is (so to speak) really prominent: no less
than six letters to the Emperor and five to his Chancellor have been
included. More than half of the letters of this book (and to this
should be added the opening letter directed to Charles in an ‘ideal’
way) turn out to deal with the question of imperial government, of
Caesar’s duties, and the solid friendship which connects Petrarch to
the Imperial Court. However, above all—and testimony of the degree
of it is barely given—they insist on the renewed imperial invitation
around 1362, and Petrarch’s return to the Bohemian capital, as if
transferring in the most ideal way (at least in a certain literary per-
spective of the poet) to the governing of Augustus (cf. in particular
Familiares XIII, 9 and 10, the first letter being directed to Charles,
the second to Johann). This, for sure, is an important fact, and the
more so if one considers the intense drama with which—at the very
end of the Familiares—the actual Italian situation is presented, a
82
itself which was reaching out of Italy into regions that until then
were considered barbaric. Besides, the very presence of this culture
was essential in the constitution of a new civil and social life. The
names of Caesar and the first Bohemian humanists—on the ultimate
threshold of the Familiares—signify one thing to be watched care-
fully: the triumph of humanism in Europe.
Taken this general, perhaps rather quick glance at the 23rd book
of the Familiares, we turn to the epistolary exchange with Johann von
Neumarkt. In the first months of 1361, the poet had received a let-
ter from the Emperor of Milan, together with a letter from Johann
which was not attached to it. Yet, copies of two documents were
attached. They contained privileges which were accorded by Caesar
to Nero and which were approved by Duke Rudolph IV of Austria
in order to sustain the claiming of the autonomous sovereignty of
Austria and of its independence from imperial jurisdiction. Charles
therefore asked Petrarch to communicate to him his own opinion
on the authenticity of these two documents in a discrete way and,
among other things, he invited him to come to Prague. In a letter
of 21 March 1361 (the one which would later become Seniles XVI,
5) Petrarch demonstrated that these documents were falsifications (as,
so he added, would have been noticed immediately by the Imperial
Chancellor, ‘a man with the eyes of a lynx’) and, in another letter
dated 21 March as well—the Familiares XXIII, 2 already mentioned—
he rebuked the Emperor a for his unacceptable delay in fullfilling
his duties regarding Italy and its confrontation to the world.
His severe attack, however, required some excuse. And Petrarch,
indeed, apologized to Johann in Familiares XXIII, 6 (always dated
21 March 1361) since it had been the Chancellor’s task to read out
this biting Petrarchan invective to Charles. This is why he asked
him now to understand and forgive his passionate reaction which
had constrained him to ‘paulo liberius frena mordere’ and to talk
with an excessive boldness. In this same letter, Petrarch also men-
tioned the fact that he had sent his Bucolicum Carmen to Prague, as
well as that he would have added himself, with pleasure, as glos-
sator (that is, in fact, going back to Bohemia again), if the Emperor
would finally listen to his call: ‘non prius [. . .] quam Cesarem [. . .]
meis clamoribus experrectum audiero’. Well then, the dependence
proposed between his own travel and the imperial counterattack in
Italy does not only connect all the letters mentioned to a unique
place, but also constitutes proof—in case this would have been
84
Selective Bibliography
Editions
Studies
Einleitung
1
Augsburg, H. Steyner: 1532; 1539; Frankfurt, Ch. Egenolff: 1551; 1559; 1572;
1583; 1584; 1596; Frankfurt: 1604; 1620; 1672; Lüneburg: 1637.
2
Fraenger W., Altdeutsches Bilderbuch. Hans Weiditz und Sebastian Brant (Leipzig:
1930). Die Identifikation des Petrarca-Meisters mit Hans Weiditz (so schon Röttinger H.,
Hans Weiditz, der Petrarca-Meister (Straßburg: 1904)) hat sich nicht als stichhaltig
herausgestellt. Für andere (ebenfalls gescheiterte) Identifizierungsversuche des Petrarca-
Meisters vgl. Lanckoronska M. Gräfin, „Weiteres zur Identifizierung des Petrarca-
meisters“, Stultifera navis 11 (1954) 35–43; dies., „Die Burgkmair-Werkstatt und der
Petrarcameister“, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 29 (1954) 171–180; dies., „Der Petrarca-Meister
und Hans Brosamer. Ein Stilvergleich“, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 32 (1957) 254–263.
92 ..
3
Scheidig W., Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters (Berlin: 1955).
4
Raupp H.-J., „Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca „Von der Artzney bay-
der Glueck des guten und des widerwertigen“ (Augsburg 1532)“, in Wallraf-Richartz-
Jahrbuch 45 (1984) 59–112; Knape J, Dichtung, Recht und Freiheit. Studien zu Leben und
Werk Sebastian Brants 1457–1521 (Baden-Baden: 1992) 271–317; Wohlfeil R. – Wohlfeil T.,
„Verbildlichung ständischer Gesellschaft. Bartholomäus Bruyn d.Ä. – Petrarcameister
(mit Exkursen von Marlies Minuth und Heike Talkenberger)“, in Schulze W. (Hrsg.),
Ständische Gesellschaft und soziale Mobilität (München: 1988) 269–331, bsd. 308–319.
5
Raupp, „Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca“ 77.
6
Nach Raupp und Knape „resümieren“ manche Holzschnitte „die Lehraussage“,
geben andere Holzschnitte Exempla wieder, die im Text auftreten, während andere
„neue Motive und Argumente einführen, die jedoch die Lehre des Textes bekräftigen“; s.
Raupp, „Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca“ 100, Knape, Dichtung, Recht und
Freiheit 298. Wohlfeil und Wohlfeil‚ „Verbildlichung ständischer Gesellschaft“ 314
schließen sich diesem optimistischen Bild an: „Nicht selten löste der Künstler mei-
sterhaft die Schwierigkeiten, humanistische Gedanken in eine Form zu kleiden, wie
sie Lehr- und Lesebilder erforderten“. Wenn die angenommene Kontingenz von
Text und Bild ins Gedränge gerät, ist dies nach Knape auf eine Art Autorsintention,
nämlich auf einen „absichtlichen Wunsch nach Verrätselung“ zurückzuführen (ebd.).
M. Lemmer räumt in seinem Nachwort zur Facsimile-Ausgabe (Leipzig: 1984) 202,
ein, dass es eine „große Zahl von Illustrationen“ gäbe, „die den Textsinn nur unvoll-
kommen herausarbeiten“. Dies schreibt er jedoch sowohl der großen Anzahl der
erforderlichen Illustrationen als auch den Schwierigkeiten zu, die die Verbildlichung
des philosophischen Textes bereitet habe.
- 93
7
So auch M. Lemmer in seinem „Nachwort“ 200: „Dass der Bildredaktor Brant
bei diesem Verfahren für die Transponierung der Grundgedanken eines jeden
Kapitels von Petrarcas Traktat in eine „Bildzeichensprache“ hohen Anteil hatte,
leuchtet ein [. . .]“.
8
Lemmer behauptet, dass die ganze „inhaltlich-geistige Seite“ auf Brant zurück-
gehe, während der Petrarca-Meister lediglich in der „künstlerischen Ausgestaltung“
„Freiheit und Spielraum“ hatte. Lemmer, „Nachwort“ 200.
9
Tatsächlich kann man nicht ausschließen, dass das von Peter Stahel übersetzte
erste Buch dem Petrarca-Meister vorlag. Vgl. unten.
10
Wie immer seine nicht erhaltenen Angaben ausgesehen haben, klar ist soviel,
dass sie nur eine ganz knappe Form gehabt haben können. Dies lässt sich aus den
Angaben erschließen, die Brant zu den Illustrationen eines eigenen Werkes, der
„Freiheitstafel“ gemacht hat. Z.B. zu Nr. 21 gibt er an: „Ein nackend kindlin hat
in der rechten handt ein kloben“. Nun weist die Freiheitstafel 50 Illustrationen, De
remediis aber 254 Kapitel auf, die illustriert werden mussten. Wenn Brant zu den
254 Kapiteln ausführliche Bilderklärungen geliefert hätte, hätte das den Umfang
eines ganzen Buches ergeben. Dass Brant ein derartig kurioses Projekt ausgeführt
haben soll, erscheint mir nicht plausibel. Gänzlich unwahrscheinlich ist meiner
Meinung, dass Brant zu den 254 Kapiteln auch noch Vorzeichnungen oder Skizzen
geliefert hätte. Es ist lässt sich nicht leicht verstehen, aus welchem Grund der viel-
beschäftigte und betagte Gelehrte dies als seine Aufgabe betrachtet haben sollte.
94 ..
In der vorliegenden Studie will ich mich mit den vom Petrarca-
Meister illustrierten De remediis-Ausgaben auf eine andere Weise aus-
einandersetzen. Meiner Meinung gestalten sich Text-Bildkombinate
in der Frühen Neuzeit weitaus komplexer und beruhen auf anderen
Ausgangspunkten, als oft angenommen wird. Illustratoren betrachte-
ten es in der Regel nicht als ihre wichtigste Aufgabe, den Inhalt
eines Textes möglichst genau und kontingent „abzubilden“. Die
Wirkung der Bi-Medialität beruht in der Frühen Neuzeit meines
Erachtens oft gerade darauf, dass Text und Bild nicht genau dasselbe
tun und nicht auf denselben diskursiven Gleisen fahren. Memorative
und meditative Prozesse werden von Bildern gefördert und gespeist,
auch ohne dass diese die Textaussage einfach reduplizieren. Daher
erscheint es mir fruchtbar, einmal von der universalen Autorserklärung
„Brant“ abzusehen und stattdessen die Diskursivität und die Rhetorik
des Textes und des Bildes genau zu analysieren und mit einander
zu vergleichen. Es sind jeweils die folgenden Fragen zu stellen: Wovon
redet der Text? Wovon reden die Bilder? Wie funktioniert die Text-
Rhetorik, wie die Bild-Rhetorik? Sodann ist zu fragen: Was leisten
die Bilder in Bezug auf die Perzeption des Textes? Welche Petrarca-
Rezeption suggerieren die Bilder?
Wenden wir uns einem solchen Beispiel zu, Kap. I, 13 „De reli-
gione“ („Von der Religion“). Die Text-Machina entfaltet den gerade
skizzierten Denkprozess. Die Ratio gesteht Gaudium zu, sich über die
Zugehörigkeit zur christlichen, der einzig wahren Religion zu freuen,
plädiert dabei jedoch für Demut und Vermeidung der superbia.
11
Die Stereotypie wird durch minimale Variationen unterstrichen, z.B.: „ich freue
mich über gutes Essen“ – „gutes Essen freut mich“ – „mich freut gutes Essen“.
Damit wird angezeigt, dass der Affekt nichts dazulernt. Man kann ihn nur unter-
drücken, meist am besten abtöten.
96 ..
12
L. Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten (München: 2001) 856–857 s.v.
„Klosterkatze“. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 57 weist nicht auf die
Sprichwörtlichkeit hin, sondern vermag darin nur eine direkte Entlehnung aus Brants
Narrenschiff zu sehen.
13
Ein koheränzförderndes Detail ist, dass das Gesicht der Nonne ganz links dem
der „klosterkatz“ ganz ähnlich ist.
-
14
Fresko in der Sixtinischen Kapelle.
15
Scheidig (Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 57) vertritt merkwürdigerweise die
Ansicht, dass Brant hier dennoch der Bild-Inventor sei, der den Text Petrarcas
durch die Abbildung „ergänzt“ habe, weil er ihm „unzulänglich und unkritisch
erschienen“ sei.
16
Rummel P. und Zorn W., „Kirchengeschichte 1518–1650“, in Welt im Umbruch.
Augsburg zwischen Renaissance und Barock (Augsburg: 1980) 31–32.
17
Ebd. Die Bulle musste schließlich in Ingolstadt gedruckt werden.
100 ..
18
Das ergibt sich daraus, dass die Bild-Invention als Widerlegung des 2. und 3.
Satzes von Petrarcas Text aufzufassen ist. Wenn es stimmt, dass der Petrarca-Meister
den deutschen Text schon für Kap. I,13 benutzt hat, so ergibt sich in der
Datierungsfrage die Schlussfolgerung, dass wohl der gesamte Bildzyklus 1520 gezeich-
net und geschnitten worden ist.
19
Vgl. Iserloh E., Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation im Grundriß (Paderborn:
1985, 3. Aufl.) 37–40.
102 ..
D
D
D C
C B
A
-
Patrizier links (A), der von einem mächtigen Engel in den Griff
genommen wird, der seinen Blick in die Längsachse des Bildes durch
eine Umklammerungstechnik geradezu gewaltsam20 ,einordnet‘ [Abb.
6, Blickführungsskizze zu I, 122]. Die axiale Ausrichtung der
Blickführung läuft von links nach rechts und von unten nach oben:
kniender Ministrant (B), katholischer Priester (C), erhobene Hostie
(„Leib Christi“, D), Kerze 1 (E), Heiligenbild auf Altar (F) [Abb. 6,
Blickführungsskizze zu I, 122]. Der Betrachter erkennt, durch die
Blickführung des Bildaufbaus gesteuert, dass es sich bei dem Geschehen
um den heiligsten Augenblick der katholischen Messe handelt, um
die Transsubstantion, die Wandlung. Merkwürdig ist nun, dass der
oberste Punkt der von unten links nach oben rechts geführten Bildachse
außerhalb des Bildes liegt, bzw. nicht im Bild dargestellt wird – das
Haupt der Heiligenstatue auf dem Altar. Die Heiligenstatue wird
damit gewissermaßen enthauptet. Dadurch kehrt der Blick des
Betrachters unverrichteter Dinge zu der brennenden Kerze zurück.
Dabei entdeckt er, dass sich auf derselben Höhe in der Bildmitte
eine zweite brennende Kerze befindet. Diese markiert eine zweite
Bildachse, die im Winkel von 90 Grad zur ersten angelegt ist und
über den Ministranten (B), die Kerze 2 (G), den zweiten Kirchengänger
(H) und eine Balustrade (I) führt [Abb. 6, Blickführungsskizze zu I,
122]. Den Endpunkt dieser Bildachse bildet ein wilder Dämon im
Hintergrund, der über und hinter der Balustrade wütet (K) [Abb.
5]. Der Leser ist nunmehr im Stande den räumlich-kompositorischen
Zusammenhang zwischen Kerze und Teufel inhaltlich zu deuten.
Die Vermittlerrolle spielt das Sprichwort „dem Teufel eine Kerze
anzünden“, von dem auch Verbildlichungen vorliegen [Abb. 7].21
Diese Redensart bezeichnet „die teuflische Verkehrung eines Gottes-
dienstes“.22 Das Resultat des Bildleseprozesses ist ebenso aufrüttelnd
und umwälzend wie das von Kap. I, 13. An seinem Endpunkt steht
die Erkenntnis, dass die katholische Messe mit ihrer Transsubstantion
einen Teufelskult darstellt.
Wie schon bei Kap. I, 13 lässt sich die Aussage der Bildrhetorik
von I, 122 als Lutheranisches Statement verstehen. Gerade im Jahre
20
Scheidig (Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 186) hat den gewaltsamen Aspekt
der Engelsfigur erkannt: „Ein mächtiger Engel [. . .] zwingt den Blick des Betenden
auf den Altar hin“. Allerdings zwingt er ihn nicht nur auf den Altar, sondern vor
allem auf die Transsubstantion hin.
21
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten, Bd. 5, 1615–1616 (Abb. 1 und 2).
22
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten, Bd. 5, 1616.
106
..
B
A
Achse 1
-
Achse 2
Abb. 6. Blickführungsskizze zu Petrarca-Meister, Holzschnitt I, 122.
107
108 ..
Abb. 7. „Dem Teufel eine Kerze anzünden“, Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen
Redensarten, 1616, Abb. 2.
1520 hatte Luther das Messopfer und das Dogma der Transsub-
stantiation zurückgewiesen, in der Schrift De captivitate babylonica eccle-
siae praeludium.23 Wie bei Kap. I, 13 ist klar, dass Brant nicht für die
Bild-Inventio verantwortlich gemacht werden kann. Dass die Axial-
konstruktion und die Blickführung des Bildes zu Kap. I, 122 ein
Lutheranisches Statement darstellt, kann mit Hilfe eines Bildvergleiches
erhärtet werden: Anlässlich des Reichstags des Jahres 1518, der in
Augsburg abgehalten wurde, hat der Petrarca-Meister in einem Ein-
blattdruck die katholische Messe dargestellt, der Kaiser Maximilian I.
beiwohnte [Abb. 8].24 Die axiale Ausrichtung des Bildes ist im
23
Vgl. Iserloh, Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation 38.
24
Geisberg M., Der deutsche Einblatt-Holzschnitt in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts
(München: 1930) Nr. 1524; Musper Th., Die Holzschnitte des Petrarcameisters Ein kritisches
Verzeichnis mit Einleitung und 28 Abbildungen (München: 1927) Nr. 576; Röttinger H.,
Hans Weiditz der Petrarcameister (Strassburg: 1904) 13; Dodgson C., Catalogue of Early
German and Flemish Wood-cuts preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the
British Museum, Bd. 2 (London: 1911) 173.
- 109
[Abb. 9]: den Papst, Kardinäle, Bischöfe und Priester. Diesen demas-
kiert er mittels der Sphinxen am Thron des Papstes, mittels wilder
Weihrauchschwaden, die einen Benebelungseffekt hervorbringen sol-
len, und mittels einer axialen Dekonstruktion, die die hierarchische
Anordnung zersetzt. Die vordere Sphinx hat den Kopf gedreht und
blickt den Betrachter zu dessen Überraschung geradewegs an. Dieser
Eingriff verbucht einen aufrüttelnden, subversiven und dekonstruie-
renden Effekt. Wenn ein Thron heraldische Tiere aufweist, müssen
diese natürlich strack nach vorne blicken. Das Fakt, dass die Sphinx
den Kopf dreht, ist ein Zeichen, dass der Thron des Papstes nicht
einwandfrei ist: Der Papst wird damit als dämonischer Abgott kon-
stituiert, der von den Kardinälen beweihräuchert und verehrt wird,
ähnlich wie im Bild zu Kap. I, 13 die dämonische „Klosterkatz“
vom katholischen Klerus verehrt wird [Abb. 1].
Das Bild zu Kap. I, 92 liefert keine Widerlegung der Argumentation
des Textes, sondern hat mit dieser kaum etwas zu tun. Man kann
ausschließen, dass Brant, dem sowohl der lateinische Text geläufig
als auch die Lutheranische Negativrhetorik des Bildes fremd war,
der Bild-Inventor ist. Die Bild-Inventio lässt sich hier nur so erklä-
ren, dass der Petrarca-Meister eingedeutschte Kapitelüberschriften
vor sich hatte und dass ihm der Titel des Kapitels „von der eer und
glorie“ schon genügte, um ihn auf die Bildidee zu bringen: „eer und
glorie sind eitel“ – Wer ist eitel? – Der katholische Klerus. Da ihm
diese Bildidee zündend erschien, kümmerte er sich in diesem Fall
nicht weiter um den Text.
Ein Beispiel für die hohe bildgestalterische Kreativität, die der Petrarca-
Meister in seiner zersetzenden Demaskierungsrhetorik an den Tag legte, ist
Kap. I, 107 „De pontificatu“ („Vom Papsttum“). Die Textrhetorik
der Ratio dämpft die Freude über das höchste Kirchenamt, indem
sie die Schwere, die Arbeitslast und auf die zum Teil unangeneh-
men Verpflichtungen desselben herausarbeitet.
Die Bild-Inventio weist eine fast 180gradige Umkehrung in der
Ausrichtung der Bildachse auf [Abb. 10]. Sie ist so angelegt, dass
der Betrachter den Stuhl Petri überraschenderweise von hinten anblickt.
Der Tatsache, dass zwei Kardinäle, abermals umnebelt von wilden
Weihrauchschwaden, dem Papst die Tiara aufsetzen, entnimmt der
Betrachter, dass offensichtlich eine Papstkrönung im Gang ist. Diese
-
113
25
Scheidig versucht hier zu Unrecht die Einheit von Text und Bild zu retten,
indem er betont, dass Petrarca das Papsttum kritisiert habe. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte
des Petrarca-Meisters 169. Das ist jedoch irreführend: Petrarca hat in De remediis kei-
nesfalls das Papstum als Institution kritisiert oder gar seine Legitimität bestritten.
-
115
Abb. 11. Pietro Perugino, Der Schwur Leos III. Fresko, Vatikan, Stanza dell’incendio di Borgo.
116 ..
F1
F2
E
D
D
D G
C B A
Meister hier ein wertneutrales „Bild vom höfischen Leben seiner Zeit
gibt“.26 M.E. liegt hier jedoch sehr wohl eine Wertung vor: Der
Petrarca-Meister setzt den Blick von hinten und ‚hinter die Kulissen’
ein, um den Bildgegenstand subversiv zu demaskieren und respekt-
los zu entwerten. Die Freude (Gaudium) richtet sich hier auf das Pferd,
eines der wichtigsten Statussymbole der Frühen Neuzeit. Der
Gegenstand der Freude wird ins Bild gebracht, jedoch nicht im Sinn
derselben: Wenn der Petrarca-Meister den Standpunkt der Freude
hervorheben hätte wollen, hätte er ein rassiges Turnierpferd im vol-
len Lauf und im Kampf wiedergeben müssen – ein Bildkonzept, das
ihm zweifellos geläufig war (Ritterbücher, Turnierbücher etc.).
Stattdessen überrascht und „enttäuscht“ er den Betrachter durch den
banalen Anblick der Hintern dreier stillstehender Figuren: Der Bildleser
blickt auf den Rücken eines Ritters (A), eines Herolds (B) und schließ-
lich links auf einen Pferdearsch (C).
Der merkwürdige Blickwinkel soll den Betrachter aufrütteln und
einen Denkprozess in Gang setzen: Weshalb soll er das Pferd – sonst
das schöne Statussymbol par excellence – nicht positiv bewerten? Die
Antwort soll der Bildleser auf dem Blickweg vom Vorder- zum
Mittelgrund und vom Mittel- zum Hintergrund entdecken [s. Abb.
13, Blickführungsskizze zu I, 31]: Zunächst einmal erblickt er die
stillstehenden Pferde in und vor der Koppel links, die gepflegt wer-
den (D). Dieser Tatsache entnimmt er, dass die Pferdehaltung eine
mühselige Angelegenheit ist. Dann wandert der Blick zum Mittelgrund:
Dort sind zwei Pferde zu erkennen, die von zwei Reitern in einfa-
cher Kleidung (ohne Waffenrüstung) trainiert werden (E). Diese
Erkenntnis verstärkt die gerade gemachte Schlussfolgerung. Erst die
Hintergrunddarstellung vermittelt jedoch die Lösung der Gedan-
kensuche: Der Bildleser erblickt fünf wilde Pferde im Wald (F 1) und
rechts von diesen ein grobes und überdimensioniertes Pferd am
Waldesrand (F 2). Bei dem letzten handelt es sich nicht, wie Scheidig
meinte, um die Wiedergabe einer antiken Pferdestatue, die der Text
suggeriert habe.27 Das Pferd hat nichts von einem stolzen antiken
Ross, sondern korrespondiert mit den wilden Waldpferden links. Es
26
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 77.
27
Ebd. 78: „Das steife, unlebendige Pferd rechts im Hintergrunde geht auf
Petrarcas Text zurück, der von Denkmälern spricht, die Herrscher des Altertums
ihren Lieblingspferden errichtet haben“.
- 119
ist schlecht proportioniert und klobig. Das ist nicht darauf zurück-
zuführen, dass der Petrarca-Meister kein wohlproportioniertes, rassi-
ges Pferd zeichnen hätte können. Man vergleiche dazu nur die Rösser
in den Bildern zu Kap. II, 70 [Abb. 14] oder zu Kap. I, 1 [Abb.
15]. Die Klobigkeit und Übelproportioniertheit des Pferdes im
Hintergrund von I, 31 erfüllt eine distinkte Funktion: Sie soll augen-
fällig vorführen, dass das Pferd eigentlich ein wildes und ekliges
Waldmonster ist.
Was ergibt sich daraus? Der Betrachter legt jetzt den Blickweg
zurück, vom Hintergrund zum Vordergrund, ab. Dabei registriert
er, dass sich das Pferd am Waldesrand in Parallelstellung zu dem
Turnierpferd im Vordergrund (G) befindet. Die Parallelstellung sug-
geriert zwei Schlussfolgerungen: Erstens eine Bestätigung der gerade
gezogenen, zweitens dass die Zähmung des Pferdes ein ganz schwie-
riges Unterfangen ist.
Was leistet das Bild hier in Bezug auf die Textrezeption? Einerseits
bereitet es den Leser gedanklich auf die stoische Demaskierungsrede
der Ratio vor. In diesem Fall präludiert es durch die Bildgeschichte,
die im Text nicht erzählt wird, eine negative Eigenschaft des Pferdes,
welche die Text-Ratio bemängeln wird: die gefährliche Wildheit des
Pferdes, die jederzeit zum Abwurf des Reiters führen kann: „Nullum
animal insolentius domino suo est“ („Kein Tier verträgt weniger sei-
nen Herrn als das Pferd“).28 Petrarca, der ein geübter Reiter war,
war dieses Argument aus seiner eigenen Erfahrung geläufig: Durch
einen Sturz vom Pferd hatte er sich eine langwierige Beinwunde
zugezogen, die ihn an den Rand des Todes gebracht hatte. Die Text-
Ratio führt allerdings eine cumulatio übler Eigenschaften des Pferdes
vor, wobei entscheidend ist, dass diese in Gegensatzpaaren präsen-
tiert werden: Ruhelosigkeit/ Mangel an Ausdauer; Aggressivität/ Nie-
dergeschlagenheit; Wildheit/ Faulheit; Waghalsigkeit/ Schreckhaftigkeit;
grundlose Panik/ Ungehorsamkeit, ja Bissigkeit und anderwärtige
Aggressivität gegen den Herrn (Ausschlagen).29 Daraus ergibt sich als
wesentliches Argument der Text-Ratio der unstete und launische
28
Bas. I, 39.
29
„Animal et ocii impatiens et laboris, illo tumidum, hoc deiectum, nunc impe-
tuosum animal, nunc ignavum, nunc audax, nunc trepidum, nunc volatile, nunc
caducum, hinc culicum metuens atque umbrarum, hinc dominum suum spernens
diversisque illum viis in discrimen trahens. Quis contumaciam, quis morsus aut cal-
ces explicet? Quis hinnitus?“.
120 ..
Diskurswechsel: Auslagerungsverfahren
30
Z.B. Raupp, Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca 67: „Die Möglichkeiten, sinn-
bildliche Motive direkt aus dem Text Petrarcas zu schöpfen, waren gering“.
- 125
Daraus muss man schließen, dass er bei der Erstellung seiner Bild-
Inventionen prinzipiell nicht so vorging, dass er zuerst einmal den
Text gründlich auf eventuelle Bildangebote hin durchforstete. Die
Methode der Verbildlichung lässt sich somit nicht als möglichst
kontingente Übertragung der textuellen Bildangebote in Bilder beschrei-
ben. Offensichtlich zielen die Inventionen vielfach darauf ab, den
Text durch eine andere, im Text selbst nicht enthaltene oder vor-
gesehene Bildersprache zu begleiten. Diese Bildersprache weist eine
weitgehende Eigengesetzlichkeit auf und ist auf eine Weise konstru-
iert, die sich nicht einfach aus der Text-Rhetorik erklären lässt. Die
Effekte, die die Bildrhetorik bewirkt, sind auch nicht mit denjenigen
der Text-Rhetorik identisch.
31
Z.B. I, 11; 13; 44; 94; II, 1; 8; 27; 35; 36; 40; 104; 107.
- 127
32
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten 631–633 s.v. „Halm, Hälmlein“.
33
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten 425–426 s.v. „Federlesen“.
128
..
C1
-
C2
erfüllen, den Leser auf leicht erkennbare Weise auf die Verinner-
lichungsrhetorik der Text-Ratio vorzubereiten.
Jedoch ist der Gedankengang, den die Bildrhetorik beim Leser
ankurbeln will, damit noch nicht zu Ende gedacht. Es liegen wei-
tere Bildinformationen vor, die miteinbezogen werden müssen. Der
frühneuzeitliche Leser erkennt mühelos die sozialen Kategorien, wel-
che der Petrarca-Meister den Sprichwortfiguren zuordnet: Derjenige,
der sich schmeicheln lässt, ist ein Patrizier, die Schmeichler sind
Ritter. Diese Erkenntnis verbucht beim Betrachter einen überraschen-
den, aufrüttelnden Effekt. Denn der Sprichwortkontext impliziert,
dass sozial niedrigerstehende Personen höhergestellten schmeicheln.
Der Betrachter muss jetzt entdecken, was die merkwürdige Umkehrung
auf sich hat. Weshalb umgarnen die Ritter den Patrizier? Die Bild-
rhetorik ist abermals so eingerichtet, dass der Bildleser die Antwort
im Hintergrund entdecken soll [Abb. 19, Blickführungsskizze zu I,
11]. Links kommt der reiche, hohe und makellose Stadtpalast des
Patriziers ins Bild (D), rechts der verfallene, rissige Turm des Ritters
(E). – Da sie verarmt sind, wollen die Ritter also am Reichtum des
Patriziers teilhaben! Der geschilderte Sachverhalt hat einen klar
erkennbaren Sitz in der historischen Realität, in der der Petrarca-
Meister operierte. In seiner Heimatstadt Augsburg hatten die Patrizier
rezent einen spektakulären Vermögenszuwachs erfahren; einerseits
wurden sie vom Adel umworben, andererseits strebten sie selbst
danach, in den Adel aufgenommen zu werden. Kaufmannsgeschlechter
wie die Fugger zählten den Kaiser zu ihren Schuldnern, und wur-
den von diesem in den Adel (Reichsgrafenstand) aufgenommen.34
Was bewirkt die Bildrhetorik mit ihrer sozialen Aufrüstung der
Sprichwörter bei den Rezipienten? Sie leitet die Textrezeption in
die Richtung eines Speculum morale um, in dem Sitten- und Zeitkritik
geübt wird. Die Kritik der Ratio am Verhalten des Affekts wird als
Kritik am Verhalten der Ritter (und Patrizier) gemünzt. Dieser Rezeptionseffekt
des Bildes lässt sich belegen. In der zweiten Auflage (1539) erhiel-
ten die illustrierten Kapitel neue, explizitierende Textbeigaben. Kapitel
34
Vgl. Zorn W., „Gesellschaftsgeschichte 1518–1650“, in Welt im Umbruch. Augsburg
zwischen Renaissance und Barock (Augsburg: 1980) I, 72–73; Haemmerle A., Die
Hochzeitsbücher der Augsburger Bürgerstube und Kaufleutestube bis zum Ende der Reichsfreiheit
(München: 1936); Herr F., „Augsburger Bürgertum im Aufstieg Augsburgs zur
Weltstadt (1275–1530)“, in Augusta 955–1955 107–136; Pölnitz G. Freiherr von,
„Augsburger Kaufleute und Bankherren der Renaissance“, ebd. 198–218.
- 131
36
Brant, Das Narrenschiff 28.
134
..
Beispiel hierfür ist der Weise König Salomon, der sich von einer
Gespielin zum Abgottdienst verführen ließ. In der Bild-Inventio
braucht der Petrarca-Meister dem König keine Ohren und Schellen
aufzusetzen: Der Tatbestand selbst, dass er vor dem Abgott kniet,
führt genug des Narrenhaften vor [Abb. 2]. Es gibt noch andere
Bildmittel, die die Rezeption in den Narrendiskurs überführen. Ein
solches Mittel ist die Reduplizierung des Geschehens durch Affen.
In Kap. I, 26 demaskiert das Bild die Freude am Brett- und Schachspiel
als närrisches Betragen. Zu diesem Zweck zeigt es hinter den zwei
Spielerpaaren ein Paar Affen, das Mühle spielt [Abb. 29].
Insgesamt gilt, dass die Narrenrede demaskiert, indem sie närri-
sches Betragen durch Narrenkappe, lange Ohren mit Schellen oder
andere groteske Bildmittel grell markiert. Sowohl im Narrenschiff als
auch in den Bildern des Petrarca-Meisters werden unter närrischem
Verhalten zumeist ganz normale, menschlich-allzumenschliche Ver-
fehlungen verstanden: Habsucht, Vermessenheit, Völlerei, Ehebruch,
Verachtung, Spott, Rechthaberei, Leichtsinn, Wollust, Neid, Hass,
Jagdlust, Spielsucht, Verachtung der Armut, Überhebung, Hoffart
usw. In Petrarcas Text werden diese und andere Negativa dem
Zustand der Emotionsbedingtheit zugeschrieben. In diesem Sinn
finden sich in De remediis Kapitel über Neid (II, 35), Verachtung (II,
36), Hoffart (II, 111), Unkeuschheit und Ehebruch (II, 110), Völlerei
(II, 108), Neid (II, 106), Geiz (II, 105) etc.
Die Implikationen für die Rezeption, die sich aus der Übertra-
gung in den Narrendiskurs ergeben, lassen sich gut anhand von Kap.
II, 36 „Von Verachtung“ („De contemptu“) zeigen. Petrarcas Text
redet von der Verachtung, die dem Weisen zuteil wird: „Nil crebrius
quam contemni sapientem ab insanis“ („Nichts kommt häufiger vor,
als dass der Weise von den Dummen verachtet wird“). Als Exempel
nennt die Text-Ratio die größten antiken Schriftsteller (Homer, Vergil,
Cicero) und den mächtigsten antiken Herrscher (Kaiser Augustus).
Der argumentative Effekt ist erstens die Einsicht, dass niemand vor
Verachtung sicher ist, nicht einmal die größten Geister und die mäch-
tigsten Herrscher, zweitens, dass Verachtung ein Phänomen ist, das
mit Realitätsverlust zusammenhängt. Die Verächter konkretisiert
Petrarca als Literaturkritiker und politische Feinde: Zoilus kritisierte
Homer, Euangelus Vergil, Calvus Cicero und Marcus Antonius über-
zog Augustus (damals noch Octavian) mit gehässigen Bemerkungen.
Die Waffen der Verächter sind bei Petrarca Worte. Keiner dieser
Kritiker konnte sich jedoch in Bezug auf seine literarischen (oder
-
37
Brant, Das Narrenschiff 124.
-
38
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten 824, s.v. „Katze’“ und 323–324,
s.v. „Dolch“.
39
Ebd.
40
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 221, identifiziert den Mann, der
vom Ritter erdolcht wird, nicht überzeugend als „Gelehrten“. Es handelt sich um
einen Kaufmann und Patrizier; vgl. das Bild zu Kap. II, 56, das einen reichen
Kaufmann in seinem Kontor zeigt.
148
..
41
„Nunc recte ais ‚obsideor‘. Olim tibi circumfultus videbare, sed obsessus eras,
non familiari solum exercitu, sed hostili“.
154
..
42
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 223, hat hier den Text missver-
standen, wenn er „Petrarcas Lehre“ wie folgt zusammenfasst: „Man soll mit den
Knechten freundlich, glimpflich und gütig umgehen [. . .].“ Es handelt sich um ein
Seneca-Zitat, dem Petrarca nicht zustimmt. („Nota sunt tamen hac in re Senecae
consilia: Vivendum cum servis familiariter, comiter, clementer, familiarem esse iubet.
At quibus? Nempe his, quorum familiaritas contemptus est genetrix [. . .]“).
43
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 223.
44
Ginzburg C., Erkundungen über Piero (Berlin: 1981) 133–192.
- 157
Abb. 38. Piero della Francesca, La flagellazione di Cristo. Urbino, Galleria Nazionale delle Marche.
158 ..
D F
E
-
zwischen Bild und Text oft viel loser sind, als dies im ersten Buch
der Fall ist. Das ist, glaube ich, darauf zurückzuführen, das der
Petrarca-Meister im Fall des zweiten Buches keine deutsche Über-
setzung vor sich hatte, auf die er im Bedarfsfall zurückgreifen konnte.
Dieser Umstand führte im Verein mit den diskursiven Erweiterungen,
wie sie bisher sichtbar wurden, manchmal zu Bild-Inventionen, die
einer sinngemäßen Rezeption von Petrarcas stoisch-christlichem Medi-
tationstext regelrecht entgegenwirken. Kap. II, 29 und II, 43 sind
keine Einzelbeispiele.
In Kap. II, 8 („Von Armut“, „De paupertate“) bietet die Text-
Ratio eine Reihe von stoisch-christlichen Trostargumenten im Fall
mangelnden Reichtums an. Unter anderen zählt sie eine Reihe von
Vorteilen auf: dass man automatisch zur Mäßigung (modestia) hinge-
führt werde, dass man vor Dieben, Räubern, Nachstellungen, Verlusten
sowie der Angst vor Verlusten geschützt sei, dass man nicht zum
Hochmut (superbia) verführt werde, dass man vor Neid (invidia) geschützt
sei, dass einem Krankheiten wie Übelkeit (nausea) und Podagra erspart
bleiben u.s.w. Die Argumentation der Text-Ratio gipfelt in dem sto-
ischen Paradox, dass Armut eigentlich Reichtum bedeute bzw. dass
nur der Weise reich sei („solus sapiens dives“). Das gesamte Kapitel
geht davon aus, dass unter „Armut“ nicht die blanke, entsetzliche
Armut zu verstehen sei, die Obdachlosigkeit, Hunger und Invalidität
mit sich bringt. Wie die Einwürfe der Emotion Dolor mehrfach zei-
gen, besitzt die „Armut“ ein Haus. Der „Arme“ ist dabei jeweils als
Wohlhabender gedacht, dem Luxus und Reichtum abhanden gekom-
men sind.
Das Bild [Abb. 40] bringt jedoch gerade die extremste Form der
Armut ins Bild, in Gestalt von Bettlern, Landstreichern, Obdachlosen
und Krüppeln. Blickfänger ist die obdachlose Bettlerin in der Bildmitte,
die schwanger ist und an der Hand einen Esel mit sich führt, auf
dem in Körben drei Kleinkinder sitzen (A, A1 [Esel], A2 [Kinder];
Abb. 41 Blickführungsskizze zu II, 8). Links vor ihr steht ein Krüppel
mit Holzfuß und Krücken, der deprimiert den Blick gesenkt hält (B).
Vor ihm sitzt eine Bettlerin am Boden, die ein Kind im Arm hält
(C). Sodann wandert der Blick nochmals die Bettler entlang und
gelangt zu dem Bettler rechts, der an die Türe eines Stadtpalastes
klopft und um Almosen bittet (D). Wie die großen Schwären auf
seinem Kopf zeigen, handelt es sich um den Ärmsten der Armen,
um einen Aussätzigen. Der Bildleser registriert, dass die „Türe geschlos-
sen“ bleibt (E), obwohl der arme Aussätzige ,anklopft‘. Jetzt versteht
- 161
der Betrachter, dass dem Zug der Bettler bereits dasselbe Los zuteil
geworden ist. Die Städter sind nicht bereit, die ,Tür zu öffnen‘ und
Almosen zu geben. Auch ist jetzt klar, dass der Petrarca-Meister
einige sprichwörtliche Redensarten verbildlicht hat. Erstens einmal
„von Tür zu Tür gehen“, eine Redensart für „betteln“,45 zweitens
„anklopfen“ für „bitten“ oder „betteln“, drittens „vor geschlossenen
Türen stehen“.46 Der Zug der Bettler steht „vor geschlossener Tür“.
Von der geschlossenen Tür im Vordergrund gleitet der Blick des
Betrachters die Hausmauer entlang, bis er bei einer zweiten Tür
Halt macht: Er entdeckt, dass auch dort eine Gruppe obdachloser
Bettler „vor geschlossener Tür“ steht (F). Diese Beobachtung wird
sofort noch einmal wiederholt (G). Vor allen Türen stehen also
Gruppen von Bettlern, jedoch alle Türen bleiben geschlossen. Im
Verein mit dem kahlen Pflaster macht dies einen gespenstischen
Eindruck. Die Bettler verlangen Almosen, jedoch die Städter tun so,
als ob niemand zu Hause sei.
Das Bild funktioniert auch hier als religiöses Meditationsbild, das den
Leser emotionalisieren und zum richtigen Verhalten anspornen soll.
Das Bild erzeugt Mitleiden mit den Ärmsten der Armen, die man
draußen vor der Tür stehen lässt. Die Direktive, die die Bildrhetorik
vermittelt, ist: Hab Erbarmen! Gib den Bettlern Almosen!
Dies führt nun von Petrarcas stoischer Affektbekämpfung weit weg.
Während der Text den Schmerz über die Armut bekämpft, verstärkt
ihn der Petrarca-Meister, ja ruft ihn im vollen Ausmaß erst hervor.
Während der Text aufzeigt, dass Armut gesund mache, zeigt das
Bild, das die Armut Krüppel hervorbringe. Während die Text-Ratio
vorführt, dass Armut leicht zu ertragen sei und glücklich mache,
beweist das Bild mit allem Nachdruck, dass Armut unerträglich ist
und die Armen in höchstem Maß bemitleidenswert sind. Während
der Text demonstriert, dass die Emotion Dolor sich nicht rational
begründen lässt, liefert das Bild gerade die nämliche rationale
Begründung. Während der Text den Leser anleitet, über seine eigene
Armut zu meditieren, lehrt ihn das Bild, wie er auf die Armut ande-
rer reagieren soll.
Da sich die Bildrhetorik der Textrhetorik so vehement entgegen-
stemmt, ist es völlig unwahrscheinlich, dass Brant der Urheber der
Bild-Inventio war.
45
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten 1651, s.v. „Tür“.
46
Röhrich, Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten 1650, s.v. „Tür“.
162
..
A E
B D
A2
A1
C
-
Epilog
Auswahlbibliographie
——, Von der Artzney bayder Glueck, des guten und widerwertigen (Augsburg, H. Steyner:
1532), Facsimile-Edition, herausgegeben und kommentiert von M. Lemmer (Leipzig:
1984).
——, Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul. A Modern English Translation of De
remedies utriusque fortunae, with a Commentary by C.H. Rawski, 5 Bde. (Bloom-
ington and Indianapolis: 1991).
R H.-J., „Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca ‚Von der Artzney bayder
Glueck des guten und des widerwertigen‘ (Augsburg 1532)“, Wallraf-Richartz-
Jahrbuch 45 (1984) 59–112.
R G.R., The Illustrated Books of Sebastian Brant (London: 1896).
RÖ L., Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten (München: 2001).
R H., „Sebastian Brant und Albrecht Dürer. Zum Verhältnis von Bild und
Text im Narrenschiff “, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 47 (1972) 328–336.
——, „Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff und die Tradition der Ständesatire, Narren-
bilderbogen und Flugblätter des 15. Jahrhunderts“, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 40 (1965)
242–248.
RÖ H., Hans Weiditz, der Petrarca-Meister (Straßburg: 1904).
S W., Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters (Berlin: 1955).
S K., „Der Augsburger Verleger Sigmund Grimm und sein Geschäfts-
zusammenbruch im Oktober 1927“, Der Sammler 11 (1921) 344–345.
S U., „Die politische Tendenz des Petrarca-Meisters. Seine Stellungnahme
gegen die Wahl Karls V. und sein Verhalten zu den Ereignissen in Württemberg“,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Forschungen und Berichte 6 (1964) 40–90.
——, „Der Ständebaum des Petrarkameisters. Ein Hinweis auf seine Beziehungen
zu den ‚Böhmischen Brüdern‘“, in Letopis. Jahresschrift des Instituts für serbische
Volksforschung. Festschrift für Paul Neto. Reihe C – Volkskunde 11/12 (Bautzen: 1968–1969)
251–263.
T J.B., Studies of Petrarch and his Influence (Londen: 2003).
——, “Illustrated Manuscripts of Petrarch’s De Remediis Utriusque Fortunae”, in DERS.,
Studies of Petrarch and his Influence 118–170.
Welt im Umbruch. Augsburg zwischen Renaissance und Barock (Augsburg: 1980).
W F., Dürer und die Illustrationen zum Narrenschiff (Berlin: 1951).
W R. – W T.‚ „Verbildlichung ständischer Gesellschaft. Bartholomäus
Bruyn d.Ä. – Petrarcameister (mit Exkursen von Marlies Minuth und Heike
Talkenberger)“, in Schulze W. (Hrsg.), Ständische Gesellschaft und soziale Mobilität
(München: 1988) 269–331.
SPECULATIVE IMAGERY IN PETRARCH’S VON DER
ARTZNEY BAYDER GLUECK (1532)
Reindert Falkenburg
1
See, for example, Scheidig W., Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters (Berlin: 1955);
172
Petrarch’s text has been related to the vast and diverse medieval genre
of speculum literature.5 What these genres have in common is that they
address inner man, his tribulations, and remedies to overcome them.
In Petrarch, this results in a speculum of the dispute between oppos-
ing forces, or faculties, of the soul: reason and the passions (Hope,
Joy, Fear and Sorrow), chained as the latter are to the whims of for-
tune. The strategy he follows is to show that the absolute way humans
usually think about the opposition of happiness and unhappiness is
false. This strategy is based on the philosophical discussion in the
Middle Ages on what constitutes true happiness, the summum bonum.6
In as far as human happiness is based on the goods of fortune
(wealth, power, honour etc.) or bodily goods (strength, beauty etc.),
this happiness is transitory and subject to animosity, loss, and feelings
of deprivation and sorrow.7 Only goods of the soul bring happiness,
though not the longings of the lower irrational part of the soul, such
as hope and joy, but the higher powers of the soul—reason, memory
and will—that can lead the soul to acquire virtus—especially reason,
which can offer consolatio from suffering and the vicissitudes of life
and lead the mind, through speculation and contemplation, to God.
Speculation, then, is the interpretive act that offers consolation from
the soul’s attachment to the goods of fortune, the vicissitudes of life,
and bodily goods, and brings true happiness in the precepts of rea-
son. According to Hamburger, speculation in the Christian tradition
of the Middle Ages comprises the mental activity of meditation and
contemplation, which, following Paul’s phrase (1 Corinthians 13:12),
‘For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face, now I
know in part, but then I shall know just as I am also known’, takes the
visible world as a point of departure for a mental ascent that cul-
minates in the visio Dei.8 Speculation in this tradition is the spiritual
5
See Heitmann K., Fortuna und Virtus. Eine Studie zu Petrarcas Lebensweisheit (Köln-
Graz: 1958); and McClure G.W., Sorrow and Consolation in Italian Humanism (Princeton:
1991) 46–72. Particularly relevant for the embedding of De remediis in the consolatio
and the speculum traditions is the fact that ever since Von der Artzney bayder Glueck
was reprinted in the 16th century (i.e. in 1539, 1545, 1551, 1559, 1572, 1584 and
1596), the book was called a “Trostspiegel”, a “mirror of comfort”, cf. Scheidig,
Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 7.
6
Diekstra, A Dialogue between Reason and Adversity 51.
7
Diekstra, A Dialogue between Reason and Adversity 52–57.
8
See Hamburger J.F., “Speculations on Speculation. Vision and Perception in
the Theory and Practice of Mystical Devotion”, in Haug W. – Schneider-Lastin W.
(eds.), Deutsche Mystik im abendländischen Zusammenhang. Neu erschlossene Texte, neue metho-
174
dische Ansätze, neue theoretische Konzepte. Kolloquium Kloster Fischingen 1998 (Tübingen: 2000)
353–407. Central to this tradition, and particularly important for an understand-
ing of visual imagery as machinae for meditation, are (originally monastic, but later
wider spread) medieval memoria practices, see, among others, Carruthers M., The
Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge:
1998). For the importance of spiritual vision in late-medieval visual culture, see
Lentes T., “Inneres Auge, äusserer Blick und heilige Schau. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag
zur visuellen Praxis in Frömmigkeit und Moraldidaxe des späten Mittelalters”, in
Schreiner K. – Müntz M. (eds.), Frömmigkeit im Mittelalter. Politisch-soziale Kontexte, visuelle
Praxis, körperliche Ausdrucksformen (München: 2002) 179–220.
’ VON DER ARTZNEY 175
in the image, but the insight and self-knowledge that the viewer
forges in his speculation on the image. The pictorial rhetoric does
not allow for a stable type of reading either. Here are a few examples.
As several authors have observed, the pictorial narrative in many
woodcuts is characterized by a bipolar, but imbalanced composi-
tional structure. One part of the image represents (also in the sense
of: stands for) the side of the passions, depicting a scene, an event
or set of circumstances that stirs the emotions; the protagonists here
are often, but not always, placed in the foreground and dominate
the composition by their size as well as dynamic and dramatic actions.
The other side is given to the position of Reason, which is represented
by a much smaller scene that is often relegated to an inconspicuous
place in the background or the margin of the composition; the figures
here are often fewer in number, their gestures less dramatic, and
the scenery as a whole being visually far less appealing than its coun-
terpart. This compositional structure suggests a facile reading and
immediate grasp of the purport of the image, but often this is not
the case. In a woodcut representing ‘Von scheinbarer kost’, for exam-
ple, the visual emphasis is on the dining room of a wealthy patri-
cian displaying a richly laid table covered with all kinds of fine foods,
drinks and costly dinnerware [Fig. 1].9 His guests have turned their
back on their host, not because they do not like his offerings but
because these gluttons already literally have had their fill, even before
arriving at the party; way back in the distance, on the far left of
the composition, can be discerned (with quite some difficulty) the
figures of two hermits, Paul and Anthony, who in the seclusion of
a wilderness are being fed by a raven. Clearly, so it seems, gluttony,
or the wallowing in worldly foods, is contrasted with an exemplum
of spiritual nutrition. Less clear, however, is the way one reaches
this conclusion. Even with the help of the oratory exposition of rea-
son in the accompanying text—which, among a variety of historical
figures exemplifying the virtue of temperance also mentions the desert
fathers—it is very difficult to identify the figures in the shrub in the
distance as Paul and Anthony. It seems as if the artist has wilfully
obscured the visual argument of reason. However, the fact that the
9
See Franciscus Petrarca, Von der Artzney bayder Glueck/des guten vnd widerwertigen, ed.
M. Lemmer (Hamburg: 1984), I, chap. 18 (further cited as: Von der Artzney); cf.
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 63.
176
Fig. 1. “Von scheinbarer kost”. Von der Artzney bayder Glueck (1532),
Bk. I, chap. 18, fol. 19v.
’ VON DER ARTZNEY 177
10
Von der Artzney I, chap. 118, fols. CXLr–CXLIr; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte
des Petrarca-Meisters 182.
11
Von der Artzney II, chap. 67, fols. LXXIXr–LXXXv; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte
des Petrarca-Meisters 265.
12
Von der Artzney II, chap. 56, fols. LXVIv–LXVIIv; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte
des Petrarca-Meisters 252–253.
13
Von der Artzney II, chap. 56, fol. LXVIv (‘alle tugent wonen in der hoehe, vnd
mügen nicht leichtlich erlangt werden, unnd ist ein zerbrochener, scharpffer, schlegiger
unnd steiniger wege darzue’); fol. LXVIIr (‘Vilen leuten ist die arbeyt ein artzney
gewesen [. . .] dann man wayst, das die arbeyt die gemuet heylt’).
178
Fig. 2. “Vonn gehoffter Glori des Gepeiis”. Von der Artzney bayder Glueck (1532),
Bk. I, chap. 118, fol. 140r.
’
VON DER ARTZNEY
Fig. 3. “Von dem Ellend”. Von der Artzney bayder Glueck (1532),
179
Fig. 4. “Von einem schweren Geschefft”. Von der Artzney bayder Glueck
(1532), Bk. II, chap. 56, fol. 66v.
’ VON DER ARTZNEY 181
well-known metaphor of the easy versus the hard way of life (cf.
Matthew 7:13–14), the artist has chosen to represent a scene com-
plementary to that of hard work in the form of a fantasy image
behind the merchant’s head depicting a wanderer who takes a stroll
in a pleasant landscape. It is clear from the text (which calls hard
work a ‘remedy for the mind’) that the main scene, while showing
the accumulation of material goods, actually represents the position
of Reason, whereas the ‘fantasy bubble’ behind the merchant’s head
(which because of its circular form evokes the iconography of Atlas
carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders) reflects the censurable
longings of Sorrow. The woodcut accompanying the next chapter,
‘Von dem harten weg’, defies any unequivocally fixed reading of the
bipolar structure of the composition [Fig. 5].14 The image shows a
tired wanderer in the centre of the composition tending his sore feet.
He sits at a junction of the road like a ‘Hercules at a crossroad’:
to the right a smooth path takes a pilgrim to a prosperous town in
the background; to the left (taking up a considerably smaller portion
of the image) a beggar stumbles along the angular curves of an ardu-
ous path. The road chapel immediately behind the resting wanderer
in the foreground shows, on the side of the prosperous city view, a
representation of the Passion; the panel on the side that is turned
to the beggar is empty—mirroring the barren landscape through
which the beggar proceeds. The question is, does the rendering of
the Crucifixion ‘sanctify’ the path of the pilgrim on the right, and
the empty panel ‘condemn’ the road of the beggar?15 Or is the choice
less obvious than it seems at first sight?—the coarse road cross mark-
ing the path of the beggar suggests the relevance of second thoughts,
especially in view of the Biblical metaphor of the broad way leading
to perdition versus the narrow way leading to salvation. The accom-
panying text makes the heuristic even more complex. It has Sorrow
complain: ‘I’m treading a long and hard path in sorrow’—to which
14
Von der Artzney II, chap. 57, fols. LXVIIIr–LXIXr; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte
des Petrarca-Meisters 254.
15
Raupp, “Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca” 84, for example, thinks that
the beggar—follows the road ‘without grace’, whereas the pilgrim ‘wanders in the
grace of God’: ‘Das Links-Rechts-Schema scheidet den heillosen Bettler von dem
Pilger, der in der Gnade Gottes wandelt, der Stationsweg erinnert an Christi Gang
nach Golgotha, der Pilger verweist auf die irdische Gefolgschaft Christi und natür-
lich auf die zahlreichen biblischen Mahnungen, dass die Menschen auf Erden nur
Pilger und Fremde seien’.
182
Fig. 5. “Von dem harten weg”. Von der Artzney bayder Glueck (1532),
Bk. II, chap. 57, fol. 68r.
’ VON DER ARTZNEY 183
16
Von der Artzney II, chap. 57, fol. LXIXr: ‘Schmertz. Ich gee in traurigkait ein
langen und harten weg. Vernunfft. Nichts erwaicht so seer ein harten weg, und troest
ein betruebtes unnd traurigs gemuet, als edle und liepliche sorge, woelche nit kün-
den wonen, dann in den herzen eines frummen und gelehrten manns, und in allen
raisen gferten sein. Wann nun dazu kompt auch ein angeneme gesellschafft, eynes
froelichen unnd wol beredten freunds, so wirt einen der weg nit allein leicht, son-
dern auch kurz duncken’.
17
Kuhn H.C., “Spannungen und Spannendes in Petrarcas Schrift über die
Heilmittel gegen beiderlei Fortuna”, in http://www.phil-hum-ren.uni-muenchen.de/
SekLit/P2004A/Kuhn.htm 3–4, has pointed out that ratio in Petrarch’s text is actu-
ally not the ‘winner’ in its disputes with gaudium but the ‘looser’.
184
18
For a similar argument, regarding compositional obscurity and “chaos” in 16th-
century landscape painting as rhetorical instruments for engaging the viewer in the
imaginative aesthetics (and mental paradoxes) of sight and insight, see my “Doorzien
als esthetische ervaring bij Pieter Bruegel I en het vroeg-zestiende-eeuwse land-
schap”, in id., De uitvinding van het landschap. Van Patinir tot Rubens, 1520–1650 (Antwerp,
exh. cat. Museum voor Schone Kunsten: 2004) 53–65.
19
Von der Artzney II, chap. 80, fols. XCVr–v; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des
Petrarca-Meisters 281.
20
Von der Artzney II, chap. 80, fols. XCVr–v: ‘Schmertz. Ich bin von den freun-
den verrathenn worden. Vernunfft. Ich glaub vonn den feynden, denn weren sie fre-
und, so verriethen sie dich nicht. Schmertz. Ich byn vonn meinen haus genossen,
oder gesynd genossen verrathen wordenn. Vernunfft. Hausgenossen oder gesindgenossen,
seind zweyfelhafftige namen die mancherlay bedeutend’.
’
VON DER ARTZNEY
21
Von der Artzney I, chap. 7, fols. VIIr–v; cf. Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-
Meisters 50.
22
Von der Artzney I, chap. 7, fol. VIIv.
23
Scheidig, Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters 50.
188
run the risk of being caught in the spider’s web. The fact that the
threads of this web literally cut through the eyes of Pallas and that,
similarly, the web obstructs the viewer’s grasp of this figure clearly
signals that the visual rhetoric of the image is directed at a play of
shifting, sometimes contradictory, perspectives in the mind of the
beholder and reader. This image, placed at the beginning of one of
the first chapters of Von der Artzney (fol. VIr), can be said to be
emblematic for the medicinal role of the entire visual imagery in the
book, geared, as it seems to be, at ‘consoling’ the eyes of the ‘spec-
ulative’ viewer.24
24
At another occasion I plan to elaborate this argument in the context of other
Late Medieval and Early Modern examples of ‘speculative imagery’ in North-Western
European art.
’ VON DER ARTZNEY 189
Selective Bibliography
C M., The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images,
400–1200 (Cambridge: 1998).
D F.N.M., A Dialogue between Reason and Adversity. A late Middle English Version
of Petrarch’s De Remediis (Assen: 1968).
F R., “Doorzien als esthetische ervaring bij Pieter Bruegel I en het vroeg-
zestiende-eeuwse landschap”, in De uitvinding van het landschap. Van Patinir tot Rubens,
1520–1650 (Antwerp, exh. cat. Museum voor Schone Kunsten: 2004) 53–65.
H J.F., “Speculations on Speculation. Vision and Perception in the Theory
and Practice of Mystical Devotion”, in Haug W. – Schneider-Lastin W. (eds.),
Deutsche Mystik im abendländischen Zusammenhang. Neu erschlossene Texte, neue methodi-
sche Ansätze, neue theoretische Konzepte. Kolloquium Kloster Fischingen 1998 (Tübingen:
2000) 353–407.
H K., Fortuna und Virtus. Eine Studie zu Petrarcas Lebensweisheit (Köln-Graz:
1958).
L T., “Inneres Auge, äusserer Blick und heilige Schau. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag
zur visuellen Praxis in Frömmigkeit und Moraldidaxe des späten Mittelalters”, in
Schreiner K. – Müntz M. (eds.), Frömmigkeit im Mittelalter. Politisch-soziale Kontexte,
visuelle Praxis, körperliche Ausdrucksformen (München: 2002) 179–220.
MC G.W., Sorrow and Consolation in Italian Humanism (Princeton: 1991).
R H.-J., “Die Illustrationen zu Francesco Petrarca ‘Von der Artzney bayder
Glueck des guten und widerwertigen’ (Augsburg 1532)”, Wallraf-Richartz Jahrbuch
45 (1984) 59–112.
——, Bauernsatiren. Entstehung und Entwicklung des bäuerlichen Genres in der deutschen und
niederländischen Kunst ca. 1470–1570 (Niederzier: 1986).
S W., Die Holzschnitte des Petrarca-Meisters (Berlin: 1955).
S U., “Zur politischen Tendenz des Petrarca-Meisters. Seine Stellungnahme
gegen die Wahl Karls V. und sein Verhalten zu den Ereignissen in Württemberg”,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-DDR. Forschungen und Berichte 6 (1964) 40–90.
16TH-CENTURY ITALIANS READING PETRARCH:
BEMBO AND CARDANO
«QUEGLI AMORI CHE SON DOLCI
SENZA AMARITUDINE»:
THE PETRARCHIST BEMBO IN
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER
1
On Bembo as a character in The Courtier, see Floriani P., “I personaggi del
Cortegiano”, Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana 156 (1979) 161–78, now in I gen-
tiluomini letterati. Il dialogo culturale nel primo Cinquecento (Naples: 1981) 50–67; Dilemmi
G., “Il Bembo ‘cortegiano’ ”, in Ossola C. (ed.), La corte e il Cortegiano, vol. I: La
scena del testo (Rome: 1980) 191–200; Arbizzoni G., L’ordine e la persuasione. Pietro
Bembo personaggio nel Cortegiano (Urbino: 1983); Hager A. “Castiglione’s Bembo.
yoking eros and thanatos by containment in book four of Il libro del cortegiano”,
Canadian Journal of Italian Studies 16 (1993) 33–47; Scarpati Cl. – Motta U., “Il
Bembo del Castiglione”, in Morgana S. – Piotti M. – Prada M. (eds.), Prose della
volgar lingua di Pietro Bembo (Milano: 2000) 443–491.
2
The other main characters intervening in the discussion are count Ludovico di
Canossa on the courtier (Book I), Federico Fregoso on the practical implementa-
tion of the ideal (Book II), Bibbiena on the various types of facezie (book II), Giuliano
de’ Medici on the donna di palazzo (Book III), Ottaviano Fregoso on the relation-
ship between the courtier and the ruler (Book IV).
3
Cf. Baldassare Castiglione, Il libro del cortegiano con una scelta delle Opere minori, ed.
B. Maier (Turin: 1964) 512–542; all quotes from the vulgata of The Courtier, unless
indicated otherwise, are from this edition. For the second draft of The Courtier, see
La seconda redazione del Cortegiano, ed. G. Ghinassi (Florence: 1968).
194
for instance to the facezie (II, 45–89) or to the donna di palazzo (III,
4–59).4
Moreover, the reader will find it hard not to notice that on several
occasions, Bembo is rather discreet, even surprisingly discreet, given
the topics of conversation. It may strike as something of a surprise,
given his credentials as a humanist, a scholar and an advocate of
the cause of vernacular literature, that he does not intervene in the
discussion on the questione della lingua (in which the views held by
Bembo are defended by Federico Fregoso),5 nor on the role the tre-
centisti might play in it. Only on one occasion does he quote a poem
by Petrarch. On the basis of this bare textual evidence, there does
not seem to be very much of a ‘Petrarchist’ Bembo in The Courtier.
Appearences may not always be deceptive, but in this case they
are. From this and from various other points of view, Bembo is
beyond any doubt the most important and most intriguing character
in The Courtier, figuring at the heart of a castle of crossed destinies di
calviniana memoria. Bembo’s performance in The Courtier is inextricably
linked to his importance as a historical figure; life and times of Pietro
Bembo are closely connected with the life and times of Baldassare
Castiglione, in particular it is hard (to say the least) to separate the
stages in the making of The Courtier from the development of Bembo’s
œuvre and career.6 This means, for a start, that Bembo’s appearance
4
Cf. respectively 259–321 and 340–423. It may be noted, though, that Bembo
is only rarely interrupted during his address, whereas the parts dedicated to other
topics assume a much more dialogical character; in particular Giuliano de’ Medici
is frequently interrupted during his expositions on the donna di palazzo, and the chap-
ters dedicated to this topic resemble more a lively discussion than an actual exposition.
5
In the debate on language (questione della lingua), Castiglione and Bembo held
notoriously different views, but in their dialogues both chose to voice their differences
of opinion through other characters (Federico Fregoso and Ludovico di Canossa in
The Courtier, Carlo Bembo and Calmeta in the Prose della volgar lingua). The second
draft of The Courtier contains the announcement of a further debate on language in
which Bembo would have taken up the defence of his ideas, but the next day this
debate does not take place (I, 39; La seconda redazione del Cortegiano 54).
6
In fact, one of the most intriguing aspects of the complex history of the mak-
ing of The Courtier has to do with the bearings of the contacts between Castiglione
and Bembo on this making; the history of The Courtier and that of the Prose della
volgar lingua are intertwined in many—and sometimes ironic—ways. On the mak-
ing of The Courtier, also with regard to Castiglione’s views on language, see, apart
from La seconda redazione del Cortegiano, Motta U., Castiglione e il mito di Urbino. Studi
sulla elaborazione del Cortegiano (Milano: 2003); Quondam A., ‘Questo povero Cortegiano’.
Castiglione, il libro, la storia (Roma: 2000); Guidi J., “Reformulations de l’idéologie
aristocratique au XVIe siècle. Les différentes rédactions et la fortune du Courtisan”,
Réécritures, I–II. Commentaires, parodies, variations dans la littérature italienne de la Renaissance
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 195
(Paris: 1984) I, 121–184. On the relationship between Bembo and Castiglione with
regard to their ideas on language, see also Senior D., “Il rapporto tra Bembo e
Castiglione sulla base della ‘questione della lingua’ ”, Rivista di Studi Italiani 17/1
(1991) 145–164.
7
Castiglione finishes the transcription of the third draft of The Courtier (the so-
called codice Laurenziano) in May 1524. During his stay in Spain, he makes numer-
ous changes to the text, entrusting then Bembo and Ramusio with the manuscript
in the spring of 1527. Later on, in the same year, he writes the lettera dedicatoria to
Monsignor Da Silva. After a last stylistic and linguistic revision by Giovan Francesco
Valerio, the printed edition by Aldo Manuzio is ready in April 1528. On the mak-
ing of The Courtier, see note 6.
8
The Aldine were published respectively in 1501 and in 1502; in both editions
is already evident the philological approach to vernacular poetry that constitutes
the cornerstone of Bembo’s classicismo volgare. On the making of the Aldina edition
of Petrarch, see Frasso G., “Il Petrarca aldino del 1501”, Vestigia. Studi in onore di
Giuseppe Billanovich (Rome: 1984) I, 315–335.
9
The first edition dates back to 1505, less than two years before the conversa-
tions reported in The Courtier are said to have taken place. For more details on the
Asolani, see Dilemmi G., “Storia degli Asolani”, in Pietro Bembo, Gli Asolani, ed.
Giorgio Dilemmi (Florence: 1991) xxxvii–cxx.
10
The first edition of Bembo’s Rime was published in 1530, but some of his
poetry in vernacular was widely known already at the beginning of the century;
the volume of the Asolani contains many poems, and during his stay in Urbino
Bembo publishes the Stanze, a eulogy of love in ottava rima, and Alma cortese, a long
canzone written in 1507, dedicated to the memory of his brother Carlo, deceased in
1503. For more details, see Dionisotti C., “Introduzione”, in Pietro Bembo, Prose e
rime, ed. C. Dionisotti (Turin: 1966) 9–56; Mazzacurati G.C., “Pietro Bembo”, Storia
della cultura veneta, vol. III/2 (Vicenza: 1980) 15–21.
196
As has already been pointed out, apart from his discourse on love
in Book IV of The Courtier, Bembo’s interventions are sporadic, mar-
ginal, or simply non existent. His silence is at times as surprising as
it is eloquent. When taking a closer look at Bembo’s sporadic inter-
ventions in the first three books, the first thing one notices is that Bembo
is not just silent, but sometimes even silenced by the other characters.
In the first chapters of book I, various members of the party pro-
pose a topic for their conversation. When Ottaviano Fregoso voices
his puzzlement about the paradoxal bittersweet effects of love (dolci
sdegni; I, 10), Bembo immediately takes advantage of the situation
and proposes a conversation about love—more precisely about whether
the pain is greater when it is caused by the lover himself or by the
beloved.11 But the others immediately reject Bembo’s idea, as if they
are wary that the author of Asolani (a book all the others seem to
know, as can be inferred from an allusion in book IV)12 might drag
them into a lengthy, Asolani-like dispute on the contradictory expe-
riences of love. And on Bembo’s part the rest is silence—at least for
the time being.
After the debate on the ideal courtier has been opened, Bembo
is silenced on another occasion. When discussing the importance for
the courtier of being trained in lettere, he sets about to compare the
relationship between armi and lettere to the relationship between body
and soul, but Ludovico di Canossa interrupts him with the argument
that on matters like this, his cannot but be far too partial an opinion.13
Bembo is thus silenced twice in the course of Book I of The Courtier,
and it seems fair to suspect that he is silenced precisely because of
his reputation as a uomo di lettere, an expert in love theory, in ver-
nacular love poetry, and in the vernacular love poet par excellence,
Petrarch. Eventually, Bembo throws in the towel, sufficing with clos-
11
Cf. Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano I, 11, 97–99.
12
‘Disse messer Pietro: “Veramente, Signora, avendo io da parlar di questa mate-
ria, bisognariami andar a domandar consiglio allo Eremita del mio Lavinello” ’
(Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 50, 513). In the second draft of The Courtier,
the Asolani are mentioned by Camillo Paleotto (III, 105, in La seconda redazione 299).
13
‘Ma non voglio, messer Pietro, che voi di tal causa siate giudice, perché sareste
troppo suspetto ad una delle parti’ (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano I, 45, 164–166).
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 197
14
Giunto Alexandro a la famosa tomba (Canzoniere 187, of which Bembo quotes the
first quatrain).
15
See for instance the comment on fashion and clothing in Lombardy (Castiglione,
Il libro del Cortegiano II, 27, 232), and his intervention on the florentines (II, 52,
270–272).
16
Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 50, 512.
198
17
Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 50, 513.
18
The link between Bembo’s (deliberate or imposed) silence and his triumphal
intervention in book IV is indirectly confirmed by the seconda redazione of The Courtier:
in the second draft, Bembo’s discourse on love is more fragmented, it does not yet
occupy the same crucial position at the end of the whole book, and Bembo’s inter-
ventions in the course of the conversations are more frequent and longer. For his
discourse on love in the second draft, see La seconda redazione 301–302 and 306–314
(III, 106, 113–118). In general, the Bembo of the third draft is definitely less involved
in the ‘andamento contingente della conversazione’, much to the advantage of the
‘aura carismatica che doveva avvolgere il gran finale’ (Dilemmi, “Il Bembo ‘corte-
giano’ ” 197). For a convenient survey of the differences between Bembo’s perfor-
mance in the second and third draft of The Courtier, see Scarpati – Motta, “Il Bembo
del Castiglione” 455–468. The differences between Bembo’s rhetorical moves in the
second draft and those in the third draft of The Courtier are analysed by Arbizzoni,
L’ordine e la persuasione 8–13.
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 199
19
The ‘systematical’ and ‘theoretical’ character of Bembo’s discourse has been stressed
by many a critic (see, for instance, Arbizzoni, L’ordine e la persuasione 25).
20
See Stäuble A., “L’inno all’amore nel Cortegiano (IV, 70)”, in Le sirene eterne.
Studi sull’eredità classica e biblica nella letteratura italiana (Ravenna: 1986) 117–53.
21
On the role of Bembo’s discourse in the interplay of paradoxes central to
Castiglione’s dialogue, see the important remarks by Carlo Ossola in Dal ‘cortegiano’
all‘uomo di mondo’. Storia di un libro e di un modello sociale (Turin: 1988) 54–55.
200
22
Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano I, 42, 158 (Monsignor d’Angoulême, the future
Francis I, King of France), and IV, 38, 495–496 (Francis I, Henry VIII King of
England, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor).
23
It is tempting to see Bembo’s address as an ideology prêt-à-porter for the gen-
eration of grandi sovrani, predating by a century the figure of the roi-soleil. Petrarchism
at the court of Elizabeth I is a suggestive example of how divinization and adora-
tion of the beloved as « paragon of all virtues » may acquire political meanings
(cf. Forster L.W., “The Political Petrarchism of the Virgin Queen”, in The Icy Fire.
Five studies in European Petrarchism (Cambridge: 1969) 122–147. It should be stressed,
however, that earlier in book IV Bembo had praised the republic (Castiglione, Il
libro del Cortegiano IV, 20, 471).
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 201
24
The concepts used by the three characters of the Asolani in their expositions
present various similarities to those used by Bembo in The Courtier; on a structural
level, it is noteworthy that the three books of the Asolani and Bembo’s address in
The Courtier culminate in a lyrical paean to a particular experience of love (or, in
the case of Perottino, in an advice not to engage in any experience of love), fur-
thermore, Bembo’s discourse in The Courtier, just as Lavinello’s in book III of the
Asolani, is charged with the responsibility of resolving a paradox.
25
Bembo’s stay in Urbino is inextricably linked to the Stanze, recited precisely
during the Carnival of 1507—that is, only weeks after the alleged conversations of
The Courtier. During the same period he writes many poems, and collects them around
1510 in a book dedicated to Elisabetta Gonzaga, a project he eventually abandons.
26
On the differences between the princeps of 1505 and the second edition of 1530,
202
see Giorgio Dilemmi’s observations in Gli Asolani (note 9), lxvi– cxv, as well as Floriani
P., “Primo petrarchismo bembesco”, in Bembo e Castiglione. Studi sul classicismo del
Cinquecento (Rome: 1976) 75–98. The second edition of the Asolani stands out for
the high number of minor linguistic and stylistic interventions, adapting the text to
the options advocated in the Prose della volgar lingua. In the second edition a sub-
stantial number of poems and minor prose passages are eliminated, and there are
no substantial additions, with the sole exception of the long excerpt on the difference
between amore and desiderio in the hermit’s discourse (III, 13–14, in Gli Asolani 332–
333). Since many of the removed extracts contained contingent details and personal
effusions, the second edition is marked by a shift towards a more ‘disembodied’ dis-
course, concentrated on the ‘essence’ of the discussion. It is noteworthy that in the
shift from the second to the third draft of The Courtier, Bembo’s performance under-
goes a similar change: his ‘marginal’ interventions in the course of the book are
less frequent, and his address in book IV is a dense and coherent discourse, with
few interruptions by other characters.
27
‘[D]ico che da Dio nasce la bellezza ed è come circulo di cui la bontà è il
centro; e però come non po essere circulo senza centro, non po esser bellezza senza
bontà; onde rare volte mala anima abita bel corpo e perciò la bellezza estrinseca
è vero segno della bontà intrinseca e nei corpi è impressa quella grazia piú e meno
quasi per un carattere dell’anima, per lo quale essa estrinsecamente è conosciuta,
come negli alberi, ne’ quali la bellezza de’ fiori fa testimonio della bontà dei frutti;
e questo medesimo interviene nei corpi, come si vede che i fisionomi al volto
conoscono spesso i costumi e talora i pensieri degli omini’ (Castiglione, Il libro del
Cortegiano IV, 57, 522); ‘In somma, ad ogni cosa dà supremo ornamento questa
graziosa e sacra bellezza; e dir si po che ‘l bono e ‘l bello a qualche modo siano
una medesima cosa, e massimamente nei corpi umani; della bellezza de’ quali la
piú propinqua causa estimo io che sia la bellezza dell’anima che, come participe
di quella vera bellezza divina, illustra e fa bello ciò che ella tocca, e specialmente
se quel corpo ov’ella abita non è di cosí vil materia, che ella non possa imprimer-
gli la sua qualità’ (IV, 59, 524–525).
28
In The Courtier, Bembo is tolerant towards sensual love, because it is seen as
inevitable for the young courtier (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 61); in the
Asolani, instead, the hermit preaches a complete separation of body and soul, iden-
tifying the vera bellezza only with the soul.
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 203
sensual love, rational love and divine love are seen as grades in a
hierarchical process of transformation and ascent, in which the various
grades are not mutually exclusive (as they were in the hermit’s lec-
ture in book III of the Asolani), but in which experiences on a lower
level (e.g. the bodily experience) may and should enhance one’s abil-
ity to reach a higher level (e.g. the level of soul). Admiration for the
physical beauty of the body is justified only inasmuch as its beauty
is put into relation with the goodness of the soul. A striking example
is that of the kiss, described as a means of reaching a union of souls
through a bodily act.29 For the lovers, the kiss is a means to retrace
backwards (from effect to cause) the course of divine love engulfing
all things and beings; and in this way the lover may ascend his stair-
way to heaven, eventually reaching the contemplation of the bellezza
divina and the somma bontà evoked in the final part of Bembo’s address.30
Bembo’s discourse in The Courtier rectifies what readers of the Asolani
might view as puzzling aspects, or even considerable flaws of the
book. The early Petrarchism of the Asolani highlights the existence
of diverging and contrasting experiences of love, voicing them through
numerous examples of vernacular love poetry, but eventually the
29
‘Ed acciò che ancor meglio conosciate che l’amor razionale è piú felice che ‘l
sensuale, dico che le medesime cose nel sensuale si debbeno talor negare e nel
razionale concedere, perché in questo son disoneste, ed in quello oneste; però la
donna, per compiacer il suo amante bono, oltre il concedergli i risi piacevoli, i
ragionamenti domestici e secreti, il motteggiare, scherzare, toccar la mano, po venir
ancor ragionevolmente senza biasimo insin al bascio, il che nell’amor sensuale, se-
condo le regule del signor Magnifico, non è licito; perché, per esser il bascio con-
giungimento e del corpo e dell’anima, pericolo è che l’amante sensuale non inclini
piú alla parte del corpo che a quella dell’anima, ma l’amante razionale conosce
che, ancora che la bocca sia parte del corpo, nientedimeno per quella si dà esito
alle parole che sono interpreti dell’anima, ed a quello intrinseco anelito che si
chiama pur esso ancor anima; e perciò si diletta d’unir la sua bocca con quella
della donna amata col bascio, non per moversi a desiderio alcuno disonesto, ma
perché sente che quello legame è un aprir l’adito alle anime, che tratte dal deside-
rio l’una dell’altra si transfundano alternamente ancor l’una nel corpo dell’altra e
talmente si mescolino insieme che ognun di loro abbia due anime, ed una sola di
quelle due cosí composta regga quasi dui corpi’ (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano
IV, 64, 530–531).
30
‘che dolce fiamma, che incendio suave creder si dee che sia quello, che nasce
dal fonte della suprema e vera bellezza! che è principio d’ogni altra bellezza, che
mai non cresce né scema; sempre bella e per se medesima, tanto in una parte,
quanto nell’altra, simplicissima; a se stessa solamente simile, e di niuna altra partecipe;
ma talmente bella, che tutte le altre cose belle son belle perché da lei participan
la sua bellezza. Questa è quella bellezza indistinta dalla somma bontà, che con la
sua luce chiama e tira a sé tutte le cose’ (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 69,
538).
204
31
Cf. Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 64–68, with the grades of abstract
particular beauty, universal beauty, angelic beauty, particular intellect and univer-
sal (divine) intellect, grades Guido Arbizzoni has compared to Pico della Mirandola’s
Commento on the canzone by Benivieni (Arbizzoni, L’ordine e la persuasione 37–40).
32
On neoplatonism in the Asolani, see Berra C., La scrittura degli Asolani di Pietro
Bembo (Florence: 1996) 86–94, 204–219, and 237–240.
33
This identification is based on Gismondo’s age, mentioned in II, 17 (see Gli
Asolani 148 (for the 1505 edition) and 283 (for the 1530 edition).
34
See for instance the ottave 19–20 (Bembo, “Stanze”, Prose e rime 658–659).
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 205
35
Cf. Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola – Pietro Bembo, Le epistole De imitatione, ed.
G. Santangelo (Florence: 1954).
36
This conviction is expressed by Bembo in a short intervention in book II on
the relationship between natural genius (ingegno) and skills acquired through train-
ing and teaching (arte) (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano II, 43, 257). It must be
emphasized, however, that Bembo in 1528, when he had just published his Prose
della volgar lingua, considered the way Castiglione had represented him in book IV
as too much determined by his early neoplatonism, and that, in the light of the
theses elaborated in the Prose, the discourse attributed to him in The Courtier put far
too much stress on the importance of love as a source of divine inspiration. This
is probably the reason why Bembo decided to delete some references to love as an
ottimo maestro, a source not only of poetical inspiration but of all sorts of enobling
effects (one passage is in II, 20 (Gli Asolani 153), the other is in II, 31, 174–175).
It is noteworthy that in the second edition of the Asolani Bembo deletes the refer-
ence to the kiss as contact between two souls in Gismondo’s discourse (II, 32, 176),
as if he considered this passage too similar to the passage on the kiss attributed to
him in The Courtier (Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 64, 530–531).
206
37
These are the terms used by Bembo himself to qualify the divine source of inspi-
ration of the last part of his address (‘Signori,—suggiunse,—io ho detto quello che ‘l
sacro furor amoroso improvisamente m’ha dettato; ora che par che piú non m’aspiri,
non saprei che dire’, Castiglione, Il libro del Cortegiano IV, 71, 541–542).
38
On narrative patterns in the Canzoniere, and on their evolution through the
various phases of the making of the book, see Santagata M., I frammenti dell’anima.
Storia e racconto nel Canzoniere del Petrarca (Bologna: 1992). Bembo’s edizione aldina of
1501 still respects the order of the Canzoniere, as well as some macrostructural fea-
tures (e.g. the bipartition), and Bembo’s Rime present some echoes of these struc-
tural patterns. On the whole, 16th-century Petrarchism will pay but little attention
to the Canzoniere as a carefully structured text, yet it will inherit the variety of expe-
riences of love voiced in Petrarch’s poetry.
THE BOOK OF THE COURTIER 207
39
See Elizabeth Cropper’s seminal article “On Beautiful Women. Parmigianino,
petrarchismo, and the vernacular style”, Art Bulletin 58/3 (1976) 373–394. See also
Rogers M., “The decorum of Women’s Beauty. Trissino, Firenzuola, Luigini and the
Representation of Women in Sixteenth-Century Painting”, Renaissance Studies 2/1
(1988) 47–87.
40
Floriani, “Dall’amor cortese all’amor divino”, in Bembo e Castiglione 183.
208
Selective Bibliography
Prose della volgar lingua di Pietro Bembo, ed. S. Morgana – M. Piotti – M. Prada (Milan:
2000).
A G., L’ordine e la persuasione. Pietro Bembo personaggio nel Cortegiano (Urbino:
1983).
B Pietro, Gli Asolani, ed. G. Dilemmi (Florence: 1991).
——, Prose e rime, ed. C. Dionisotti (Turin: 1966).
——, Opere in volgare, ed. M. Marti (Florence: 1961).
B Cl., La scrittura degli Asolani di Pietro Bembo (Florence: 1996).
C A., “Il libro del Cortegiano di Baldassarre Castiglione”, in Asor Rosa A. (ed.),
Letteratura Italiana, Le opere. I: Dalle origini al Cinquecento (Turin: 1992) 1089–1126.
C Baldassare, Il libro del cortegiano con una scelta delle Opere minori, ed. B. Maier
(Turin: 1964).
——, La seconda redazione del Cortegiano, ed. G. Ghinassi (Florence: 1968).
C E., “On Beautiful Women. Parmigianino, petrarchismo, and the vernac-
ular style”, Art Bulletin 58/3 (1976) 373–394.
D G., “Il Bembo ‘cortegiano’ ”, in Ossola C. (ed.), La corte e il Cortegiano,
vol. I: La scena del testo (Rome: 1980) 191–200.
F P., Bembo e Castiglione. Studi sul classicismo del Cinquecento (Rome: 1976).
——, “I personaggi del Cortegiano”, Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana 156 (1979)
161–78, more recently in I gentiluomini letterati. Il dialogo culturale nel primo Cinquecento
(Naples: 1981) 50–67.
F L.W., The Icy Fire. Five studies in European Petrarchism (Cambridge: 1969).
F G., “Il Petrarca aldino del 1501”, Vestigia. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich,
vol. I (Rome: 1984) 315–335.
G J., “Reformulations de l’idéologie aristocratique au XVIe siècle. Les différentes
rédactions et la fortune du Courtisan”, in Réécritures, I–II. Commentaires, parodies,
variations dans la littérature italienne de la Renaissance, vol. I (Paris: 1984) 121–184.
H A., “Castiglione’s Bembo. Yoking Eros and Thanatos by Containment in
Book Four of Il libro del cortegiano”, Canadian Journal of Italian Studies 16 (1993)
33–47.
M U., Castiglione e il mito di Urbino. Studi sulla elaborazione del Cortegiano (Milan:
2003).
O C., Dal ‘cortegiano’ all’‘uomo di mondo’. Storia di un libro e di un modello sociale
(Turin: 1987).
Q A., ‘Questo povero Cortegiano’. Castiglione, il libro, la storia (Rome: 2000).
R M., “The decorum of Women’s Beauty. Trissino, Firenzuola, Luigini and the
Representation of Women in Sixteenth-Century Painting”, Renaissance Studies 2/1
(1988) 47–87.
S D., “Il rapporto tra Bembo e Castiglione sulla base della ‘questione della
lingua’ ”, Rivista di Studi Italiani 17/1 (1991) 145–164.
M G.C., “Pietro Bembo”, in Storia della cultura veneta, vol. III/2 (Vicenza:
1980) 1–59.
S Cl. – M U., Studi su Baldassarre Castiglione (Milan: 2002).
S A., “L’inno all’amore nel Cortegiano (IV, 70)”, in Le sirene eterne. Studi sul-
l’eredità classica e biblica nella letteratura italiana (Ravenna: 1986) 117–53.
AN UNUSUAL BIOGRAPHY:
CARDANO’S HOROSCOPE OF PETRARCH*
Dóra Bobory
* I am grateful to the Hungarian Scholarship Board (MÖB) for their grant which
allowed me to pursue research for this paper in Rome.
1
Grant E., “Were there Significant Differences between Medieval and Early Modern
Scholastic Natural Philosophy? The Case for Cosmology”, Noùs 18/1 (1984) 5–14.
2
See some of the best general works on the period preceding the so-called
scientific revolution: Mamiani M., Storia della scienza moderna (Bari: 1998), and Rossi P.,
La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa (Bari: 1997), now also in English as The Birth
of Modern Science, transl. C. De Nardi Ipsen (Oxford: 2000).
3
See the comprehensive article of North J.D., “Celestial Influence—the Major
Premiss of Astrology”, in Zambelli P. (ed.), ‘Astrologi hallucinati’ Stars and the End of
the World in Luther’s Time (Berlin-New York: 1986) 45–100.
4
See Ficino Marsilio, De vita triplici, ed. C.V. Kaske – J.R. Clark (Tempe, AZ:
1998), and Bullard M.M., “The Inward Zodiac: A Development in Ficino’s Thought
on Astrology”, Renaissance Quarterly 43 (1990) 687–708.
5
Pico della Mirandola Giovanni, Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem, ed.
E. Garin, 2 vols (Florence: 1946–1952). See also Zambelli P., L’ambigua natura della
magia. Filosofi, streghe, riti nel Rinascimento (Venice: 1996).
210
6
Cardano, Encomium astrologiae, in Opera omnia, 10 vols (Lyons: 1663), V, 727–728:
‘Si qua est humanis usibus ars necessaria, disciplinave utilis, aut contemplatio iucunda,
vel divina sapientia, Astrologia certe [. . .] talis est’.
7
On his astrology, see Grafton A., Cardano’s Cosmos. The Worlds and Works of a
Renaissance Astrologer (Cambridge, MA-London: 1999); Ernst G., “ ‘Veritatis amor dul-
cissimus’. Aspetti dell’astrologia di Cardano”, in Keßler E. (ed.), Girolamo Cardano.
Philosoph, Naturforscher, Arzt, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung
15 (Wiesbaden: 1994) 157–184; and Ochman J., “Il determinismo astrologico di
Girolamo Cardano”, in Magia, astrologia e religione nel Rinascimento. Convegno polacco-ital-
iano (Varsavia: 25–27 settembre 1972) (Breslau-Warsaw-Krakow-Gdansk: 1974) 123–130.
8
Siraisi N.G., The Clock and the Mirror. Girolamo Cardano and Renaissance Medicine
(Princeton: 1997).
9
On his contributions to mathematics, see Maracchia S., Da Cardano a Galois.
Momenti di storia dell’algebra (Milan: 1978).
10
Ingegno A., Saggio sulla filosofia di Cardano (Milan: 1980).
’ 211
11
Cardano Gerolamo, Pronostico (Venice: 1534–1435).
12
See Casali E., Le spie del cielo. Oroscopi, lunari, e almanacchi nell’Italia moderna (Turin:
2003).
13
Bobory D., “Being a Chosen One: Self-Consciousness and Self-Fashioning in
the Works of Gerolamo Cardano”, in Szende K. – Rasson J.A. – Sebők M. (eds.),
Annual of the Medieval Studies at CEU 9 (2003) 69–92.
14
Cardano’s popularity as an astrologer in the 17th and 18th centuries becomes
clear from the fact that his works—similarly to those of Ptolemy and Aristotle—
appear on frontispiece illustrations together with the popular attributes of the prac-
titioner: the astrolabe, the sphere, and so on. Casali E., Le spie del cielo 10.
15
On the interpretation of the lists of his own books, see Maclean I., “Interpreting
the De libris propriis”, in Baldi M. – Canziani G. (eds.), Girolamo Cardano. Le opere, le
fonti, la vita. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Milano 11–13 Dicembre 1997 (Milan:
1999) 13–33.
16
See the summary in Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 13–15.
212
17
Quinlan-McGrath M., “The Foundation Horoscope(s) for the St. Peter’s Basilica,
Rome, 1506: Choosing a Time, Changing the Storia”, Isis 92 (2001) 716–741 (esp.
720).
18
Horoscopes were cast also for buildings and cities. Quinlan-McGrath M., “The
Foundation Horoscope(s)” showed how various renowned astrologers, by the way
of rectification, were busying themselves in finding the right time for the rebuild-
ing of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome under Pope Julius II, and correlating it to both
the birth of Christ and that of the Pope himself. See also Riggs D., “Was Michelangelo
Born under Saturn?”, Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995) 99–121, another example
of conscious manipulations of the person’s horoscope to receive the desired results.
’ 213
19
Cardano was convinced that he was a chosen one with the ability to foresee
the future, someone especially dear to God since he received admonitions on a
daily basis, through dreams and demons, and by the way of a particular insight
into astrology as well. See Bobory, “Being a Chosen One” passim.
20
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 190.
214
who—since his favourite subject and patient was always himself 21—
cast his own horoscope many times,22 and it is beyond doubt the
longest of all.
It is already a well-known fact that Cardano’s autobiography, the
De propria vita,23 written when the author was already 74 years old,
was born from his lengthy explanations attached to his own nativity
horoscope.24 He published his horoscope for the first time in 1543 with
predictions concerning his future. However, in the light of later events
(for example after the execution of his favourite son, for whom he
had foretold a glittering future) he more than once returned to his
horoscope, modifying his forecasts, perhaps even correcting earlier
calculations to justify the errors (applying ‘rectification’), thus falsify-
ing the prophecies, and turning the horoscope into an autobiography.
Even structurally speaking, his horoscopes and his autobiography are
substantially the same: there are chapters treating his physical appear-
ance and the role of the planets in shaping it, individual chapters
dedicated to members of his family, chapters on his enemies and friends,
and chapters on his professional difficulties and successes (while this
division corresponds also to the various houses in a nativity chart).
The final work was written with a thoroughness never seen before.
Gabriel Naudé, who wrote the first biography of Cardano in the
middle of the 17th century,25 criticised the author precisely for his
directness, the fact that Cardano shares even the most intimate par-
ticulars of his and his family’s life with the readers, not thinking of
his reputation as a scholar, in revealing often very embarrassing
details. However, Cardano’s lifelong conviction was that both the
readers and he himself could learn from his horoscope and his auto-
biography because in them one can find examples of both good and
bad events in a great number.26 He also liked to say that truth and
21
See Galen A.C.E. van, “Body and Self-Image in the Autobiography of Gerolamo
Cardano”, in Enenkel K. – de Jong-Crane B. – Liebregts P. (eds.), Modelling the
Individual. Biography and Portrait in the Renaissance (Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: 1998)
133–152, and Siraisi, The Clock and the Mirror 6.
22
In the Libelli duo (Nuremberg: 1543), the Libelli quinque (Nuremberg: 1547), and
the In Cl. Ptotemaei Pelusiensis IIII de astrorum iudiciis, aut ut vulgo vocant, quadripartitae
constructionis libros, commentaria (Basel: 1554).
23
Cardano, De vita propria, in Opera omnia vol. I.
24
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 125 and 184.
25
Naudé G., “De Cardano iudicium”, in Gerolamo Cardano, Opera omnia vol. I.
26
Cardano, De vita propria 15.
’ 215
the love of truth for him were always above everything else, and
when he was not trying to hide the negative things he subscribed
to the moralising aspect of astrology.27
27
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 191–194.
28
A more detailed description of the astrologer’s methodology is provided in the
following classical works: Boll F. – Bezold C., Sternglaube und Sterndeutung. Die Geschichte
und das Wesen der Astrologie (Leipzig: 1917); North J., Horoscopes and History (London:
1986); Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos especially Chapter Two, “The Astrologer’s Prac-
tice” 22–37; Quinlan-McGrath, “The Foundation Horoscope(s)” 718–720; and
Biedermann H., Handlexikon der Magischen Künste (Graz: 1973).
216
29
The first house determined the course of life, the second the possession and
talent, the third stood for brothers and character traits, the fourth for parents and
origin, the fifth was the house of children and vitality, the sixth was the house of
health and stamina, the seventh was for marriage and relationships, the eighth stood
for death and also for loss and gain, the ninth was that of piety and spirituality,
the tenth was for dignity and profession, success, and authority, the eleventh house
stood for friends, support, and benefactors, while the twelfth was the house of ene-
mies, hidden things, captivity, and trials.
’ 217
30
On Luther’s arguments against astrology, see Ludolphy I., “Luther und die
Astrologie”, in Zambelli P. (ed.), ‘Astrologi hallucinati’ 101–107.
31
Cardano, De exemplis centum geniturarum, in Opera omnia vol. V 465.
32
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 71.
33
Cardano, De exemplis centum geniturarum, in Opera omnia vol. V.
34
Cardano, Libelli duo. Unus, de supplemento almanach. Alter, de restitutione temporum et
motuum coelestium. Item geniturae LXVII. insignes casibus et fortuna, cum expositione (Nuremberg:
218
1543); Id., Libelli quinque. I. De supplemento almanach, II. De restitutione temporum, III. De
iudiciis geniturarum, IV. De revolutionibus, V. De exemplis centum geniturarum (Nuremberg: 1547)
102–103; and Id., Liber de exemplis centum geniturarum. Opera omnia vol. V, 458.
35
See Maclean I., “Interpreting the De libris propriis”.
36
Cardano, De exemplis centum geniturarum 465: ‘Multa in hoc viro praeclaro egregia
fuere’.
37
Ibid.: ‘Primum carminum suavitas elegans, qua per universum orbem cele-
bratur. Praestat hoc Iupiter in domo Mercurii, in quadrato Veneris’. (‘The first is
the fine charm of his poems, which is celebrated all around the world. Planet Jupiter
in the house of Mercury and in square with Venus indicates this’).
38
Ibid.: ‘Et ideo suaviloquentiam praestat haec constitutio, qua maiorem praestare
non potest’. (‘And this constellation provided his eloquence, which could not have
been any greater’).
39
Ibid.: ‘Secundum est, profunditas sensuum cum studio maximo. Praestit hoc
Mercurius in ascendentis gradu iuxta Solem, in sextili Saturni, quod in amplissi-
mum auxit coascendens minor canis bebenia, naturae Mercurii. Atque eo modo
authoritatem cum doctrina et eloquentia coniunxit’ (‘Second is the profoundness of
his intelligence and his immense diligence. Mercury causes this, being in ascendant,
close to the Sun, and in sextile with Saturn, and this constellation increased largely
the influence of the greater star of the Canis Minor, which is of Mercurial nature.
Thus erudition and eloquence is joined by authority’).
220
and immutable fame and glory, which is shown by his work’s being
translated also into Spanish.40
The next things important to mention according to the astrologer
are the celibacy to which Petrarch gave himself, and the loss of his
child. A very intriguing contrast indeed. Cardano explains this odd
situation with the stars only partially, for certain angles and barren
planetary constellations, so Cardano continues, suggest sterility in
Petrarch’s life. However, as regards the fact that he had a child, one
that Jupiter intended to be misfortunate and short-lived,41 Cardano
does not comment upon it.
Another important characteristic that Cardano notices in Petrarch’s
horoscope is the meaning of Mercury, which, as mentioned above,
gave a knowledge of languages to the poet, who—at least according
to the astrologer—spoke Latin and Greek indeed! At the same time,
when—as was the case with the poet—Mercury is strong, especially
when it is close to the Sun, it gives the knowledge of numerous lan-
guages.42 Finally, the role of the Sun being in the East is equally
relevant, since it means a long life, while Jupiter indicates devotion.43
40
Ibid.: ‘Tertium est, perpetua manens ac indefessa gloria, ut etiam in Hispanicam
linguam transierit. Ostendit hoc spica virginis in coeli imo constituta’. (‘Third is a
permanent and immutable fame, so much so that his work has been translated into
Spanish language. It is revealed by the cusp of Venus which is situated in the deep-
est place of the sky’).
41
Ibid.: ‘Quartum est, coelibatus et orbitas: nam decimam Sol aspicit de quadrato,
et Mercurius ex angulo, fortis uterque quintam Sol et Mercurius de trino equidem,
sed ex sterili signo, Iupiter de quadrato in sterili existens, Saturnus de sextili non
in foecundo signo. Habuit igitur filium, quem Iupiter significavit infortunatus, qui
brevi supervixit’. (‘The fourth is celibacy and the loss of his child: for Sun and
Mercury, both strong, observe the tenth house from square; while they both observe
the fifth house from trine, thus from a sterile sign, and also Jupiter observes the
fifth house from square and from a sterile sign, while Saturn stands in sextile and
in a non fertile sign. So he had a child, one that Jupiter intended to be misfortu-
nate, and that lived short’).
42
Ibid.: ‘Quintum est, significatio Mercurij linguarum pluralitatem dantis, per-
calluit enim latinam linguam, ac graecam: semper enim Mercurius fortis plurali-
tatem dat linguarum, maxime cum Soli propinquus exiterit’. (‘The fifth is the meaning
of Mercury which gives the knowledge of numerous languages, and he knew Latin
and Greek very well. When Mercury is strong it always gives the knowledge of
numerous languages, especially when it is close to the Sun’).
43
Ibid.: ‘Sol etiam in Oriente, longam vitam decernit. Iupiter autem in secunda,
religionem, hoc etiam plerunque facit’. (‘Sun being in the East means long life.
Jupiter, in the second house, devotion, and this he practiced a lot indeed’).
’ 221
44
The horoscope’s message was probably positive enough, since the French poet
Jacques Peletier accentuates the similarity between his own ascendant and that of
Petrarch in his Commentaire sur la constitution de l’horoscope (1563). See Balsamo J.,
“Philippe de Maldeghem ou Pétrarque en Flandre (1600)”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Les
poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Geneva: 2004) 491–505 (esp. 494 n. 11).
45
See one of the best and most recent syntheses, Dotti U., Vita di Petrarca (Bari:
1992) 53 and 111.
46
Important biographies of Petrarch have been published in Solerti A. (ed.), Le
vite di Dante, Petrarca e Boccaccio scritte fino al secolo decimosesto (Milan: 1926).
47
Sicco Polenton, Girolamo Squarciafico, Alessandro Vellutello and Giovan Andrea
Gesualdo are all included in Solerti.
222
48
Vellutello A. (Venice: 1535), also taken up in Solerti, Le vite di Dante, Petrarca
e Boccaccio 366, states: ‘Nondimeno noi abbiamo per cosa certa che non li fu figliuolo,
ma nipote, e nato d’una sua non legittima figliuola per nome Francesca [. . .]’.
49
Just to mention a few of them: Francisci Pet. epistole familiares (Venice: 1492),
the Opera latina (Basel: 1496), the Opera (Venice: 1501, 1502, etc.), and the Librorum
Francisci Petrarche Impressorum Annotatio. Vita Petrarche edita per Hieronymum Squarzaficum
Alexandrinum. Epistole rerum senilium CXXVIII (Venice: 1503). Petrarch mentioned his
son Giovanni in Familiares XIII, XVII, XIX, XXII, and Seniles I.
50
Cardano, De vita propria 14.
51
Giannozzo Manetti and G.A. Gesualdo (‘egli incominciasse ad imparar lettere
greche da Barleamo, un de’ Greci da Calabria’), while Fausto da Longiano says
that Petrarch excelled in Greek: ‘Nei studi greci esercitatissimo’. See Solerti, Le vite
di Dante, Petrarca e Boccaccio.
52
See, for instance, Triumphos de Petrarca. Translacion a los seys triumphos de Fracisco
Petrarca de toscano en castellano (Seville: 1532, and Seville: 1541).
’ 223
Cardano, however, was not the only one to cast the horoscope of
Petrarch. After he published his Libelli quinque in 1547, in which he
criticised Luca Gaurico,57 another very well-established astrologer and
bishop of Giffoni (in Salerno) for relying too blindly on ancient
authorities, his rival came out with his own Tractatus astrologicus58 some
years later, in 1552. Gaurico does not miss a single occasion to try
and ridicule Cardano. Yet, in his collection of genitures, Gaurico
follows Cardano often almost to the letter; he analyses the horoscopes
of the same people, in some cases not even taking the trouble to
recalculate Cardano’s data.
When he talks about Petrarch, he even acknowledges that this
geniture was calculated by others.59 What he says is only a couple
of sentences, stating that Petrarch was a very famous poet of Latin
and vernacular languages, and that there are obvious signs of his
53
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 71: [when in his Libelli duo] ‘Cardano emphasised
[. . .] that he had obtained copies of each royal horoscope ‘from a good many
places’, he indicated that his study formed only one node on an astrological com-
munications network’.
54
In Dayre J., Jerôme Cardan (1501–1576), Esquisse Biographique, Annales de
l’Université de Grenoble, Nouvelle Série, Droit et Lettres, IV (Grenoble: 1927)
245–355, and 324–325.
55
Fierz M., “Drei Briefe von Girolamo Cardano aus Mailand”, Basler Zeitschrift
für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 81 (1981) 179–185.
56
See Simili A., “Gerolamo Cardano lettore e medico a Bologna”, L’Archiginnasio.
Bollettino della Biblioteca comunale di Bologna 61 (1966) 384–507 (esp. 506–507).
57
On Gaurico, see Zambelli P., “Da Giulio II a Paolo III: Come l’astrologo
provocatore Luca Gaurico divenne vescovo, in Troncarelli F. (ed.), La città dei seg-
reti. Magia, astrologia e cultura esoterica a Roma (XV–XVIII secolo) (Milano: 1985) 299–323;
McGrath-Quinlan, “The Foundation Horoscope(s)”.
58
Luca Gaurico, Tractatus astrologicus (Venice: 1552), in Opera omnia, 2 vols (Basel:
1575) II, 1629.
59
Ibid.: ‘Istud Schaema coelicum fuit ab aliis supputatum’. (‘This geniture was
calculated by others’).
224
60
Ibid.: ‘Fuit Poëta clarissimus in lingua Latina, et Vernacula, non indiget buc-
cinatore suarum virtutum, quum per se laudetur, coelibatum servavit, tamen genuit
filium, qui cito obiit’. (‘He was an illustrious poet of Latin and vernacular, there is
no need of advertisement for his virtues, since he is worthy of praise per se; he was
bound to celibacy, he nevertheless fathered a child who died young’).
61
Giuntini F., Speculum astrologiae, universam mathematicam scientiam, in certas classes
digestam, complectens, 2 vols (Lyons: 1581).
62
Ibid., I, 360.
63
Francesco Giuntini, Discorso sopra il tempo dello innamoramento del Petrarca. Con la
spositione del Sonetto, Gia fiammeggiava l’amorosa stella (Lyons: 1567).
’ 225
surrounded with stories that, with time, grew to form some sort of
patterns easily applicable in horoscopes and biographies. Such a pat-
tern was furnished by his love for Laura, his celibacy, his short-lived
son, his eloquence, his knowledge of many languages, and finally his
long life.
64
Cardano was invited to treat the Archbishop of Edinburgh, John Hamilton,
and the physician spent most of the year 1552 travelling through northern Europe.
See Siraisi, The Clock and the Mirror 5, 29, 33, and 207.
65
Cardano, Liber xii geniturarum, and also in Opera omnia V, 507.
66
Cardano, Liber xii geniturarum, in Opera omnia V, 508, and also quoted in Grafton,
Cardano’s Cosmos 123, n. 63, and Shumaker W., “Girolamo Cardano’s Horoscope of
Christ”, in Renaissance Curiosa (Binghamton: 1982) 53–90 (esp. 85).
226
Politics were not the only dangerous ground. Cardano was well
known for disregarding widely accepted taboos, and with a daring
spirit, he also made a horoscope of Christ.70 While he really didn’t
intend to provoke hostile attitude from the Catholic Church against
himself, the fact that he dared to treat the Son of God like any
other human being, exposed to planetary influences, later landed
him in serious trouble. It was omitted, for instance, from the next
edition of his commentary on Ptolemy, in 1578, presumably because
of the anger that it had provoked.71
He defends himself in the following way: ‘I do not, however, wish
you to understand me to say that either the divinity in Christ, or
His miracles, or the sanctity of His life, or His promulgation of the
law depends on the stars; but [. . .] the most excellent and glorious
God embellished His horoscope with the best and most wonderful
disposition of the stars’.72
67
Grafton, Cardano’s Cosmos 123–124.
68
Ibid. 123.
69
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek MS 7433, 2v–3r , also mentioned in Grafton,
Cardano’s Cosmos 123.
70
It appeared in print as part of the 12 genitures accompanying Cardano’s com-
mentary on Ptolemy. See Shumaker, “Girolamo Cardano’s Horoscope of Christ”.
71
Ibid. 69.
72
Cardano, Liber xii geniturarum, quoted in Shumaker, “Girolamo Cardano’s
Horoscope of Christ” 89.
’ 227
Conclusions
Selective Bibliography
Reinier Leushuis
1
Gadoffre G., Du Bellay et le sacré (Paris: 1978) 151.
2
For some of the main critical work on Du Bellay’s Songe, see: Bondanella J.C.,
Petrarch’s Visions and their Renaissance Analogues (Madrid: 1988); Brady Wells M., “Du
Bellay’s Sonnet Sequence Songe”, French Studies 26 (1972) 1–8; Demerson G., “Le Songe
de J. Du Bellay et le sens des recueils romains”, in Charpentier F. (ed.), Le Songe
à la Renaissance. Colloque international de Cannes 29–31 mai 1987 (Saint Etienne: 1990)
169–78; Gadoffre G., Du Bellay et le sacré (note 1) 151–82; Giordano M.J., “Du
Bellay’s Songe and the Ambiguity of Narrative Authority”, Oeuvres et critiques 11/1
234
(Paris: 2001) and Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque. See
for a recent bibliography on French Petrarchism Balsamo J., “«Nous l’avons tous
admiré, et imité: non sans cause». Pétrarque en France à la Renaissance: un livre, un
modèle, un mythe”, in Balsamo, Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque 13–32.
236
7
The long afterlife of both works in poetic and visual culture is proof that they
were seen as linked in their powerful visionary aspects. The Dutch Protestant poet
Jan van der Noot found in Du Bellay’s Songe and in an illustrated manuscript of
Marot’s Visions material for an emblem-book denouncing the Catholic church. He
also translated into Dutch Petrarch’s canzone and eleven of the Songe sonnets in his
Theater published in London, a work he later also translated into French and English
(1568/9). For the latter translation he received help of Edmund Spenser who then
included this translation in his meditations on vanity, the 1591 Complaints. See, for
instance, Orth M. – Cooper R., “Un manuscrit peint des visions de Pétrarque
traduites par Marot”, in Balsamo, Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque 53–71;
Malcolm Smith’s “Introduction” to Joachim Du Bellay, Antiquitez de Rome, translated
by Edmund Spenser as Ruines of Rome (Binghamton, NY: 1994) 10–14; Ferguson M.W.,
“«The Afflatus of Ruin»: Meditations on Rome by Du Bellay, Spenser, and Stevens”,
in Patterson A. (ed.), Roman Images (Baltimore: 1984) 23–50; and the contribution
of Paul Smith to the present volume.
8
For bibliography on earlier commentators, see Mussio T.E., “The Phoenix
Narrative in Canzone 323”, Rivista di studi italiani 18/2 (2000) 14–31 and Bondanella,
Petrarch’s Visions.
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 237
9
See Maggini F., “La canzone delle visioni”, Studi petrarcheschi 1 (1948) 37–50
and Chiappelli F., Studi sul linguaggio del Petrarca: la canzone delle visioni (Florence: 1971).
See for some discussion of the general visionary aspects Bondanella, “Petrarch as
Visionary” and of the relationship between “io poetico” and the figure of Laura in
the poem Frare P., “Dalla contrapposizione alla identificazione: l’io e Laura nella
canzone delle visioni”, Strumenti critici 15/3 (1991) 387–403.
10
Demerson, “Le Songe de J. Du Bellay”, 173: ‘Ce que le Songe attaque, c’est
la translatio, le passage de l’Empire de Rome au Saint Empire Romain Germanique’.
See also Hallyn F., “Le Songe de Du Bellay”.
11
Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré 181. See for an alternative interpretation Skenazi
C., “Le poète et le roi dans les Antiquitez et le Songe de Du Bellay”, Bibliothèque
d’Humanisme et Renaissance 60 (1998) 41–55.
12
See the studies by Giordano, “Du Bellay’s Songe” and Melehy, “Joachim Du
Bellay’s Dream Language”.
13
Francesco Petrarch, Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. The Rime sparse and Other Lyrics, ed.
R.M. Durling (Cambridge, MA: 1976) 502–505. All further quotations will be from
this edition and will be indicated with verse numbers between brackets. Emphasis
added.
238
* * *
At first reading, Du Bellay’s Songe replaces the individual mourning
of Petrarch’s lost love for Laura by a universal ethical message of
vanitas vanitatum whereby the poet-narrator plays a more passive role
in the observation of monuments and their downfall (witnessed with
a simple ‘je vis’),15 and the contrast between earthly splendor and
terrible devastation has a more prophetic tone than in Petrarch. Clearly,
Du Bellay had in mind the origin of the word ‘monument’, namely
the Latin verb moneo-monere which, as Eric MacPhail reminds us, has
the double meaning of recalling and warning, i.e. to recall the past
glory and subsequent downfall in order to profess a future warning
14
See for instance Rime 53, 71, 119, 128, 135 and 331.
15
See for instance Sonnet II, v. 1. Cf. Joachim Du Bellay, Les Regrets et autres
oeuvres poëtiques, suivis des Antiquitez de Rome—Plus un Songe, ou Vision sur le mesme sub-
ject, ed. M.A. Screech (Geneva: 1974). All further quotations from the Songe and
the Antiquitez will be from this edition and will be indicated with verse numbers
between brackets. Emphasis added.
240
16
MacPhail E., “Prophecy and Memory in the Renaissance Dream Vision”, in
The Force of Vision. Proceedings of the XIIIth Congress of the International Comparative Literature
Association (Tokyo: 1995) 194.
17
As Diane Desrosiers-Bonin points out, Du Bellay was most likely inspired by
that other famous dream of universal ethical dimensions, the Somnium Scipionis, notably
in his staging of the demon that guides Du Bellay’s vision. See Desrosiers-Bonin D.,
“Le Songe de Scipion et le commentaire de Macrobe à la Renaissance”, in Le Songe
à la Renaissance 71–81. Also, the very first quatrain (‘C’estoit alors que [. . .] le soucy
du jour laborieux’ [vv. 1–4]) calls to mind Aeneas’ dream in Virgil in which the
founding of Rome by his descendants is revealed to him.
18
Giordano, “Du Bellay’s Songe” 63. See also Poliner, “Du Bellay’s Songe”.
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 241
19
Giordano, “Du Bellay’s Songe” 72.
20
The assonate and alliterative links between the name of Rome and the name
of the poet also point to the poet’s need to immortalize his name through the
rebirth of Rome in his poetry, an aspect highly emphasized in the Antiquitez and
to some extent also in the Songe. This aspect, amply commentated upon in critical
studies, will be taken into account further below.
242
21
The presence of the demon as the ‘other’ voice of the lyrical persona is mani-
fest in the recalling of the vanitas vanitatum theme in the first three sonnets. The
vocabulary of the demon’s moral message in the tercets of the first sonnet is repeated
in two occurrences of the theme in sonnet 2 and 3, but in an intentional blurring
of the voices of demon and poet. It is not clear whether it is the poet-narrator pro-
claiming or the demon reiterating the moral message in ‘O vanité du monde!’ in
sonnet 2 (v. 12) and ‘Las rien ne dure au monde que torment!’ in sonnet 3 (v. 12).
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 243
a repeated ‘I saw how all is but vanity’, as worked out in the various
images of the Songe.
Underneath Du Bellay’s prophesizing of a universal ethical message
the lyrical persona is staged in a role reminiscent of the poetic ‘I’ in
Petrarch, namely one of an interlocutor in a dialogical setting with
the poetic fiction itself. Both Petrarch’s canzone, personified as a speak-
ing interlocutor in the congedo, and Du Bellay’s phonetic landscape
staging the poet and the demon in their connection to Rome, cre-
ate an ‘other voice’ which fulfills the role of guide for the poet’s lib-
eration from earthly vanity. To be sure, Du Bellay programmatically
establishes this learning process in the very first sonnet while in
Petrarch it is the very end of the cycle that retrospectively creates
a poetic-dialogical set-up, but that does not detract from the larger
dynamics of the learning process. And apart from the opening sonnet,
other examples in the Songe’s sequence underline the poet-narrator’s
attraction to earthly glory before he witnesses the moment of ruin,
thus implying that every vision of the sequence is a lesson. In son-
net 5 the poet admits to be ‘ravished’ by the beauty of the Dodonian
tree (‘J’estois ravy de voir’ [v. 9]) and equally in sonnets 8 and 14
he admits to be strongly impressed by the beauty and glory of the
objects he sees before they are victims of ruin (‘J’estois esmerveillé de
voir’ [v. 9 in both sonnets]). As for Petrarch’s poet-narrator, so for
the Songe’s protagonist, each cataclysm functions as a repeated minia-
ture learning process of the witnessing poet-narrator overcoming the
vanity of earthly glory. The role of the poet-narrator in Du Bellay’s
first sonnet does therefore not undermine the universal nature of the
Songe, but rather serves to reinforce its ethical message of vanitas
vanitatum at an individual level. It deepens the Songe’s moral inquiry
by adding to it the element of individual poetic meditation on ruin.
Played out in front of the reader’s eyes is an ethical meditation on
downfall and mortality mediated through a dialogical exchange
between the lyrical persona and a spirit from the afterlife. Since both
are products of the poet’s mind we can speak of an inner meditatio
mortis which again recalls Petrarch’s model of the Secretum.
Our understanding of the role of the Songe’s lyrical narrator as
imitated from Petrarch will further benefit from an analysis of son-
net thirteen,—the one vision of the Songe that borrows its material
most directly from Petrarch’s canzone—, in which the shipwrecked
‘Naselle’ emerges from the waves after having lost its rich cargo (‘Puis
vy la Nef se ressourdre sur l’onde’ [v. 14]). What should be noted
244
first is that the resurfacing of the ship in this sonnet forms an excep-
tion to the Songe’s rule of ultimate ruin without hope for regeneration,
a phenomenon that we see as well in some form in two other images
of a clearly Petrarchan influence.22 Second, in reading the sonnet,
we are struck by a general tendency to surpass Petrarch’s vision:
Plus riche assez que ne se monstroit celle
Qui apparut au triste Florentin,
Jettant ma veüe au rivage Latin
Je vy de loing surgir une Nasselle:
Mais tout soudain la tempeste cruelle,
Portant envie à si riche butin,
Vint assaillir d’un Aquilon mutin
La belle Nef des autres la plus belle.
Finablement l’orage impetueux
Fit abysmer d’un gouphre tortueux
La grand’ richesse à nulle autre seconde.
Je vy sous l’eau perdre le beau thresor,
La belle Nef, & les Nochers encor,
Puis vy la Nef se ressourdre sur l’onde.
Most noticeable is Du Bellay’s need to outshine Petrarch’s already
sublime evocation of a ship of perfect beauty (‘le sarte di seta, et d’òr
la vela,/ tutta d’avorio e d’ebeno contesta’ [vv. 14–15]) in superla-
tive constructions: ‘Plus riche assez que ne se monstroit celle/ Qui
apparut au triste Florentin’ (v. 1) and ‘La belle Nef des autres la plus
belle’ (v. 8). Moreover, the one verse that Du Bellay borrows word
for word from Petrarch, ‘La grand’ richesse à nulle autre seconde’ (v. 11),
which in the canzone (‘l’altre ricchezze a null’altre seconde!’ [v. 24])
is the last verse of the stanza and leaves no space for renewal, is
followed in the Songe by the strophe in which the ship reappears:
‘Puis vy la Nef se ressourdre sur l’onde’ (v. 14), a resurfacing that
acquires even more contrast since it follows the only superlative con-
struction already used by Petrarch.
An interpretation of these images of surpassing and renewal in
light of the Reformational context is certainly plausible, and critics
have recognized in the ship that of the papacy cleansed of its decadent
22
In sonnet 5 we recognize the image of Petrarch’s laurel tree struck by light-
ning in the Roman oak destroyed by barbarian troops, yet here it springs up again
as two small trees; in sonnet 7, Petrarch’s phoenix unable to regenerate is reworked
into an eagle crashing down in flames. But Du Bellay uses the phoenix imagery of
ashes to represent the bird’s rebirth as a night-owl.
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 245
23
Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré 174–75.
24
We can also think of poetic aemulatio in sonnet 5 where the image of the
Roman oak springing up in two smaller trees lends itself to both a political-religious
interpretation (the ancient Roman empire is reborn in the Holy Roman Empire
and the Papacy), and a poetic one: Du Bellay applies an image of revival to the
ultimate destruction of Petrarch’s laurel tree, the very symbol of poetic glory.
25
See for instance Greene T., The Light in Troy. Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance
Poetry (New Haven: 1982), chapter 11 (‘Du Bellay and the Disinterment of Rome’)
220–41.
246
* * *
To conclude, we should reconsider the results of our comparative
analysis of the role of the lyrical persona in Petrarch and Du Bellay
in light of the larger question of imitation of Petrarch by the Pléiade
poets, in particular with respect to their alternating waves of Petrarchism
and anti-Petrarchism. Rather than reworking a usual Laura sonnet,
Du Bellay chose to adapt the least typical example of Petrarchan
love poetry and purposefully omitted love psychology from the poem
(i.e. the allegorical representation of Petrarch’s lost love for Laura, that
had still survived in Clément Marot’s translation). Both Du Bellay’s
emphasis on the Petrarchan processes of witnessing ruin, poetic
mourning, and liberation from earthly glory, and his poetic aemulatio
of the sad Florentine’s dynamics of meditatio mortis in the poet-narrator’s
inner experience, shift the focus of attention away from the typical
imitation of Petrarch the ‘lover-poet’, and pose the question how the
Pléiade poets read and were influenced by the inner ethical conflicts
typical of the ‘philosophical’ Petrarch.
Two brief observations are proposed here to shed light on these
issues. First, it is important to underline that the publication of the
Songe immediately follows the anti-Petrarchan wave experienced by
the Pléiade poets in the years 1553–1558. These years not only coin-
cide with Du Bellay’s stay in Rome, but are also marked by the
publication of two different versions of the poet’s notorious attack
against the stifling, artificial, and insincere topoi typical of blind imi-
tation of conventional Petrarchan love poetry, first in ‘A une dame’
in his Recueil de poésie (1553), then in ‘Contre les pétrarquistes’ in
Divers jeux rustiques (1558).26 The crisis of what Ronsard, as early as
in 1550, called ‘le petit sonnet pétrarquizé’27 later led this Pléiade
colleague of Du Bellay to exchange in the 1555 Continuation des Amours
his beloved Cassandre reminiscent of Laura, and the accompanying
complexities of the Petrarchan style, for a very French Marie praised
in a more down-to-earth ‘style bas’. A somewhat similar move is
made by Du Bellay in the 1553 Recueil de poésie where, according to
V.L. Saulnier, the poet abandons Petrarchan influences to adopt ‘une
26
See Weinberg B., “Du Bellay’s Contre les Pétrarquistes”, L’Esprit créateur 12/3
(1972) 159–77.
27
Pierre de Ronsard, “Preface to his Odes” in Critical Prefaces of the French Renaissance,
ed. B. Weinberg (New York: 1970) 147.
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 247
28
Saulnier V.L., Du Bellay. L’Homme et l’oeuvre (Paris: 1951) 67.
29
Joachim Du Bellay, “Inventions de l’auteur”, in Oeuvres complètes, ed. H. Chamard,
vol. 4: Recueils lyriques (Paris: 1934) 137–144: ‘Bien heureux donques est celui/ Qui
a fondé son asseurance/ Aux choses dont le ferme appuy/ Ne dement point son
esperance/ [. . .] Celuy encor’ ne cherche pas/ La gloire, que le temps consomme:/
Sachant que rien n’est icy bas/ Immortel, que l’esprit de l’homme’.
30
The presence of the ‘philosophical Petrarch’ in 16th-century France has been
amply attested by earlier scholarship. See for example Simone F., Il Rinascimento
francese. Studi e ricerche (Turin: 1961) chapter V (‘La fortuna del Petrarca in Francia
nella prima metà del Cinquecento’) 141–222; Mann N., “La fortune de Pétrarque
en France: Recherches sur le «De Remediis»”, Studi Francesi 37 (1969) 1–15; Françon
M., “Sur l’Influence de Pétrarque en France aux XVe et XVIe Siècles” in Keller
L. (ed.), Übersetzung und Nachahmung im europäischen Petrarkismus. Studien und Texte (Stuttgart:
1974) 12–18; and Balsamo J., “Quelques remarques sur les collections d’éditions
anciennes de Pétrarque conservées en France et les conditions éditoriales du
Pétrarquisme”, in Blanc P. (ed.), Dynamique d’une expansion culturelle 87–97. For a list-
ing of manuscripts of Petrarch’s works in French libraries of the 15th and 16th
centuries, see Pellegrin E., Manuscrits de Pétrarque dans les bibliothèques de France (Padova:
1966).
248
31
Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul, ed. C.H. Rawski (Bloomington, IN:
1991) I, 314–19.
32
For the widespread success of the Trionfi in Renaissance France, see among
others Simone F., Il Rinascimento francese 177–222.
33
See Balsamo, “François Ier, Clément Marot” 44–45; and Cifarelli, “Jean Maynier
d’Oppède et Pétrarque”.
34
For an exploration of the influence of Petrarch’s Secretum on the early poetry
of Marguerite de Navarre, see my “Dialogue, Self, and Free Will: Marguerite de
Navarre’s Dialogue en forme de vision nocturne and Petrarch’s Secretum”, Bibliothèque
d’Humanisme et Renaissance 66 (2004) 63–83.
35
Balsamo J., “«Nous l’avons tous admiré, et imité: non sans cause»” 17: ‘Le
Pétrarque «Latin» des traités moraux et le Pétrarque «vulgaire» ont ainsi coexisté
durant tout le siècle, ont continué à être réunis, touchant des lecteurs nombreux
et divers’.
’ SONGE ’ CANZONE DELLE VISIONI 249
Selective Bibliography
B J., “«Nous l’avons tous admiré, et imité: non sans cause». Pétrarque en
France à la Renaissance: un livre, un modèle, un mythe”, in Balsamo J. (ed.),
Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Geneva: 2004) 13–32.
——, “François Ier, Clément Marot et les origines du pétrarquisme français
(1533–1539)”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque
(Geneva: 2004) 35–51.
B J.C., “Petrarch as Visionary: the Import of Canzone 323,” in Scaglione
A. (ed.), Francis Petrarch, Six Centuries Later. A Symposium (Chapel Hill-Chicago: 1975)
117–127.
——, Petrarch’s Visions and their Renaissance Analogues (Madrid: 1988).
B W M., “Du Bellay’s Sonnet Sequence Songe”, French Studies 26 (1972) 1–8.
C F., Studi sul linguaggio del Petrarca: la canzone delle visioni (Florence: 1971).
D G., “Le Songe de J. Du Bellay et le sens des recueils romains”, in
Charpentier F. (ed.), Le Songe à la Renaissance. Colloque international de Cannes (29–31
mai 1987) (Saint-Étienne: 1990) 169–78.
D B Joachim, “Inventions de l’auteur”, in Oeuvres complètes, ed. H. Chamard,
vol. 4: Recueils lyriques (Paris: 1934).
——, Les Regrets et autres oeuvres poëtiques, suivis des Antiquitez de Rome—Plus un Songe,
ou Vision sur le mesme subject, ed. M.A. Screech (Geneva: 1974).
——, Antiquitez de Rome, translated by Edmund Spenser as Ruines of Rome, ed. M. Smith
(Binghamton, NY: 1994).
F P., “Dalla contrapposizione alla identificazione: l’io e Laura nella canzone
delle visioni”, Strumenti critici 15/3 (1991) 387–403.
G G., Du Bellay et le sacré (Paris: 1978).
G M.J., “Du Bellay’s Songe and the Ambiguity of Narrative Authority”,
Oeuvres et critiques 11/1 «Hermétisme» (1986) 61–77.
H F., “Le Songe de Du Bellay: de l’onirique à l’ironique”, in Cesbron G. (ed.),
Du Bellay. Actes du Colloque International d’Angers (26–29 mai 1989) (Angers: 1990)
301–312.
M F., “La canzone delle visioni,” Studi petrarcheschi 1 (1948) 37–50.
M H., “Joachim Du Bellay’s Dream Language: The Songe as Allegory of Poetic
Signification”, Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 24/2 (2000) 3–21.
M T.E., “The Phoenix Narrative in Canzone 323”, Rivista di studi italiani 18/2
(2000) 14–31.
Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. The Rime sparse and Other Lyrics, ed. R.M. Durling (Cambridge,
Mass.: 1976).
Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul, ed. C.H. Rawski (Bloomington, IN: 1991).
P S.M., “Du Bellay’s Songe: Strategies of Deceit, Poetics of Vision”, Bibliothèque
d’Humanisme et Renaissance 43 (1981) 509–25.
R M., La production du texte (Paris: 1979).
TRUTH IS JUST AN OPTION: DU BELLAY’S
PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF IMITATION IN
CONTRE LES PÉTRARQUISTES
Dina De Rentiis
Among the ‘friends and foes of the poet laureate’ whom we encounter
in the early modern ages, Joachim Du Bellay is one of the best
known and most important.1 As a lyrical author, Du Bellay was one
of the prominent imitators of the Canzoniere who promoted and estab-
lished Petrarchism in his country. In his Deffence et illustration de la
langue françoise, the key poetical manifesto of Renaissance French lit-
erature, he contributed to establish Petrarch as a literary model com-
parable to Horace, Ovid, Tibullus and the other exemplary ancient
authors.
In his love lyrics, Du Bellay appears as a very typical represen-
tative of French petrarchist aemulatio. For example, in the introduc-
tory sonnet of his collection L’Olive, he proudly announces that he
does not wish to become a poeta laureatus:
Je ne quiers pas la fameuse couronne,
Sainct ornement du Dieu au chef doré,
Ou que du Dieu aux Indes adoré
Le gay chapeau la teste m’environne.
Encores moins veulx-je que l’on me donne
Le mol rameau en Cypre decoré:
Celuy qui est d’Athenes honoré,
Seul je le veulx, et le Ciel me l’ordonne.
O tige heureux, que la sage Déesse
En sa tutelle, et garde a voulu prendre,
Pour faire honneur à son sacré autel!
Orne mon chef, donne moy hardiesse
De te chanter, qui espere te rendre
Egal un jour au laurier immortel.2
1
On the reception of Petrarch in Renaissance France see the excellent volume
Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poétes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Genève: 2004).
2
Du Bellay Joachim, Oeuvres poétiques. Premiers recueils, 1549–1553 (Paris: 1993), URL
(April 2005): http://gallica.bnf.fr.
252
3
Du Bellay Joachim, Les oeuvres françoises de Joachim Du Bellay, revues et de nouveau
augmentées de plusieurs poésies non encore auparavant imprimées par J. de Morel et G. Aubert
(Paris: 1569) f. 10. URL (April 2005): http://gallica.bnf.fr.
4
Du Bellay, Les oeuvres françoises f. 24.
5
Du Bellay, Les oeuvres françoises f. 25.
’ CONTRE LES PÉTRARQUISTES 253
6
Du Bellay, Les oeuvres françoises f. 25.
7
All key citations are recorded and analysed below in this article.
8
Cf. Balsamo J., “«Nous l’avons tous admiré, et imité: non sans cause». Pétrarque
en France à la Renaissance: un livre, un modèle, un mythe”, in Balsamo, Les poétes
français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque 29.
9
All quotes are from Du Bellay Joachim, “Contre les pétrarquistes”, in Divers
jeux rustiques, ed. V.L. Saulnier (Genève: 1965) 71–82.
254
In the very first lines of the poem, the lyrical persona points out at
two aspects: first, that he has ‘forgotten the art’ of imitating Petrarch;
second, that this art, id est Petrarchist writing, is a logos which does
not correspond to the ethos it seems to depict. Petrarchism is pre-
sented here as a form of discourse which is firstly and chiefly char-
acterized by artful simulation and dissimulation.
In the following sequence, an amplificatio of the central thought
expressed in the former lines, Du Bellay quotes and evocates a long
series of petrarchist loci communes, unmasking them as artificial ethopo-
etical strategies, artful integumenta of a constitutive discrepancy between
logos and ethos. Thus, Petrarchist lovers are described as those who
fake affection (‘n’ont pas le quart d’une vraye amitié’) and cry false
tears (‘Jettent des larmes feintes’). Later on in this sequence Du Bellay
uses a combination of parallelism and oxymoron, two of the central
figures and perhaps the central figures of Petrarchist discourse, as a
lever to unveil the artful artificiality of Petrarchist love lyrics:
Ce n’est que feu de leurs froides chaleurs,
Ce n’est qu’horreur de leurs feintes douleurs,
Ce n’est encor de leurs souspirs et pleurs,
Que vent, pluye, et orages (71).
The initial sequence is evidently based upon the classical proceeding
of memoria verborum Du Bellay is doing nothing else than quoting and
reproducing petrarchist verba. As it is well known, memoria verborum is
the foundation stone of rhetorical and poetical imitatio. By using it
so manifestly, our author demonstrates that he is imitating petrar-
chist discourse. At the same time however, and quite as overtly, he
shows that he is doing so with the declared intention to criticize and
to negate, not to make alike—which means in nuce: not to imitate.
Thus, Du Bellay introduces a hiatus, a discontinuity between memo-
ria verborum and imitation.
This gap immediately recalls a famous aspect of the theory of imi-
tation which is traditionally related to the topos of the ‘forgetful imi-
tator’ and refers back to the initial ‘J’ai oublié’ of the poem. In
Seneca’s famous letter 82 to Lucilius, one of the key texts of ancient
imitation theory, the Latin author points out at the fact that a truly
successful, valuable imitation does not necessarily imply the author’s
intention or even consciousness to imitate.10 In Contre les pétrarquistes,
10
Cf. De Rentiis D., “Der Beitrag der Bienen. Überlegungen zum Bienengleichnis
bei Seneca und Macrobius”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 141 (1998) 30–44.
’ CONTRE LES PÉTRARQUISTES 255
doing so the lyrical persona clearly and unmistakably will not seek
or reach the truth. Thus, Du Bellay establishes a fundamental dis-
continuity between codified, sapient, imitative (and per exemplum
Petrarchist) love discourse and the possibility of verbally reaching
(telling/writing and hearing/reading) the truth.
At the same time—and here we reach the philosophical core of
the matter—, the last lines of Contre les pétrarquistes state clearly that
one may seek other things than the truth: If the lady wants Du
Bellay’s persona to tell her (petrarchist) lies, he will do so without hes-
itating or remorse.
Which means in sum: Truth itself is not the one and only thing
one has to seek. It is not even what everyone necessarily wants to
seek. In matters of love and—which is far more important—of lit-
erary imitation, truth is just an option.
The cultural and historical significance of this message can hardly
be overestimated. In Contre les pétrarquistes, looking back on a long and
strong tradition of poetical imitation, Joachim Du Bellay, who is one
of the prominent theorists of literary imitation in Renaissance France,
lays the finger on one of the major philosophical consequences of
petrarchist and, generally, poetical imitation. He demonstrates that
imitatio auctorum questions the status of truth as an absolute value.
Du Bellay’s poem is neither a refusal of petrarchism nor a simple
game with Pertrarchist tradition, but a profound critique of imitation
in the best philosophical sense of the word. Therefore, for us today,
it is a fascinating document of the immense cultural and philosophical
importance of Petrarchism in the Renaissance.
Far from counteracting his Petrarchist lyric and poetical mani-
festo, Contre les Pétrarquistes pursues and completes per exemplum Petrarchae
the reflection on imitatio auctorum Du Bellay had conceived and formed
in the Deffence et illustration de la langue françoise, showing once again,
but this time in a surprising way, how very important the poet lau-
reate was for Renaissance French literature.
’ CONTRE LES PÉTRARQUISTES 259
Selective Bibliography
B J., “ ‘Nous l’avons tous admiré, et imité: non sans cause’. Pétrarque en
France à la Renaissance: un livre, un modèle, un mythe”, in Balsamo J. (ed.),
Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Genève: 2004) 13–32.
D R D., “Der Beitrag der Bienen. Überlegungen zum Bienengleichnis bei Seneca
und Macrobius”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 141 (1998) 30–44.
D B Joachim, “Contre les pétrarquistes”, in Divers jeux rustiques, ed. V.L.
Saulnier (Genève: 1965) 71–82.
——, Les oeuvres françoises de Joachim Du Bellay, revues et de nouveau augmentées de plusieurs
poésies non encore auparavant imprimées par J. de Morel et G. Aubert (Paris: 1569)—URL
(25.03.05): http://gallica.bnf.fr.
——, Oeuvres poétiques. Premiers recueils, 1549-1553 (Paris: 1993)—URL (25.03.05):
http://gallica.bnf.fr.
W B., “Du Bellay’s Contre les Pétrarquistes”, L’Esprit créateur 12 (1972) 159–177.
POETICAL AND POLITICAL READINGS OF PETRARCH’S
RIME IN XVITH-CENTURY FRANCE:
A CRITICAL REVALUATION
Jean Balsamo
In the 16th century, Petrarch was, in the end, identified with his Rime,
as well as its numerous editions, to such a degree that there was a
confusion between the title of the book and the name of its author,
1
On this dialogue, see my article “Pétrarque, Ronsard et quelques autres”, in
Collarile L. – Maira D. (eds.), Nel Libro di Laura. Petrarcas Liebesgedichte in der Renaissance
(Basel: 2004) 117–141.
2
Pierre de Ronsard, “Elégie à Cassandre”, in Œuvres complètes, ed. P. Laumonier
(Paris: 1923–1974) VI, 58.
3
See Balsamo J., “Les poètes français et les anthologies lyriques italiennes”,
Italiques 5 (2002) 9–32.
4
Chastel A, L’Art français (Paris: 1994) 310.
262
5
See Balsamo J., “Les implications éditoriales du pétrarquisme: quelques remar-
ques sur les collections anciennes de Pétrarque conservées en France”, in Blanc P.
(ed.), Pétrarque en Europe. XIV e–XX e siècle (Paris: 2001) 87–98.
6
See Doucet R., Les bibliothèques parisiennes au XVI e siècle (Paris: 1956) 105–164;
Schutz A.H., Vernacular Books in Parisian Private Libraries of the Sixteenth Century accord-
ing to the Notarial Inventories (Chapel Hill: 1995).
’ RIME - 263
7
Jean Clouet, Portrait d’homme au Pétrarque, c. 1533–1535, oil on pannel, 38, 5 x 32,
8 mm—Windsor Castle, England.
8
See Quilici P., “La legatura aldina”, in Santoro M. (ed.), La stampa in Italia nel
Cinquecento. Atti del Convegno (Roma: 1992) I, 377–400, especialy 394. Further preci-
sions and illustrations by Le Bars F., “A propos de trois publications récentes et de
reliures vénitiennes du XVIe siècle inédites”, Bulletin du Bibliophile, 1 (2004) 7–62.
None of them records any binding carrying the title ‘Petrarca’.
264
9
Saulnier V.-L. “Maurice Scève et Pontus de Tyard. Deux notes sur le pétrar-
quisme de Pontus”, Revue de littérature comparée 22 (1948) 267–272.
266
The Trionfi found a wide readership at the court of Charles VII and
Louis XII. This can first be discerned by the numerous preserved
manuscripts, some of which were beautifully illustrated and once
belonged to royal collections. So, at least three translations exist, all
of them ordered by lords or sovereigns. Petrarch was thus read in
translated and commented form and was considered a ‘moral philoso-
pher’ or a collector of historical exempla. Moreover, the knowledge
of his humanist work also contributed to a fruitful rapprochement between
Christianity and ancient wisdom during the first half of the 16th
century and introduced princes and the well-read to a Roman model
of glory and fame. Petrarch’s presence in court milieus, however, was
stronger with Francis I for the king himself was a poet and very early
on he read and imitated the Rime along with the Trionfi, the alle-
gorical work presented in the Simon Bourgouyn version.10 Two par-
ticular translations are attributed to Francis; one was a fourteen line
poem, adapted from the sonnet Cesare poi che ’l traditor d’Egitto (RVF
102). This simple exercise of translation into French, roughly recre-
ated the pattern of Italian rimes, yet without a full understanding of
the concept of the sonnet which was still unknown in France at that
time. There was also a rondeau which presented a version of the
sonnet Benedetto sia ’l giorno e ’l mese et l’anno (RVF 61) which he organ-
ised around the refrain ‘Bien heureuse’.11 These works were followed
by other royal compositions, which show a combination of elements
drawn from Petrarch and other verses imitating Serafino or Chariteo.
The king also drew topical issues and metaphors from the Rime, such
as that of the famous image of the ship in the storm, without fol-
lowing the Italian text to the letter, ‘En la grand mer, où tout vent
tourne et vire’. He increased this poetic activity while in captivity in
Madrid, where poetry served as a pastime and the lyrical poetry
permitted a refined form of gallantry.12
Poetry in vernacular language responded in turn to the princely
tradition, especially in the case of the Valois dynasty. The link with
Petrarch, in the largest sense of the word, helped to renew the polit-
10
Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, ms 6480. This manuscript, in calligraphic writ-
ing, was produced for the king c. 1522.
11
Francis I, Œuvres poétiques, ed. J.E. Cane (Geneva: 1984) 81 and 253.
12
See Kane J.E., “L’italianisme dans l’œuvre poétique de François Ier”, Studi
francesi 84 (1984) 485–494.
’ RIME - 269
13
Le Feron A., De rebus gestis Gallorum libri IX (Paris: 1555) 170. See Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola’s epistle to Lorenzo de’ Medici (in his Opera (Paris: 1517) VII).
The expression ‘Petrarchæ myrothecion’ is a borrowing from Cicero, Epistolae ad
Atticum 2, 1: ‘Isocratis myrothecion’. See Dorez L., “François Ier et la Commedia”,
in Dante. Recueil d’études publiées pour le VI e centenaire du poète (Paris: 1921) 107–123.
14
On Francis I’s italianism, see Picot E., Les Italiens en France au XVI e siècle (Bordeaux:
1918), now recently reissued by N. Ordine (Rome: 1995) 148–161, and Knecht
R.J., Renaissance Warrior and Patron. The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge: 1992) 461–469.
15
Saint-Gelais Mellin de, Sonnets, ed. L. Zilli (Geneva: 1990) 16.
270
This first step would herald the coming of the necessary translatio
imperii, which Valois would never give up, despite their ever wors-
ening political situation. The Italian culture of the king corresponded
with his political goals, which were now formulated in poetical terms.
The poetical and symbolic link with Petrarch’s poetry was main-
tained at the court of Francis I by Luigi Alamanni, a Florentine
exile, who was both a poet and an agent of the king responsible for
the consolidation of the partisan network of the French court on the
Peninsula. Alamanni published two volumes of Opere toscane (Lyon:
Gryphius, 1532–1533), which the king generously financed. The col-
lection opened with a Petrarchan emblem of a salamander of which
the motto ‘Nutrisco et extinguo’ in reference to the verse ‘Di mia
morte mi pasco e vivo in fiamme’.16 It was entirely dedicated to the
glory of Francis I, to whom he offered a canzoniere and almost 250
love and encomiastic sonnets. The praise for the king was enriched
by many references to Petrarch’s text. The honourable sonnets such
as Glorioso Francesco, in cui risplende and Glorioso Francesco, in cui si sente,
were variations of the incipit of the sonnet Gloriosa Columna, in cui s’ap-
poggia (RVF 10). These works, amongst others, show the possibilities
and the richness of the topics of Alamanni’s repertoire which he first
offered in Italian with a French styled presentation.17
The king’s relationship to Petrarch was more than just one of his
many pleasures. The turning point which it experienced around 1533
is clearly illustrated in the painting by Jean Clouet. That same year
several copies of the new Petrarch Aldine edition, which was pub-
lished in Venice in June, were sent to the court. One of them, includ-
ing Giambattista Castiglione’s I luoghi difficili del Petrarca, was rebound
for the king’s private library [Fig. 4].18 Towards the end of the sum-
16
See Lecoq A.-M., François Ier imaginaire. Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la
Renaissance française (Paris: 1987) 82.
17
Alamanni Luigi, Opere toscane (Lyon: 1532–1533) 1, 195; II, 246. On Alamanni’s
French career, see Hauvette H., Un exilé florentin à la cour de France au XVI e siècle:
Luigi Alamanni (Paris: 1903); on Alamanni’s Petrarchism, see Mazzacurati G., Rinascimento
in transito (Rome: 1996) 89–112.
18
See Kimball Brooker T., “Bindings commissioned for Francis I’s Italian Library”,
Bulletin du Bibliophile : (1997) 33–91. The king’s private library was different from the
Royal Library in Blois and Fontainebleau. This one contained four Petrarch incun-
able editions brought back from Naples by Charles VIII, see Baurmeister U.,
“D’Amboise à Fontainebleau: les imprimés italiens dans les collections royales aux
XVe et XVIe siècles”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Passer les Monts. Français en Italie—L’Italie
en France (1494–1525) (Paris: 1998) 361–386.
’ RIME - 271
Fig. 4. Il Petrarca (Venice, hears of Aldo: 1533). Francis I’s copy, binding,
Paris, BNF.
272
mer the king and the court went to Marseille to celebrate the marriage
of the Dauphin with Catherine de Médicis and to meet the Pope.
They break the journey with a stay in Avignon from the 29th of
August to the 11th of September. It is there that the famous episode
of the ‘discovery’ of the so-called tomb of Laura, by Maurice Scève,
takes place, on the 8th of September in the Sainte-Croix chapel, in
the convent of Saint-Francis. For this occasion Francis I composed
an epitaph ‘En petit lieu compris’.19 It is only later that we hear in
detail about this event and the ceremony that ensued. But rather
than focusing on the (false) discovery of a false tomb, we should con-
sider the importance of the consequences of the scene, a scene from
which both the memory of Petrarch and the king benefited. This French
memory of Petrarch can appear as a clear allusion to the king’s
Florentine politics and was the symbolic response combined by
Alamanni to the manoeuvres of the Archbishop of Avignon, Ippolito
de’ Medici, and pope Clement VII, also a member of the De’ Medici-
family. All the glory of the event reflected on the king.20
The discovery, or rather the invention of Laura’s tomb and the
epitaph composed by the king, became itself the reason for a poetic
competition which once again spread the new image of the king as
Petrarch and founded the French celebration of poetry. Marot men-
tions the event in his epigram Du Roy et de Laure as he briefly cele-
brates the tomb which the king edified and the homage which he
paid to Laura. In an enigmatic style the last two verses of the poem
confirm the interest which the king showed in Petrarch:
O Laure, Laure, il t’a esté besoing
D’aymer l’honneur, et estre vertueuse,
Car François Roy (sans cela) n’eust prins soing
De t’honorer de tumbe sumptueuse,
Ne d’employer sa dextre valeureuse
A par escript ta louange coucher:
Mais il l’a faict pour aultant qu’amoureuse
Tu as esté de ce qu’il tient plus cher.21
19
Il Petrarca, ed M. Scève (Lyon: 1545) 8.
20
See Giudicci, “Bilancio d’un annosa questione: Maurice Scève e la ‘scoperta’
della ‘tomba’ di Laura”, Quaderni di filologia e lingue romanze, 2 (1980) 3–70. On a
new interpretation of this invention as a matter of memory, see Millet O., “Le
tombeau de la morte et la voix du poète: la mémoire de Pétrarque en France
autour de 1533”, in Regards sur le passé dans l’Europe des XVI e et XVII e siècles (Bern:
1997) 183–195.
21
Marot Clément, “Second livre des épigrammes” 12, in Œuvres poétiques, ed. G.
Defaux (Paris: 1993) II, 250.
’ RIME - 273
22
Brodeau Victor, Poésies, ed. H.M. Tomlinson (Geneva: 1982) 124.
23
Saint-Gelais M. de, Œuvres poétiques françaises, ed. D. Stone jr (Paris: 1995) II,
212.
24
Marot, ‘Chant des visions de Petrarque translaté de Italien en Françoys’, “La
Suite de l’Adolescence”, in Œuvres poétiques (Paris: 1993) 1, 347–349. See Balsamo
J., “Marot et les origines du pétrarquisme français (1530–1540)”, in Defaux G. (ed.),
Clément Marot (Paris: 1996) 323–337.
274
25
Les Triumphes Petrarque (Paris: 1538–1539). On this version, see Cifarelli P.,
“Jean Maynier d’Oppède et Pétrarque” in Balsamo J. (ed.) Les Poètes français de la
Renaissance et Pétrarque (Geneva: 2004) 85–104.
26
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (ms F. fr. 20020); see La Bibliothèque
d’Anne de Montmorency, exhibition catalogue (Ecouen: 1991) 2.
27
Audebert N., Voyage d’Italie, ed. A. Olivero (Rome: 1981) 1, 204–206.
28
Il Petrarca (Venice: 1545). A description of the Lanteaume de Romieu’s copy
is given in the Catalogue de la Librairie Henner (Paris: 1990) no. 147.
’ RIME - 275
29
Philieul Vasquin, Laure d’Avignon (Paris: 1548) A2v.
30
Peletier du Mans Jean, Les Œuvres poétiques (Paris: 1547) 89v.
276
31
See Graham W.E., “Gabriel Simeoni et le rêve impérial des rois de France”,
in Terreaux L. (ed.), Culture et pouvoir au temps de Marguerite de Savoie (Paris-Geneva:
1978) 299–309.
32
Canestrini G., Négociations diplomatiques entre la France et la Toscane (Paris: 1859–1886)
IV, 334 and 357.
33
Il Petrarca (Lyon: 1574); limp vellum, coat of arms of Henry III—Niort,
Médiathèque municipale (Rés. 8° 4437).
34
Gadoffre G., Du Bellay et le sacré (Paris: 1978) 151–183.
35
See Veyrin-Forrer J., “Un collectionneur peu connu, François Rasse des Neux,
chirurgien parisien”, in Studia bibliographica in honorem Hermann de la Fontaine Verwey
(Amsterdam: 1966) 389–417; ead., “Un collectionneur engagé, François Rasse des
Neux”, in La Lettre et le Texte (Paris: 1987) 423–477, and, more particularly, ead.,
“Provenances italiennes dans la bibliothèque de François Rasse des Neux”, in Libri,
tipografi, biblioteche. Ricerche storiche dedicate a Luigi Balsamo (Florence: 1997) 385–398.
278
Fig. 6. Il Petrarca (Lyon, G. Rouillé: 1574). Henry III’s copy, binding, limp
vellum, golden coat of arms on pannels, Niort, Médiathèque.
’ RIME - 279
36
Francesco Petrarca, Sonetti, canzoni et triumphi, ed. A. Brucioli (Venice: 1548).
Des Neux’ copy was sold in Monaco, Sotheby’s, 7 October 1980, no. 1913. Il
Petrarca (Lyon: 1550), Des Neux’ copy, is now in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de
France (Rés. p. Yd. 170). It bears the following dedication: ‘Dono dedit Rassio
W. Barbeus’.
37
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (ms. F. fr. 25560).
38
See Cerrón Puga, “Censure incrociate fra Italia e Spagna: il caso di Petrarca
(1559–1747)”, Critica del testo 6 (2003) 221–256.
39
See Balsamo J. “Les lieux communs de l’italophobie en France à la fin du
XVIe siècle”, Travaux de Littérature 17 (2004) 273–287.
280
40
Hotman F., Protestation et defense pour le roy de Navarre. Traduict du latin intitulé
Brutum Fulmen (s.l.: 1587) 234.
41
Quoted in Bertelli S., Ribelli, libertini e ortodossi nella storiografia barocca (Florence:
1973) 42.
42
[Perrot F.], Aviso piacevole dato alla bella Italia (Monaco: Swartz [London:
J. Wolfe], 1586) 27v–32. On Perrot, see Picot E., Les Français italianisants au XVI e
siècle (Paris: 1901) 1, 325–380, and Balsamo J. “Dante, L’Aviso piacevole et Henri de
Navarre”, Italique 1 (1998) 79–94.
282
Conclusion
We can notice that, from the very start, the satirical sonnets of Petrarch
had a strange fortune in France. It is without doubt that Vasquin
Philieul excluded them from his official version. But Pontus de Tyard,
who had also shown interest in these works, grouped them with a
pen-mark in the table of contents in his own copy. Nearly a half-
century later, in 1593, in a small anonymous collection entitled
Angéliques amours, we read the translation of the three Avignon sonnets
alongside a narrative piece of fiction in prose style. The works are
attributed to Charles II of Luxembourg, the count of Brienne, who
had perhaps composed them as an exercise or as a pastime during
his first visit to Italy, before his embassy with the Pope.45 These
examples confirm the special interest the French had for these pieces.
Moreover, they define a typical French reading of Petrarch. For, if
not for religious reasons, they were at least used in the political con-
text of the religious wars: a reading in Gallican terms around 1550,
at the time of the Council of Trent, and a reading which also betrays
clear Calvinist terms when both Calvinism and Gallicanism united
in criticising the Pope. In his De Episcopis Urbis Papire Masson put
forward Petrarch’s texts.46 At that same moment the historian Jacques-
Auguste de Thou, who was one of the signatories of the Edict of
Nantes, praised Petrarch as ‘homme de bien et le plus savant per-
sonnage de son temps’ and yet he mentions ‘his feeling of injustice
concerning the domination of the Pope’.47 But even though he already
possessed some editions of Petrarch’s lyrical works in his personal
library, he never mentioned Petrarch as a poet.48
These examples have not contradicted what we know about the
lyrical, poetical and fashionable reading which the French continued
to make of Petrarch’s Canzoniere. For reading Petrarch, according to
45
Les Angéliques Amours (s.l. [= Paris, Breyer]: 1593) ã1.
46
See Ronzy P., Un humaniste italianisant. Papire Masson 1544–1611 (Paris: 1924).
47
Thou J.-A. de, Histoire universelle 2 (London: 1734) 1, 83.
48
Catalogus Bibliothecae Thuanae (s.l.: 1704) II, 302. Many of De Thou’s copies of
Petrarch are preserved: Opera quae extant omnia (Basel: 1581): Paris, Bibliothèque de
l’Arsenal (folio BL 1235); Le Rime, ed. L. Castelvetro (Basel: 1582): Catalogue de la
Librairie Pierre Berès 74 (Paris: 1983) no. 126; Rime (Venice: 1586): Paris, Bibliothèque
nationale de France (Rés. Yd. 1151); Familiarium libri XIV (Geneva: 1601): Paris,
Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal (8° BL 31461); Le Petrarque en rime françois, trad. P. de
Maldeghem (Brussels: 1600): Catalogue de la Librairie Potier (Paris: 1863) no. 2117.
284
49
Deimier P. de, L’Académie de l’Art poétique (Paris: 1610) 588.
’ RIME - 285
Selective Bibliography
Editions
Studies
B J., Les rencontres des Muses. Italianisme et anti-italianisme dans les Lettres françaises
de la fin du XVI e siècle, Bibliothèque Franco Simone 19 (Geneva: 1992).
—— (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque, Textes et travaux de la
Fondation Barbier-Mueller 1 (Geneva: 2004).
B P. (ed.), Dynamique d’une expansion culturelle. Pétrarque en Europe XIV e–XX e siècle,
Bibliothèque Franco Simone 30 (Paris: 2001).
C A., L’Art français (Paris: 1994).
C L.—M D. (eds.), Nel Libro di Laura. Petrarcas Liebesgedichte in der
Renaissance (Basel: 2004).
H H., Un exilé florentin à la cour de France. Luigi Alamanni (1495–1556). Sa vie
et son œuvre (Paris: 1903).
L A.-M., François Ier imaginaire. Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la Renaissance
française (Paris: 1987).
P E., Les français italianisants au XVI e siècle, 2 vols (Paris: 1906).
PETRARCH TRANSLATED AND ILLUSTRATED
IN THE LOW COUNTRIES
PETRARCH TRANSLATED AND ILLUSTRATED IN
JAN VAN DER NOOT’S THEATRE (1568)
Paul J. Smith
1
Petrarch, Opere. Canzoniere, Trionfi, Familiarium Rerum Libri (Florence: 1975),
canz. 323.
290 .
2
I follow the analysis of Witstein S.F., De verzencommentaar in Het Theatre van Jan
van der Noot (Utrecht: 1965) 20–23.
3
Marot Clément, “Le Chant des Visions de Petrarque, translaté de Italien en
Françoys”, in Oeuvres poétiques, ed. G. Defaux (Paris: 1990) I, 347–349.
4
Marot, “Visions de Petrarque” I 752.
5
Glasgow University Library, MS. SMM2.
’ THEATRE 291
(another two pages) [Fig. 1–2, 5–6, 9–10, 13–14]. This manuscript
is not widely known among literary historians. In fact, until recently,
it had only been studied in any detail by Michael Bath.6
There exists another illustrated manuscript of Petrarch’s canzone,
which is also little known. This is a lavishly illustrated and coloured
manuscript, presently in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin.7 This manu-
script, made by an anonymous artist and originating in France before
1571, is structured in much the same way as the Glasgow manuscript:
each ‘Vision’ occupies two facing pages, the left one containing the
first six lines of the strophe, together with the corresponding illus-
tration in watercolour [Fig. 18, 20], while the opposite page gives
the text and the watercolour of the second half of the strophe [Fig.
19]. This manuscript was printed some years ago in a facsimile edi-
tion by a group of German and French scholars, who, curiously, did
not seem aware of the existence of the Glasgow manuscript.8 Until
a recent article by Myra Orth and Richard Cooper,9 both manu-
scripts had never been examined together.
In about the same period as the production of the manuscripts,
Petrarch’s canzone was also published in an illustrated printed edi-
tion. Or, more precisely, it was integrated in the larger context of
Dutch, French and English versions of a book by the aristocratic
Antwerp Protestant poet Jan van der Noot, who, in 1567, was forced
to leave his hometown and flee to London for having taken part in
an insurrection. Shortly after his arrival in London, the Dutch and the
French versions were published in London by the printer John Day
in the same year 1568, the Dutch one under a long title, to which
I refer here in an abridged form: Het Theatre oft toon-neel [. . .], the
French one’s title being shorter and more comprehensive: Le Theatre
auquel sont exposés et monstrés les inconvenients et misères qui suivent les mondains
et vicieux. In 1569 an English version of the same book was published
6
Bath M., “Verse Form and Pictorial Space in Van der Noot’s Theatre for
Worldlings”, in Höltgen K.J., Daly P.M., Lottes W. (eds.), Word and Visual Imagination.
Studies in the Interaction of English Literature and the Visual Arts (Erlangen: 1988) 73–105.
7
Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Ms. Phill. 1926.
8
Lecoq A.-M. – Winter U. – Heintze H. (eds.), Les six Triumphes et les six Visions
Messire Francoys Petrarque; Die sechs Triumphe und die sechs Visionen des Herrn Francesco
Petrarca. Der Manuskript MS. Phill. 1926 aus dem Bestand der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek
Berlin (Wiesbaden: 1988).
9
Orth M. – Cooper R., “Un manuscrit peint des ‘Visions de Pétrarque’ traduites
par Marot”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Geneva:
2004) 53–71.
292 .
10
I regret that for reasons of copyright and available space it is not possible to
reproduce here the whole series of woodcuts, etchings and watercolours in ques-
tion. The reader will find all etchings in J. van der Noot, Het Bosken en het Theatre,
ed. W.A.P. Smit – W. Vermeer (Amsterdam-Antwerp: 1953; reprint Utrecht: 1979).
The woodcuts can be found in the facsimile edition of J. van der Noot, A Theatre
for Voluptuous Worldlings, ed. L.S. Friedland (New York: 1977). The watercolours of
the Glasgow manuscript are reproduced by Bath, “Verse Form and Pictorial Space”
and by Orth—Cooper, “Un manuscrit peint” and the watercolours of the Berlin
manuscript are reproduced by Lecoq—Winter—Heintze, Les six Triumphes.
11
Information based on Witstein, De verzencommentaar and Bostoen K., Dichterschap
’ THEATRE 293
Table 1 (cont.)
The first section opens with the six ‘Visions’ by Petrarch. The main
source of the Dutch version of the Theatre is Marot’s French trans-
lation, although the original text in Italian is also used.12 The French
version of the Theatre includes the integral text of Marot’s transla-
tion, with one interesting variant: the verse ‘A Monseigneur donnent
ung doulx desir’ of the congedo has been replaced by ‘A mon Seigneur
donnent ung doulx plaisir’. By writing ‘mon Seigneur’, the poet seems
en koopmanschap in de zestiende eeuw. Omtrent de dichters Guillaume de Poetou en Jan van der
Noot (Deventer: 1987) 63–64. The edition consulted is the one edited by Smit W.A.P.
and Vermeer W.
12
This has already been established by Vermeylen A., Leven en Werken van Jonker
Jan van der Noot (Amsterdam: 1899).
294 .
13
This is also visible in Spenser’s translation: ‘thy lorde’, i.e. the poet himself.
14
Witstein, De verzencommentaar; Bostoen, Dichterschap en koopmanschap; Dorsten J.A.
van, The Radical Arts. First Decade of the Elizabethan Renaissance (Leiden: 1970).
15
Witstein, De verzencommentaar.
’ THEATRE 295
What is the general structure of this first section? The six Petrarchan
and the eleven Du Bellay poems are pessimistic in the sense that
they all point to the violent destruction of worldly affairs: earthly love
in the Petrarchan cycle, Roman grandeur in the Du Bellay cycle.
This is also true of the first two sonnets by Van der Noot, which
describe the coming of the Seven-headed Beast of the Apocalypse16
and the Whore of Babylon. The penultimate sonnet describes the
Final Judgement, and the very last one gives the irenic vision of the
Eternal City. This general, overall structure shows that Van der Noot
interpreted the poems by Petrarch and Du Bellay in an apocalyptic
perspective, and he also is quite aware of the intertextual relationships
between Petrarch and Du Bellay. This is visible too in Van der
Noot’s choice of texts from Du Bellay’s Songe. His Songe originally
consisted of fifteen sonnets. The question is of course why Van der
Noot left out four sonnets. I think his first reason for doing so is to
avoid any redundancy. He left out Du Bellay’s sonnet 13 on the
wrecking of a rich ship, which is thematically a duplication of Petrarch’s
‘Second Vision’. He left out Du Bellay’s sonnet 6 on the she-wolf
and Romulus and Remus, because Van der Noot is aware that this
is theme which reoccurs in sonnet 9 of Songe. He left out sonnets 8
and 14 because by their choice of subject they duplicate Van der
Noot’s own apocalyptic sonnet. Sonnet 8 of Songe is indeed about a
seven-headed monster, and sonnet 14 of Songe is about a beautiful
city which is ‘quasi semblable à celle/Que vit le messager de la
bonne nouvelle’ (i.e. Saint John of the Apocalypse). This beautiful
city in Du Bellay’s vision is destroyed: it is clear that this vision would
create some confusion with Van der Noot’s own final sonnet on the
Eternal City.
The second reason for leaving out the four Du Bellay sonnets is
because of the symbolic number 21. This number certainly has sym-
bolic connotations—21 is traditionally a number of perfection, which
entertains a relationship with its inverse: 12. Both numbers are
omnipresent in the Theatre. To give some examples: in Van der Noot’s
prose commentary it is said with some insistence that Petrarch has
loved Laura for 21 years. The description of the Eternal City in
16
For a close reading of this sonnet and the corresponding commentary and
illustrations (woodcut and etching), see Bostoen K., “Van der Noot’s Apocalyptic
Visions: Do You ‘See’ what You Read?”, in Westerweel B. (ed.), Anglo-Dutch Relations
in the Field of the Emblem (Leiden: 1997) 49–61.
296 .
poem 21 is based on Apocalypse 21, verse 21. The last word of the
final sonnet is the Dutch expression ‘twaalf mael’ (‘twelve times’). In
the prose commentary there is a long description of the Eternal City,
based on the Apocalypse, in which are detailed the twelve precious
stones of which this city is made.
My interpretation of the omnipresence of the numbers twelve and
twenty-one is not as farfetched as it may seem. In 1578 the Pléiade
poet Remy Belleau published a collection of poems on precious
stones, entitled Les Pierres précieuses. In this collection Belleau presents
twenty-one poems, describing twenty-one gems, with references to
the twelve gems of the biblical Eternal City.17 More generally, the
number symbolism seems to structure other collections related to
Van der Noot’s Theatre and Petrarch’s ‘Visions’. Du Bellay’s Songe,
for instance, consists of fifteen sonnets, fifteen being the number of
theology.18 One can affirm in addition that, if one subtracts the
Songe’s opening poem on the falling asleep of the poet-narrator, and
the concluding poem on the awakening of the narrator, one has thir-
teen sonnets left, thirteen always and everywhere being an unlucky
number, well fitted to symbolize Du Bellay’s visions of destruction.
The other volume by Du Bellay influenced by Petrarch’s ‘Visions’
is Les Antiquitez de Rome, which numbers thirty-two sonnets. Enlarged
with the introductory poem ‘Au Roy’, ‘To the King’ one arrives at
the perfect number thirty-three. This hesitation between thirty-two
and thirty-three is deliberate on the part of the poet, according to
Cynthia Skenazi’s interpretation: ‘L’oscillation entre 32 et 33 semble
indiquer la direction d’une quête d’immortalité (qui, de manière
spéculaire, est aussi celle du poète lui-même, soucieux de la survie de
son oeuvre) sans prétendre d’y arriver’.19 Edmund Spenser, who trans-
lated Van der Noot as well as Du Bellay, interpreted this number
symbolism in the same way. He leaves out, in his own translation of
the Antiquitez, the sonnet ‘Au Roy’, and adds at the end of the col-
lection a sonnet numbered 33, which is, not surprisingly, about the
immortality of Du Bellay.20
Returning to Van der Noot, one can see the same hesitation, because,
17
Chayes E. – Smith P.J., “Structures changeantes des Pierres précieuses (1576) de
Remy Belleau”, Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France 104 (2004) 25–44.
18
Skenazi C., “Le poète et le roi dans les Antiquitez de Rome et le Songe de Du
Bellay”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et de Renaissance 60 (1998) 41–55 (esp. 55).
19
Skenazi, “Le poète et le roi” 55.
20
Prescott A.L., French Poets and the English Renaissance. Studies in Fame and Transformation
(New Haven-London: 1978) 51.
’ THEATRE 297
21
Waterschoot W., “An Author’s Strategy: Jan van der Noot’s Het Theatre”, in
Westerweel B. (ed.), Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Field of the Emblem (Leiden: 1997) 35–47.
298 .
the etchings were made prior to the woodcuts. He bases his argu-
ment on the fact that in at least one case the maker of the woodcuts
simply seems to copy the plate without understanding the text that
goes with it. And on two other woodcuts he discovered some details,
‘stressed disproportionally, as if the artist was happy to detect these
meticulous details in his model and as if he wanted to copy them
as a proof of his diligence.’22 Waterschoot’s arguments are not really
convincing, because wood does not admit the finer details possible
with etching, and secondly, one can also use these arguments to prove
that the woodcuts were first, and that the etcher Marcus Gheeraerts
refined them.
According to Michael Bath,23 the woodcuts did indeed come first,
and he bases his argumentation on the existence of the Glasgow
manuscript (which Waterschoot fails to consider). For Bath the
sequence is: first the manuscript, then the woodcuts, and finally the
copperplates. Bath’s hypothesis fits well with the illustrations of the
‘First Vision’. The woodcut (Fig. 3) is the reversed copy of the two
corresponding watercolours in the Glasgow manuscript (Fig. 1–2),
whereas Gheeraerts’s etching (Fig. 4) is the reversed copy of the
woodcut. The same thing can be said of Petrarch’s ‘Sixth Vision’:
the woodcut (Fig. 7) resembles in detail the two corresponding water-
colours (Fig. 5–6), and is a reversed copy of them, whereas Gheeraerts’s
etching (Fig. 8) is a free copy of the woodcut. There is only one
sequence which is problematic at first sight: the ‘Third Vision’ (on
the laurel tree). In both the watercolours (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) and
the woodcut (Fig. 11), the wind is blowing from the right side,
whereas in the etching (Fig. 12) the wind comes from the other side.
This is, however, not an argument in favour of the priority of the
etching, but rather of the fact that in some instances the maker of
the woodcut allows himself some liberty with respect to his water-
colour model. This liberty can also be observed in the way he rep-
resents the fallen tree, not straight and unbroken, but bent under
the heavy storm. This pictorial detail is picked up by Gheeraerts in
his etching.
Equally problematic is the representation of the phoenix of Petrarch’s
‘Fifth Vision’. In the watercolours (Fig. 13–14), the phoenix’s tail is
22
Waterschoot, “An Author’s Strategy” 38.
23
Bath, “Verse Form and Pictorial Space”.
’ THEATRE 299
Fig. 4. [Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder], etching, in Jan van der Noot, Het
Theatre [. . .] (London: 1568).
’ THEATRE 303
Fig. 8. [Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder], etching, in Jan van der Noot,
Het Theatre [. . .] (London: 1568).
’ THEATRE 307
Fig. 11. Woodcut. Jan van der Noot, A Theatre for Worldlings
(London, Bynneman: 1569).
310 .
Fig. 12. [Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder], etching, in Jan van der Noot, Het
Theatre [. . .] (London: 1568).
’ THEATRE 311
bent downward, whereas the tail of the etched and the engraved
phoenixes (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16) is curled upward in a rather char-
acteristic way. In this detail, the bird in the woodcut and the one
in the etching differ from the one in the watercolour, but they resem-
ble very much another etching Gheeraerts made of the phoenix.
This etching (Fig. 17) occurs in the previously mentioned fable book
De warachtighe fabulen der dieren, published in 1567, just before Gheeraerts
fled to England. How can we explain the resemblance between the
two etchings and the woodcut? A possible answer to this question
is that, perhaps, Gheeraerts was also involved in the making of the
woodcuts, not as the artist, but as the inventor who gave a first
sketch to the artist who, for his part, could immediately start work,
whereas Gheeraerts himself had to wait for his materials, that is, the
appropriate copperplates and the acid, which of course where not
promptly available on his arrival in London. When he finally could
begin his etchings, he no longer had his first sketches at hand, but
he did not need them because he could now use the woodcuts as
his model.
Of course, Van der Noot himself was involved in the project right
from the start. He preferred Gheeraerts’s etchings because of their
novelty and artistic quality, but the woodcuts were less fragile than
the etchings and therefore physically more appropriate for reprints
and for transportation during long journeys.24 This explains why the
same woodcuts were used in the German edition, and afterwards in
Antwerp: Van der Noot simply carried them with him during his
travels through Europe. Moreover, it seems that Gheeraerts mostly
kept his copperplates in his own possession, as he did with the ones
he made for his Warachtighe fabulen.25
24
This is also the opinion of Waterschoot, “An Author’s Strategy” 40–41. This
finding seems to contradict Alison Saunders’ observations: ‘There is an interesting
difference [. . .] in the way in which emblematic illustrations crossed frontiers. When
woodcut illustrations migrated across Europe, these were virtually always printed
copies rather than from the original woodblocks. But with copperplate engravings,
in several cases the original copperplates travelled across Europe.’ Cf. Saunders A.,
“Which Bits Travel More Easily? The European Dissimination of Emblematic Figure
and Text”, in Dijkhuizen J.F. van – Hoftijzer P. – Roding J. – Smith P. (eds.), Living
in Posterity. Essays in Honour of Bart Westerweel (Hilversum: 2004) 229–238 (esp. 236).
25
Smith P.J., “De titelprenten van Marcus Gheeraerts”, in Vaeck M. van – Brems
H. – Claassens G.H.M. (eds.), De steen van Alciato. Literatuur en visuele cultuur in de
Nederlanden. Opstellen voor prof. dr. Karel Porteman bij zijn emiritaat. / The Stone of Alciato.
Literature and Visual Culture in the Low Countries. Essays in Honour of Karel Porteman
(Louvain: 2003) 535–557.
314 .
Fig. 15. Woodcut. Jan van der Noot, A Theatre for Worldlings
(London, Bynneman: 1569).
’ THEATRE 315
Fig. 16. [Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder], etching, in Jan van der Noot,
Het Theatre [. . .] (London: 1568).
316 .
26
My argumentation is based on the illustrations, not on the texts. The numer-
ous but minor textual variants between the two manuscripts as well as the Van der
Noot version (and other versions of the Marot translation I have seen) are not rel-
evant to the discussion. As they do not include the Van der Noot variant ‘plaisir’
instead of ‘desir’, both manuscripts go back to Marot’s original text, and are there-
fore probably of French origin. This can be confirmed by some iconographic details
of the watercolours: ‘le style des aquarelles et [celui] de l’écriture paraissent français
plutôt que flamand ou anglais’; see Orth – Cooper, “Un manuscrit peint” 59.
318 .
27
The two dotted lines indicate the two possible filiations between the Berlin
manuscript and the woodcuts and etchings. Because of the French origin of this
manuscript, the French edition of the Theatre seems to be its most plausible source.
’ THEATRE 319
Glasgow manuscript
(before 1568)
Berlin manuscript
(between 1568 and 1571)
28
Van der Noot Jan, Theatrum, das ist, Schawplatz [. . .] (s.l.: 1572) s.p.
29
On the relationship between the two works, see van der Noot Jan, Stammbuch,
ed. W. Waterschoot (Ghent: 1971) 60–62.
320 .
Fig. 18. Watercolour, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, ms. Phill. 1926, fol. 12v.
Hind chased by two hounds.
’ THEATRE 321
Fig. 19. Watercolour, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, ms. Phill. 1926, fol. 12r.
Laurel tree blown down.
322 .
30
All this is extensively described by Catharina Ypes in her old but seminal study
Petrarca in de Nederlandse Letterkunde (Amsterdam: 1934).
31
Forster L., “Jan van der Noot und die deutsche Renaissancelyrik. Stand und
Aufgaben der Forschung”, in Literatur und Geistesgeschichte. Festgabe für Heinz Otto Burger
(Berlin: 1968) 70–84 (esp. 74).
324 .
32
This article has been written during my fellowship at the NIAS (Netherlands
Institute for Advanced Study) in 2004–2005. I thank Karel Bostoen and Alicia
Montoya for their comments and corrections on an earlier version of this article.
’ THEATRE 325
Selective Bibliography
B M., “Verse Form and Pictorial Space in Van der Noot’s Theatre for Worldlings”,
in Höltgen K.J., Daly P.M., Lottes W. (eds.), Word and Visual Imagination. Studies
in the Interaction of English Literature and the Visual Arts (Erlangen: 1988) 73–105.
B K., Dichterschap en koopmanschap in de zestiende eeuw. Omtrent de dichters Guillaume
de Poetou en Jan van der Noot (Deventer: 1987) 63–64.
——, “Van der Noot’s Apocalyptic Visions: Do You ‘See’ What You Read?”, in
Westerweel B. (ed.), Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Field of the Emblem (Leiden: 1997)
49–61.
C E. – S P.J., “Structures changeantes des Pierres précieuses (1576) de Remy
Belleau”, Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France 104 (2004) 25–44.
D J.A. van, The Radical Arts. First Decade of the Elizabethan Renaissance (Leiden:
1970).
F L., “Jan van der Noot und die deutsche Renaissancelyrik. Stand und
Aufgaben der Forschung”, in Literatur und Geistesgeschichte. Festgabe für Heinz Otto
Burger (Berlin: 1968) 70–84.
L A.-M. – W U. – H H. (eds.), Les six Triumphes et les six Visions
Messire Francoys Petrarque; Die sechs Triumphe und die sechs Visionen des Herrn Francesco
Petrarca. Der Manuskript MS. Phill. 1926 aus dem Bestand der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek
Berlin (Wiesbaden: 1988).
M C., “Le Chant des Visions de Petrarque, translaté de Italien en Françoys”,
in Oeuvres poétiques, ed. G. Defaux (Paris: 1990) I, 347–349.
N J , Theatrum, das ist, Schawplatz [. . .] (s.l.: 1572).
——, Het Bosken en het Theatre, ed. W.A.P. Smit and W. Vermeer (Amsterdam-
Antwerp: 1953; reprint Utrecht: 1979).
——, Stammbuch, ed. W. Waterschoot (Ghent: 1971).
——, A Theatre for Voluptuous Worldlings, ed. L.S. Friedland (New York: 1977).
O M. – C R., “Un manuscrit peint des ‘Visions de Pétrarque’ traduites par
Marot”, in Balsamo J. (ed.), Les poètes français de la Renaissance et Pétrarque (Geneva:
2004) 53–71.
P A.L., French Poets and the English Renaissance. Studies in Fame and Transformation
(New Haven-London: 1978).
S A., “Which Bits Travel More Easily? The European Dissimination of Emble-
matic Figure and Text”, in Dijkhuizen J.F. van – Hoftijzer P. – Roding J. –
Smith P.J. (eds.), Living in Posterity. Essays in Honour of Bart Westerweel (Hilversum:
2004) 229–38.
S C., “Le poète et le roi dans les Antiquitez de Rome et le Songe de Du Bellay”,
Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et de Renaissance 60 (1998) 41–55.
S P.J., “De titelprenten van Marcus Gheeraerts”, in Vaeck M. van – Brems H.
– Claassens G.H.M. (eds.), De steen van Alciato. Literatuur en visuele cultuur in de
Nederlanden. Opstellen voor prof. dr. Karel Porteman bij zijn emeritaat. – The Stone of Alciato.
Literature and Visual Culture in the Low Countries. Essays in Honour of Karel Porteman
(Louvain: 2003) 535–57.
V A., Leven en Werken van Jonker Jan van der Noot (Amsterdam: 1899).
W W., “An Author’s Strategy: Jan van der Noot’s Het Theatre”, in
Westerweel B. (ed.), Anglo-Dutch Relations in the Field of the Emblem (Leiden: 1997)
35–47.
W S.F., De verzencommentaar in Het Theatre van Jan van der Noot (Utrecht:
1965).
Y C., Petrarca in de Nederlandse Letterkunde (Amsterdam: 1934).
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS