The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy 9780674271845

Citation preview

Harvard Historical Studies Published under the auspices of the Department of History from the income of the Paul Revere Frothingham Bequest Robert Louis Stroock Fund Henry Warren Torrey Fund

146

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy Anthony F. D’Elia

H A RVA R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 2004

Copyright © 2004 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data D’Elia, Anthony F., 1967– The renaissance of marriage in fifteenth-century Italy / Anthony F. D’Elia. p. cm. — (Harvard historical studies ; 146) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-01552-5 1. Marriage—Italy—History—To 1500. 2. Marriage customs and rites— Italy—History—To 1500. 3. Wedding speeches—Italy—History—To 1500. 4. Humanism—Italy—History—To 1500. 5. Renaissance—Italy. 6. Italy—Court and courtiers. I. Title. II. Harvard historical studies ; v. 146. HQ629.D45 2004 306.81'0945'09024—dc22 2004054328

For my wife, Una (of course)

Acknowledgments

I owe an enormous debt to Reginald Foster, who first taught me the endless joy and wisdom of Latin literature. The three years and four summers I studied with him were the foundation for everything I have done since. I can’t read Latin without hearing his voice reminding me of its intricate complexities. I also wish to thank my teachers at Trinity College Dublin, and John Dillon in particular, who taught me Greek literature and philosophy. My adventures in the Renaissance first began in the summer of 1988, when I met Ken Gouwens in Reginald’s Latin summer school. Three years later Ken introduced me to Ron Witt, who converted me from Classics to the Classical tradition and the Italian Renaissance. Both Ken and Ron encouraged me to do graduate work in the Renaissance and have been very supportive over the years. This book started as a dissertation at Harvard University in Fall 1996. I wish to thank my academic advisor, Jim Hankins, who suggested I look into this topic. He initiated me into the mysteries of Renaissance paleography and inspired me with his combination of breadth and intellectual rigor. Jim has also been a wonderful friend. Steven Ozment introduced me to social history and changed my whole way of thinking about history. John O’Malley has been an inspiration to me in his openness and willingness to deal with controversial subjects. His breadth of knowledge and critical eye much improved the dissertation and my thinking in general. The late John Shearman not only taught me a great deal and employed me, but also allowed me to stay in his house the last three summers, so I could do research in the Harvard libraries. A Fulbright grant allowed me to conduct research in Italy, and a Frances A. Yates fellowship helped me to explore the resources of the British Library and the Warburg. At the Warburg, Jill Kraye was extremely generous with her time. A finishing grant from Harvard University and an ARC grant from Queen’s University allowed me to finish the vii

viii

Acknowledgments

dissertation and to revise it for publication. Ann Blair, Paul Grendler, Margaret King, and Ron Witt read drafts of this book and generously offered detailed criticism. Paul in particular gave me twelve pages of comments. Chris Celenza, Ken Gouwens, John Monfasani, and the anonymous readers for The Sixteenth Century Journal and the Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte provided invaluable suggestions on particular parts that have helped to improve the entire book. The staffs of the following libraries made my research both possible and enjoyable: in Florence, the Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, and the Biblioteca Riccardiana; in London, the British Library; in Milan, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana and the Biblioteca Trivulziana; in Paris, the Bibliothèque Nationale; in Rome, the Biblioteca Casanatense, the Biblioteca Corsiniana, the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele, and the Biblioteca Vallicelliana; in Vatican City, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; in Venice, the Museo Civico Correr and the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana; and in Vienna, the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Emily O’Brien, Margaret Meserve, Robert Goulding, Nadja Aksamija, Cindy Klestinec, Frederick Ilchmann, and Filippo de Vivo have all been great friends. I appreciate that we all work in related fields and can share ideas. At Queen’s, my colleagues have been most supportive, especially our dear friends, Jeanette, Chris, Laurence, and Murley Herrle-Fanning. They have made the long cold Canadian winters a little easier to bear. I promise I’ll make more pizza. My father, a historian, and my mother, an English teacher and librarian, first introduced me to European culture and history. I will always be grateful for the many worlds that they showed me. Max, our dog, has been a constant companion. His keen eye for detail, acute canine intelligence, and rigorous approach to logic especially contributed to the argumentative structure of the book. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife, Una Roman D’Elia, who has not only provided invaluable assistance by reading drafts and recommending revisions, but has also been the constant inspiration for this project. Quid dicam quod iocundius quoque voluptarius sit marito cum se mulieri coniunctum sentit? While checking the page proofs for this book, our daughter Lucia was born: O matre pulchra filia pulchrior (Horace, Carm. I, 16).

Contents

Introduction

1

1

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

11

2

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

35

3

Weddings as Propaganda: Rhetoric and Court Culture

51

4

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

83

5

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

117

Conclusion

135

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

139

Notes

181

Index

253

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Introduction

In the Renaissance, the decision about whether to marry or to remain celibate was central to how men and women saw themselves in relation to their bodies, their world, and their God. Many ancient and medieval scholars and saints had seen marriage as a hindrance to the pursuit of wisdom and prayer. In classical antiquity intellectuals debated about whether the philosopher should marry. Whereas Stoics argued that the philosopher should marry since this was living according to nature, the Cynics condemned marriage as a distraction from philosophy. Baptizing the philosopher, the early Christians argued that holiness and marriage were incompatible—celibacy was the best life. The positive reevaluation of marriage and condemnation of the celibate ideal is usually first associated with Martin Luther and the Reformation. In the fifteenth century, however, Italian humanists also promoted marriage as an ideal. They reversed the Cynic commonplace notion and claimed that wives could assist in the pursuit of wisdom. They also revived the ancient wedding oration and delivered these prose epithalamia at elite weddings. In addition to letters and dialogues, humanists used this revived medium to convey a more positive view of marriage and to reach a broader audience. How does this elite, Latin, and courtly culture of marriage relate to the popular Reformation that shook sixteenth-century Europe? This question necessarily raises a number of problems that have long plagued scholarship on humanism: the relationship between form and content, artifice and sincerity, Latin and the vernacular, imitation and originality, and ideas and actions. When fifteenth-century Italian humanists and rulers chose to marry, 1

2

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

they acted upon a different ethos from medieval precedent. Humanists reevaluated the worth of marriage, gender roles, and sex. They attacked the celibate life and criticized celibate clerics. On a political level, marriage, by its social dimension, involved civic concerns. Prosperous families were believed to engender stable and peace-loving governments. Married rulers wished to be seen as fathers of their cities and tried to maintain power by producing heirs. The decision to marry combined religious, political, and personal beliefs. For all of these reasons, marriage must be understood not merely as a case study of a limited aspect of the Renaissance, but as a central value of fifteenth-century elite culture. Whereas other scholars have tended to look at either statistical records or the politics of particular groups, I examine the intersection of classical Latin culture and social history.1 From the late fourteenth century, Italian humanists turned away from the earlier ideal of philosophical and religious celibacy. Social, economic, demographic, and political changes made antimarriage arguments both unpopular and impractical. Newly available classical texts provided humanists with theoretical justification for devoting themselves to secular and civic activity instead of clerical and religious ideals. They not only argued in favor of an ideal of marriage but actually lived it, since, unlike earlier scholars, most humanists themselves married and fathered children. Humanist ideas concerning marriage demonstrate the intimate connection between rhetoric and life. These marriage ideals were expressed most fully in wedding orations, which were primarily a courtly medium. There have been several recent studies on the Italian courts.2 The weddings of rulers and elite persons were grand affairs, as two families joined in an alliance, and princes competed in shows of magnificence. At these weddings humanists delivered sometimes lengthy Latin orations. Guarino Guarini (1374–1460) revived the ancient genre of the epithalamium and delivered the first oration in the early 1420s in Ferrara. This practice became popular in the courts of Ferrara, Milan, Rimini, and Naples, and continued until the early sixteenth century when verse and music replaced the prose epithalamium. Over 300 humanist wedding orations survive from the fifteenth century in manuscripts and incunabula.3 The popularity of nuptial oratory is further supported by contemporary sources.4 The enthusiasm for public eloquence in general throughout Italy in the first

Introduction

3

decades of the fifteenth century also created a favorable atmosphere for the revival of the wedding oration.5 Although some Florentine humanists wrote and delivered them as ambassadors to signorial courts, no wedding orations delivered in fifteenth-century Florence survive.6 Similarly, while a number of wedding orations survive from Padua, Francesco Contarini’s epithalamium seems to be the only one from Venice proper, and Giannantonio Campano’s epithalamium, which he delivered in 1458 and later turned into a treatise, is the only oration from Rome.7 Renaissance nuptial oratory was almost exclusively a courtly phenomenon. Wedding orations have received little scholarly attention. In the late nineteenth century, a few legal historians studied humanist epithalamia.8 More recently, Mauro de Nichilo has edited and published Matteo Canale’s verse epithalamium and Theodore Gaza’s Latin translation of pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ rules for the epithalamium. He has also written a preliminary history of the epithalamium in the Renaissance, focusing on philological issues and the dating of Guarino’s earliest epithalamia.9 In another work on Aragonese Naples, de Nichilo examined Giovanni Brancati’s oration for the wedding of Eleanor of Aragon and Ercole d’Este in 1473 in relation to the ancient rhetorical genre and Renaissance panegyric in Naples.10 There has been no previous attempt to survey the genre as a whole in Ferrara, Milan, Rimini, and Naples, to study the courtly and religious ideals they contain, or to link Italian humanism to the marriage thought of Erasmus and Martin Luther. Epithalamia were delivered before large audiences and formed an essential part of the increasing pomp and splendor of elite weddings in Italian courts. In these orations, humanists used courtly arguments in favor of marriage. They portrayed ideal and specific brides and grooms, praised physical beauty, and defended sexual pleasure. As panegyric, epithalamia had a didactic purpose. By praising particular ideals and individuals, orators presented audiences with models of behavior to be esteemed and imitated. If, as Burckhardt complained, most humanist orations are mere collections of commonplaces, these commonplaces reveal what fifteenth-century humanists deemed appropriate and what their audiences expected.11 Many of these orations, however, are not trite. While some are short and formulaic, others are long and elaborate and constitute rich sources for understanding views about marriage, women, sexuality, and political power in Italian courts.

4

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

The contents of these orations would not have been lost on many people in the audience. Unlike in later centuries, Latin was very much a living language in the Renaissance. As every city in Italy had its own dialect that was often incomprehensible to outsiders, Latin was the only common and accordingly official language. The educated corresponded but also conversed in Latin and, on a more popular level, until the midsixteenth century, most of the invectives attached to the Pasquino statue in Rome were in Latin.12 The ability to write and read out loud spontaneous verse in Latin was also a fairly common and much appreciated skill in elite circles.13 By the mid-fifteenth century, when epithalamia were becoming popular, many elites would have had an education in classical Latin and would have been able to understand the often simple vocabulary and grammatical constructions used in nuptial oratory.14 Humanists were employed to teach classical letters, and their students often included elite families that were present at courtly weddings. Ludovico Carbone, who taught rhetoric and “humanae litterae” at the University of Ferrara from 1456, refers in epithalamia to members of the audience and sometimes to brides and grooms as his former students. He praises their expertise in Latin.15 In his 1474 dialogue, On the Happiness of Ferrara and the Best Principate of Duke Ercole, Carbone has a character praise him for having “publicly and privately trained Ferrara’s youth in Latin letters for over twenty years.”16 Audiences would also have included students and professors from the local universities. After 1442 Ferrara, whose population was between 20,000 and 25,000, had an average student body of 500 and a faculty between 25 and 49. The university conferred at least 25 doctorates a year, many of which were in the humanities under Guarino Guarini and Carbone.17 In Naples, Alfonso the Magnanimous (ruled 1442–1458) and Ferrante I (ruled 1458–1494) revitalized the university, which had been created in 1224. In the second half of the fifteenth century it had 18–26 professors and approximately 300 students.18 Galeazzo II Visconti (ruled 1354–1378) founded the university of Milan in the nearby town of Pavia in 1361. In the fifteenth century the university had an average student body of 600–700 and 53–73 professors. The author of a number of epithalamia, Guiniforte Barzizza (1406–1463), obtained his doctorate and later taught rhetoric at Pavia.19 Since all lectures, disputations, and texts were in Latin, it was essential for all professors and students to be fluent.20 Of course, probably not everyone understood every word. But even members of the audience with an im-

Introduction

5

perfect knowledge of Latin would still have understood parts of an oration from the orator’s cadence, emphasis, and use of cognate vocabulary. The musical quality of an expert delivery would have also been pleasing and added to the panegyric celebration.21 On their way to Naples to fete Eleanor of Aragon on her marriage to Ercole d’Este and to escort her back to Ferrara, Ludovico Carbone and the Ferrarese ambassadors stopped in Florence. On 29 April 1473, Carbone was escorted into a large room that “looked to me like the Roman Senate,” in which he delivered an oration “to a most pleasing audience, who listened to every word and highly praised my invention.” They loved it so much in fact that “afterwards they sent a messenger to ask for a written copy and the chancellor Bartolomeo Scala said that my speech was like the ancients.” Carbone also proudly sent a copy of the oration to Duke Ercole with the tag that it had met with Florentine approval.22 When Carbone and the Ferrarese ambassadors finally reached Naples, the audience was so large and crowded that he was unable to deliver the epithalamium he had written for the occasion.23 On their return, the Ferrarese entourage stopped in Rome and Carbone delivered an oration to Sixtus IV, who “most attentively listened to me and welcomed every word of mine with such great joy that he seemed to feast on my oration as if it were the sweetest and most delicate food.”24 If Carbone’s observations perhaps tell us more about his vanity than an actual audience response, the great popularity of his orations and the fact that he was so often invited to deliver them proves that Renaissance audiences appreciated rhetorical performances. By the second half of the fifteenth century public oratory had become a major medium for communication and celebration. Wedding orations that did not fulfill expectations could provoke a serious audience reaction. In 1455, Francesco Filelfo delivered an oration for the wedding of Beatrice d’Este and Tristano Sforza in Ferrara.25 While the duke of Ferrara, Borso d’Este, enjoyed Filelfo’s epithalamium and highly praised it, he did not bestow any gifts on the orator. Filelfo was disturbed at this uncharacteristic lack of generosity. When Guarino, who worked under the Este and taught in Ferrara, said that this was because Filelfo had gone to great lengths to praise the Sforza family, but said nothing about the antiquity of the noble house of the Este, Filelfo became furious. He wrote a bitter letter to Borso’s minister in which he defended his epithalamium and attacked Guarino.26 The fact that Borso

6

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

d’Este praised yet refused to reward Filelfo for his epithalamium shows that Borso (and/or his advisors) understood and closely listened to Latin orations. Guarino, one of the foremost humanists of the time, thought this situation worthy of comment, and Filelfo thought the issue warranted an acerbic response. Wedding orations were praised, rewarded, and criticized. They could be the subject of polemical debate, among both rulers and humanists. Since praise and flattery were prominent features of epithalamia, and orators were rewarded accordingly, clarity of speech and audience comprehensibility were essential. At courtly weddings, the audience was attentive not only to the orator’s delivery and the form of the oration but also to the contents. The public and performative nature of this medium demonstrates the popularity and acceptance among the elite of the classically inspired and courtly conception of marriage espoused in these orations. This book examines the nuptial orations of Poggio Bracciolini (1380– 1459), Ludovico Carbone (1430–1485), Pandolfo Collenuccio, Guarino Guarini, Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459), Antonio Trivulzio, Francesco Patrizi (1413–1494), Francesco Bertini (d. 1475), Pietro Parleo (1400– 1463), Giovanni Marliani, Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481), Agostino Dati (1420–1478), Francesco de Arquata Bertalono, and Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) among other humanists.27 Some of these are well-known but others are not so familiar. Ludovico Carbone in particular has rarely been mentioned in print.28 He was the most famous orator at the Este court in Ferrara, and his numerous wedding orations are some of the richest sources in this book. In his orations, Carbone treats a wide gamut of topics from sexuality, learned women, and marriage habits, to courtly panegyric, the virtues of monarchy, the uses of wealth, and the dangers of bachelorhood. He often supports classical tropes with personal anecdotes, comical asides, and plaintive quips. Much work has been done on Poggio Bracciolini, but no scholar has discussed in detail his wedding oration and his dialogue on whether an old man should marry.29 Erasmus’ views on marriage and virginity may be more familiar to scholars. These ideas, however, have not been connected to the Italian humanists. His encomium of matrimony relates directly to the ideas and form of fifteenth-century Italian humanist rhetoric. I have also drawn upon a large number of anonymous epithalamia and other works, in order to offer an image of the broader fifteenth-century discourse on marriage.

Introduction

7

Wedding orations served as political propaganda. Orators praised rulers and offered justifications for their power before a foreign and domestic audience. Humanists included extensive genealogies and recast ancient and recent history to support claims of legitimacy and assertions of superiority. They justified the monarchical form of government with classical examples and arguments. Whereas political treatises were written for princes and advisers to princes, wedding orations addressed a much broader, though still elite, audience. The two media also had different functions. In the former it was the humanist advising the prince; in the latter it was more often the prince projecting an image to his court through the humanist orator. In wedding orations, princes were praised for ideal virtues, such as magnificence, generosity, courage, and heroism; and for particular accomplishments in battle or at home. Orators transformed the philosopher into a philosopher king who married for the sake of his subjects. Wedding orators often presented marriage in ways that are perhaps not surprising, given what we know about the importance of dowries and political alliances in fifteenth-century Italy.30 They were unabashed in praising utilitarian factors in marriage decisions, such as wealth and political alliance. But they sometimes promoted ideals and, in particular, attributes in brides that were for the most part not present in earlier conceptions of marriage. They celebrated companionship and the joys of sexual pleasure. This view of marriage as a mutually beneficent friendship and as providing a satisfactory sex life is consistent with what some recent scholars have uncovered in other sources for lower social classes. From the archives of sixteenth-century German merchants, for example, Steven Ozment has reconstructed a number of intimate, joyful, and equally respectful marriages.31 From adultery records and annulment trials, both Guido Ruggiero and Joanne Ferraro have similarly concluded that women in Venice had the expectation of having a loving and sexually satisfying marriage.32 Humanist wedding orations support this view and connect it with classical ideals and court culture. Scholarship on humanist marriage thought tends to focus exclusively on Francesco Barbaro’s On Wifely Duties and Leon Battista Alberti’s Books on the Family.33 Barbaro’s and Alberti’s works are treatises on domestic duties that do not elaborate on the question of whether one should marry, nor do they discuss specific brides and grooms. Wedding orators,

8

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

in contrast, not only defend the choice to marry and argue for the superiority of marriage over celibacy, but they also describe couples and discuss other important aspects of the culture of marriage, including genealogy and political and economic alliance strategies. Scholars of women’s history have also neglected these rich sources.34 Ever since Joan Kelly answered her question of whether or not there was a Renaissance for women with a resounding no in 1977, scholars have been inclined to see the fifteenth century as a nadir in women’s history.35 Kelly offered a welcome corrective to the Burckhardtian notion of the equality of the sexes and justly criticized ingenuous readings of Castiglione’s Courtier. Scholars after her have similarly seen the lives of Renaissance women as unquestioningly miserable under the weight of arranged marriages, spousal age disparity, and lack of opportunities for female independence.36 This view has recently been challenged by scholars who see an increase in equality of the sexes and women’s rights in the fifteenth century. Due to successive plagues in the fourteenth century, massive labor shortages created more opportunities for women. Women employed especially in food, handwork, and the health industries became full members of guilds, and in some places formed a majority. Artisan and merchant couples worked together, and single women living in communities or convents supported themselves by baking, weaving, spinning, and brewing beer. Married or widowed women with property had greater rights in many cities than men without property. Most importantly, all women had equal access to the law, and many used the courts to compensate and to rectify injustices.37 If most of the beneficiaries of these changes were lower- and middle-class women, upper-class women in Italian courts had active roles in cultural patronage and in governing.38 Wedding orators reflected this by praising specific brides as active intellectuals. Orators presented them as ideal rulers and assistants to their husbands in administration and counsel. They defended these intellectual and public pursuits by referring both to ancient and modern examples of illustrious women and wives. Although limited by the prejudices of their times, wedding orations suggest that, at least in theory, courtly brides had greater freedom and more public support to engage in intellectual pursuits than their counterparts in Florence. Drawing upon classical literature, personal experience, and contemporary history, humanist orators constructed a coherent set of courtly ideals, of which marriage was at the center. These rich sources reveal the

Introduction

9

prehistory of sixteenth-century thought on marriage and offer examples of the continuities and differences between Italian humanist and Protestant thought on marriage and celibacy. But most of all these sources bring to life a particular elite culture in which rhetoric, performance, courtly ideals, religious values, and political propaganda all joined in the celebration of marriage.

1

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

Fifteenth-century Italian humanists inherited a large body of marriage thought from their ancient and medieval predecessors. While some Greek and Roman philosophers provided civic and naturalistic arguments in favor of marriage, others espoused philosophical bachelorhood and laid the foundation for the anti-marriage tradition, which the early Christians transformed into a spiritual ideal. Virginity and the practice of celibacy became an important distinguishing characteristic of Christianity. Debate in the Early Church eventually led to a general consensus that although marriage was not bad, it was inferior to virginity and celibacy.1 In classical Greek thought, marriage meant much more than the joining of two people. Marriage was a social and civic duty. Children had to be produced in order to protect the city, and the heads of families had to be politically active in order to maintain their families’ stability and security. Both Plato and Aristotle had affirmed that city-states depended on marriage for their prosperity.2 Aristotle believed that there was a natural progression from marriages to households to city-states.3 He saw marriage as the foundation and building block of the city-state. Theophrastus (370–285 B.C.E.) criticized Aristotle on the value of marriage. He asserted that the sage should avoid marriage and civic responsibility and instead embrace the contemplative ideal.4 He uses numerous examples of wicked females as proof that “the wise man should not take a wife.”5 Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) similarly thought that marriage and philosophy were incompatible.6 In response to this, however, another contemporary philosopher, Dicaearchus, claimed that marriage was one of the duties of a true philosopher.7 These are the beginnings of the ques11

12

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

tion of whether the philosopher should marry, which Stoic and Cynic philosophers later debated.8 Should the philosopher be active in politics and family life or should he flee from society and a spouse in order to contemplate truth without distraction? This question would become a favorite topic for Renaissance humanists both in philosophical debates and in how they chose to live their lives. The founder of Stoicism, Zeno (335–263 B.C.E.) taught his followers that the wise man should marry and rear children.9 Zeno and later Stoics expanded on Aristotle’s conception of marriage as natural and essential for the State.10 Nature, for Aristotle, is the force within everything that allows it to realize its potential and achieve its perfection. Unlike Aristotle, however, the Stoics saw nature as divine. By claiming that nature was rational and the final cause of everything, they raised it to the level of Aristotle’s Prime Mover.11 Happiness for Stoics is achieved by living virtuously, and a person becomes virtuous by acting in accordance with nature.12 The argument that marriage was natural, therefore, took on much greater meaning for the Stoics. Marriage was not only good, but was considered a moral duty since the divine will, nature, had decreed it. The Stoics also used an ethical argument in defense of marriage. Expanding on Aristotle, they conceived of the city-state as a world community, the Cosmos. Because they live together, human beings have a natural affinity in this community, which Stoics called oikeiösis.13 Actions, whether good or bad, affect the whole society; and the ethical value of an individual’s actions depends upon their impact on society. A married man supports society both with his offspring and in his involvement with civic politics as a family head. Marriage, therefore, affects not only one’s way of life, but the entire society and cosmos in which he lives. For the Stoics it is a moral duty to marry since marriage is natural and therefore good. It is also a social and ethical duty. The wise man is obliged to marry both for his own welfare, in the pursuit of wisdom, and for the welfare of the world community.14 Cynics opposed the Stoic affirmation of family and civic life.15 They claimed that philosophy was a calling that needed complete dedication. In order to pursue wisdom, they argued, the wise man has to be free from all material concerns, “from all care about food, clothing, house, home, marriage, children, etc.; freedom from all ties which morality, law, state, and community life in general may put upon the individual.”16 In their eyes, the social structures of marriage and city-states are not natu-

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

13

ral or divine but human inventions. Marriage entails family and civic commitments that prevent the wise man from practicing his profession.17 A true philosopher could not marry. Stoic and Cynic arguments on marriage were so popular in antiquity that they were included in the first-century C.E. rhetorical handbooks of Quintilian and Theon of Alexandria. They list the question of whether one should marry as one of the theses or subjects for rhetorical debate.18 Ancient rhetorical training consisted of learning to argue both sides of an issue, such as whether or not to go to war, or the literary merits of a certain author. Students often had to praise or blame fictional characters like Helen or Paris. The topic of marriage, peri gamou, was popular in the schools and served to disseminate both Stoic and Cynic arguments on the value of marriage in the Roman and Hellenistic world.19 In this intellectual context, early Christianity formed its own particular ideas on the value of marriage. Expanding on the Cynic ideal of unencumbered philosophical contemplation, early Christians added a religious dimension. The philosopher became a holy man in search of God. In contrast to the command in Genesis to multiply, and the fact that many of the Old Testament prophets were married, the New Testament tends to favor a celibate ideal. Jesus sometimes appears to favor celibacy as a higher state than marriage. In Matthew (19:10–12), for example, he says: “That (not marrying) is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some . . . , there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can.”20 Jesus rejects the traditional biological family in favor of this new Christian community. In Luke (14:26), he declares: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be a disciple of mine.”21 The Apostle Paul, however, provided the most explicit comparisons of the celibate and married states. After discussing the relations of husband and wife, Paul (1 Corinthians 7: 6–9) asserts: “All this I say by way of concession, not command. I should like you all to be as I am myself; but everyone has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that. To the unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if they stay as I am myself; but if they cannot control themselves, they should marry. Better to marry than burn with vain desire.”22 Paul allows marriage as a concession to those who lack self-control. It is a remedy for lust. In the New Testament, celibacy

14

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

is not practiced so much for ascetical reasons, as it would be later, but for eschatological reasons. Early Christians renounced marriage in the belief that the end of the world was imminent.23 A new Christian community emerged in opposition to the biological family model of the Old Testament and pagan society. Already in the New Testament the philosopher and marriage question is transformed into a discussion of the qualitative differences between marriage and celibacy. Can married Christians ever hope to attain the same spiritual perfection as celibates? After the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in 312 C.E., Christian morality, which focused in particular on sexual conduct, influenced the passing of the death penalty against such deviant behavior as pederasty, rape, adultery, and seduction. But it was above all else the total abnegation of sexual intercourse that shocked non-Christians and distinguished its practitioners.24 Although pagans had practiced virginity, early Christian enthusiasm for this form of asceticism was much greater. The pagan physician Galen, for example, commented on Christian extremes. Origen and Athanasius proudly pointed to the great number and devotion of Christian virgins as evidence of the truth of Christianity.25 In late antiquity, practitioners of virginity saw themselves as fighting not only against their own natural sexual urges, but against the strict norms of Roman society and social conventions. They freed themselves in this way from the duties of citizens, who were expected to marry and produce children.26 By choosing virginity over marriage, Christians were anti-establishment radicals.27 Virginity became one of the chief distinguishing features of the early Christians, for both rich and poor, and male and female, could aspire to this ideal and be identified as Christians among the many competing religions of late antiquity.28 In the fourth century, monastic Christianity adopted virginity as a mark of spiritual and physical asceticism. Monks left the secular culture of the city and all it represented—materialism, flesh, marriage, and women—for the desert. Because of their enthusiasm for virginity, most Church Fathers viewed marriage suspiciously.29 Following Paul, the third-century Bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, explicitly stated that virginity was a superior way of life to marriage.30 Origen even condemned physical love within marriage as a degradation of the spirit; only a virgin body could hope to comprehend the spiritual world.31 In his treatise On Virginity, John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) claimed that the world was already overpopulated, so the only purpose marriage served was to control fornication.32 In his opin-

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

15

ion, marriage was a sign of the Fall, a mark of Adam and Eve’s first sin; it was, accordingly, tainted and far inferior to the purity of the virginity that they had enjoyed in Paradise: Scarcely had [Adam and Eve] turned from obedience to God, then they became earth and ashes, and all at once, they lost the happy life, beauty and honour of virginity . . . they were made serfs, stripped of the royal robe . . . made subject to death and every other form of curse and imperfection; then did marriage make its appearance . . . Do you see where marriage took its origin? . . . For where there is death, there too is sexual coupling; and where there is no death, there is no sexual coupling either.33

For Chrysostom, marriage is fallen and inextricably bound with lust and death. In their enthusiasm for the ideal of virginity, Early Church Fathers increasingly tended to denigrate marriage. Some found it hard to reconcile the Church’s official approval of marriage for the many, while at the same time assuring their flocks that total sexual abstinence was a higher spiritual ideal for the few. Some tried to resolve the contradiction between marriage and the ideal of virginity through “spiritual marriage.” In this way Christians could enjoy all the benefits of marriage while still remaining virgins, or at least chaste. Even though this would have been considered a contradiction in the classical world, chaste marriage was practiced throughout the Middle Ages.34 Most theologians, however, associated marriage with the taming of lust and virginity with celibacy. Jerome and Augustine were the chief authorities in the development of Western Church doctrine on marriage. In systematic treatises, they attempted to unravel the complexities of these two opposed ways of life, the spiritual ideal of virginity and the desire to marry. In 393 Jerome wrote in defense of virginity against Jovinian, who had written that married couples were spiritually equal to consecrated virgins. Jerome declared that celibacy was a much higher state than marriage.35 In fact, he was so critical of marriage that he had to defend himself against the charge of heresy.36 He bases his defense of virginity on Paul: He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things

16

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.37

Here is the basis of monastic asceticism. The monk is not wedded or bound to a wife and earthly concerns. Rather, he is married to God and can devote himself completely to His service. After his excursus Jerome concludes that, “The difference, then, between marriage and virginity is as great as that between not sinning and doing well . . . as between good and better.”38 If a first marriage was at most second best to virginity, second marriages in Jerome’s view are equivalent to whoredom.39 After all, Jerome declares, while “marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills paradise.”40 Jerome bases his teachings about virginity on a purely spiritual conception of the human being, which he had drawn from the exegetical works of Origen. In this view, the body is merely a short-term hospice for the spirit. Sexuality is an ephemeral attribute that weighs the soul down and holds it back from achieving perfection in the company of like minds, both male and female.41 Expanding on Paul’s concept of the flesh, Jerome asserts that the practice of virginity and celibacy is the only way to transcend the body’s destructive passions.42 Married priests, therefore, are marred and impure.43 Marriage keeps them in the domain of the body and its passions. They do not have the strength of virgins and are, therefore, inferior.44 In sum, Jerome declares, “I praise weddings, I praise marriage, because they produce virgins for me.”45 Although Jerome had close friendships with many women and claimed that his teachings applied to both males and females, his sharp critique of marriage was laden with misogyny.46 In Against Jovinian, he uses many examples of wicked and lustful wives to show that the wise man should not marry. He quotes a large portion of the Theophrastian de nuptiis and adds to the author’s antimarriage authorities. Jerome enlists Cicero, for example, as an antimarriage authority.47 This is the source for the medieval image of Cicero as a recluse and misogynist that would be dominant until the Renaissance.48 In response to Jerome’s polemical treatise, a much younger Augustine wrote in 401, De bono conjugali, the first of his many treatises on marriage and virginity.49 Augustine based his defense of marriage on Genesis and the fact that marriage was a sacrament instituted in Paradise before

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

17

the Fall.50 It is this sacramental character that forms the bulwark of later Christian defenses of marriage. Whereas Christians could deny the pagan conception of marriage as a civic duty, they were obliged by the Bible to consider it a divine institution. Most medieval wedding sermons and Renaissance wedding orations, in fact, start their praise of marriage with a reference to the command in Genesis to multiply. Augustine accepts marriage as an expression of our social nature. But since sexual desire can destroy the friendship between husband and wife, he believes that continence is the only way to maintain spousal concord.51 The Fall of man and Original Sin are the essential basis of his theology of marriage. Even though Augustine declares that sex and marriage were good in their prelapsarian state, after the Fall sex becomes inseparable from the lust of the libido.52 It is through the concupiscence that is present in sex that original sin is inherited from generation to generation. For Augustine, sexual congress is inevitably contaminated with evil.53 Mary and Joseph represent the perfect marriage since they did not have sexual intercourse.54 Physical love defiles the true friendship that is present in continent couples. Augustine favored the chaste marriage. According to Augustine, the only reason that virginity was not commanded in the Old Testament was because of the need to populate the earth. God’s command to increase and multiply allows for sex, but only in order to procreate.55 In the world of the New Testament, however, “even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake of children are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence.”56 In the historical period of the Old Testament marriage was temporarily necessary, but not divine or eternal. Marriage and continence are both good for Augustine, but continence is better.57 Augustine follows Paul in seeing marriage in principle as a remedy for the burning of lust, the wound in our corrupted nature.58 He asserts: “[T]he weakness of both sexes, with its inclination to depravity and ruin, is wisely saved by honorable marriage, so that what could have been a duty for men in a healthy state is a healing remedy for those who are sick . . . the good of marriage is not blameworthy because of the evil of incontinence; but because of this good that evil becomes allowable (veniale).”59 Marriage regulates the disease of concupiscence. The weak who lack self-control can marry, but holy celibacy is the higher calling. Marriage is a concession to our fallen nature.

18

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Nevertheless, Augustine considers marriage to have three principal goods: the fidelity that the married couple owe each other, the offspring that they are to bear and educate, and the sacrament, which is the divine permanence of their relationship.60 His tria bona of marriage—Fides, Proles, Sacramentum—is the keystone of Catholic marriage doctrine and forms the basic framework for later works on marriage. This was perhaps the most influential of Augustine’s ideas for future marriage sermons and orations.61 Although Augustine allows for a dignity in marriage that was lacking in Jerome’s account, he, nevertheless, clearly regards celibacy as the preferred state. Augustine and Jerome’s conception of holy celibacy and virginity as the highest ideal was deeply influential throughout the Middle Ages. Monastic and ascetic Christianity, in particular, enjoyed a renewed popularity in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Many church thinkers looked back to patristic defenses of virginity in their praises of celibacy. The hermit and preacher Peter Damian, for example, conceded very little to the married state. In his view, marriage could only be justified for the procreation of children, and even then it more often occurred for reasons of pride and lust.62 When he preached to married couples, he began: “I specially address you my brothers now, who have not yet reached high ground in the spiritual life, [and] are still given over to worldly acts, bound by the chains of marriage . . .”63 Not all monks, however, were as critical of marriage as Damian. Some took great pains to gather biblical sources in support of marriage.64 They nevertheless found it difficult to reconcile Christian authorities on marriage and celibacy. In addition to its spiritual benefits, celibacy was believed to be an essential prerequisite for the pursuit of wisdom. In this connection, Jerome’s work Against Jovinian enjoyed great popularity throughout the Middle Ages as a compilation of antimarriage arguments.65 The argument that the true philosopher could not marry found support not only in monastic Christianity, but also in secular literature and poetry.66 The twelfthcentury philosopher, Peter Abelard, for example, used his tragic affair with Heloise as a striking backdrop for a discussion of the woes of marriage, which is largely based on Theophrastus and Jerome.67 Abelard had been employed as Heloise’s tutor in her uncle’s house, and the two fell passionately in love. Heloise became pregnant and fled to give birth at Abelard’s sister’s house. Abelard then asked Heloise to marry him. In his autobiography, the Historia calamitatum, Abelard writes how Heloise at-

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

19

tempted to dissuade him from marriage.68 Using Jerome extensively, she reportedly argued that marriage and philosophy were incompatible. “What harmony,” she declared, can there be between pupils and nursemaids, desks and cradles, books or tablets and distaffs, pen or stylus and spindles? Who can concentrate on thoughts of Scripture or philosophy and be able to endure babies crying, nurses soothing them with lullabies, and all the noisy coming and going of men and women about the house? . . . Consequently, the great philosophers of the past have despised the world, not renouncing it so much as escaping from it, and have denied themselves every pleasure so as to find peace in the arms of philosophy alone. 69

Marriage is a distraction to the true philosopher, since it necessarily brings with it the noise, worries, and responsibilities of family life. Like Jerome, Heloise supports her diatribe with a number of quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Augustine, and St. Paul. She asserts: If ancient philosophers were expected to lead chaste lives, is there not a greater obligation on you, as clerk and canon, not to put base pleasures before your sacred duties, and to guard against being sucked down into this Charybdis, there to lose all sense of shame and be plunged forever into a whirlpool of impurity?70

Heloise argues both philosophically and religiously against marriage. She uses vivid examples drawn from both literature and her own experience. A true philosopher, according to her argument, should flee the world and be wedded only to philosophy. Needless to say, Abelard and Heloise never openly married. Heloise’s family avenged her honor by castrating Abelard.71 Like Heloise and Abelard, John of Salisbury, Peter of Blois, Walter Map, and many other medieval philosophers adopted the antimarriage arguments of antiquity that they found in Jerome.72 As in antiquity, the question of whether the philosopher should marry was a popular topic of debate.73 The most common argument against marriage referred to the evils and distractions of women. Like Jerome, these authors used the example of Cicero to support the claim that the wise man should live alone and be far removed from family and political concerns.74 With the greater availability of classical sources in the Renaissance, this conception of Cicero and other ancient philosophers would change, as would the contemplative, celibate ideal of the wise man.

20

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Scholastic philosophers were primarily interested in the spiritual benefits of celibacy. Like Paul and Jerome, they maintained that the married state was inferior to celibate contemplation. For Peter Lombard, God provided marriage as a remedy to lust in order to prevent fornication. Those who were not strong enough to resist sexual temptation were permitted to marry. But this permission, because it does not select better things, is a remedy not a reward; if anyone rejects it, he will deserve judgment of death. An act, which is allowed by permission, however, is voluntary, not necessary. Now permission is received in various ways, as concession, as remission, as toleration. And there is toleration in the New Testament, for lesser good deeds and lesser evils; among the lesser good deeds is marriage, which does not deserve a palm, but is a remedy.75

Marriage, therefore, was to be tolerated, not praised. Thomas Aquinas cites Paul and the example of Christ, who was born of a virgin and was Himself a virgin, as proof that spiritual virginity is superior to marriage. He continues: It [the opposing view] is also refuted by reason, both because a divine good takes precedence over a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking on the things of God (sic), whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think on the things of the world (sic), as the Apostle says . . . Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.76

Like his biblical and patristic sources, Aquinas bases his conclusion on the belief that spiritual truth and the encounter with God is the highest purpose in life. It follows logically that marriage, the active life, and all corporeal pleasures are inferior to the ideal of a virginity that is completely dedicated to God. Aquinas responds to the pro-marriage argument of Aristotle on the common good by asserting the spiritual superiority of virginity: “The common good takes precedence over the private good, if it be of the same genus: but it may be that the private good is better generically. It is thus that the virginity that is consecrated

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

21

to God is preferable to carnal fruitfulness.”77 Whereas marriage might be the highest human good, virginity is superior because it is not a corporeal or an earthly good, but celestial. Scholastics examined marriage predominantly from a theological perspective. While trained in philosophy, their main concern was how an individual might be saved and achieve closeness to God. Following Paul and Augustine, they saw marriage most positively as a remedy for the lust due to the Fall and a source of legitimate procreation. But they also saw marriage negatively as a distraction from the contemplation of God and the pursuit of spiritual perfection. Although he set himself up against the scholastics, Petrarch (1304– 1374) shared with them an antimarriage conviction based on his reading of the Church Fathers.78 He conceived of wisdom as a contemplative ideal, a pietas rooted in the knowledge and fear of God.79 In his treatise, On the Solitary Life, Petrarch describes the perfect life as one of leisure and study, which is far removed from the worries of family and politics.80 The busy man of the world, on the one hand, is overwhelmed by the demands of enemies and friends; his days are filled with confusion, arguments, and endless chores. In the city, he constantly experiences falsehood. The solitary man, on the other hand, enjoys peace and quiet; nature fills his days with beauty. There are no vanities, no arguments, or ill-tempers to distract him from contemplation.81 Only in solitude can the wise man concentrate his mental energy on the inner struggle that defines both the philosopher and the monk.82 Studious contemplation is the highest ideal for Petrarch. Following Jerome and Theophrastus, Petrarch believed that the wise man could not love both a wife and philosophy. He never married (although he had a concubine and children) and took minor clerical orders. Petrarch was critical of marriage and women in many of his works. He believed that a well-born wife, for example, is “a heavy burden. Cruel chains to oppress your free shoulders and shackle your once free feet . . . a guest, not for one day, but for life . . . only death can drive her out.”83 A beautiful wife is “a quarrelsome, arrogant idol, which . . . you adore and totally depend upon. So bend your neck to the yoke and . . . lay aside all your other concerns and your personal freedom as well.”84 When, in Petrarch’s dialogue, Sorrow bemoans the loss of a wife, Reason responds: “Or, could it be, that you have never gained more within a single day? What chains you have escaped; what shipwreck you swam

22

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

away from!” When Sorrow complains of loneliness, Reason offers the sentiments of Jerome and Theophrastus: An enviable solitude—to be without bad company! There is nothing softer than a bed all to yourself, nothing harder than one occupied by two—particularly if you love sweet dreams and serious cogitation, and are contemplating tasks that are worthwhile and grand. Nothing, in fact, is more injurious to notable projects than consorting with women.85

Petrarch is particularly critical of the female sex. Women by their nature are corrupting influences. As in Jerome and Theophrastus, misogyny is a chief argument against marriage. Petrarch, however, had a more nuanced view of marriage when he was forced to consider it in a serious context. When Pandolfo Malatesta asked Petrarch for his advice on whether marriage or celibacy was better, the response was not what one would expect. You must decide between what is best for your household, fatherland, friends, estate, reputation, and pleasure, and what is best for your own health and salvation. In this choice you should follow the rule that the good of the many should be preferred to the good of the individual and the noble to the wretched.86

Petrarch asserts that the individual good should be subservient to the needs of the community. Such argumentation reveals Petrarch’s knowledge of the classical tradition on this topic, including Aristotle and Stoic and Cynic ideas. Unlike Aquinas, he does not see the private spiritual good as higher than the public common good. Petrarch continues, I believe it is better for you, your leisure, and your tranquility, not to marry; but your household, fatherland, and friends demand of you otherwise. Since you neither have the excuse of old age or living children, I agree that you should marry. For although I think nothing sweeter than celibacy and nothing more tranquil, your situation and that of your family, nevertheless, begrudges you this sweetness and tranquility.87

Although the celibate life of philosophical leisure and contemplation is better for one’s personal well-being, civic and familial duty nevertheless should take precedence in one’s life decisions. In this context, marriage for Petrarch constitutes a virtuous self-sacrifice of personal freedom for the good of others. While he acknowledges that marriage is sometimes a

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

23

social and civic responsibility, he still views it as a necessary evil. Even though he advises Pandolfo to marry, he tells him that marriage is not as good as celibacy. In addition to the by now long tradition of Christian philosophy, the fact that Petrarch was himself a cleric and lived off ecclesiastical benefices might help explain his preference for celibacy.88 While the value of marriage was a subject of debate from Antiquity onward, arguments in favor of both spiritual and philosophical celibacy prevailed in the Middle Ages. Paul, Jerome, and Augustine were the main authorities for marriage thought. Even defenders of marriage such as Augustine saw it as a mixed blessing, inferior to holy celibacy. Spiritual and philosophical wisdom were for the most part assumed to be incompatible with marriage.89 Eschewing Aristotelian and Stoic arguments, Christian thinkers largely adopted the Cynic point of view on marriage. If given the choice, why would a wise or spiritual man take upon himself the burdens of a family and the civic and social responsibilities of marriage? While some argued in favor of celibacy for both sexes, most focused on the male philosopher and cleric. In addition to the distractions and troubles of worldly concerns, marriage for Augustine and Jerome represented a greater opportunity to sin. Women are the root of this evil. If they do not directly corrupt men with their sensual temptations, women occupy and distract men from the pursuit of wisdom and truth. The celibate state provides the leisure necessary for spiritual and philosophical pursuits, while marriage is an impediment. Social disasters necessitated a different attitude toward marriage in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Perhaps Petrarch was already responding to this in his partial advocacy of marriage. Continual plagues, wars, and internal factional strife wrought havoc on fourteenth-century Italian cities. Before 1348 there were 120,000 inhabitants in the city of Florence. In 1427, there were less than 40,000. Pistoia, Prato, San Gimignano, and other Tuscan cities similarly lost two-thirds of their populations in the plague.90 From 1348 to 1421, Siena suffered seven plagues and three famines. In addition to these disasters, wars and mercenary attacks were continuous throughout the period. Siena’s population, which had numbered close to 70,000 before 1348, was reduced to 15,000 in the 1420s.91 Plagues and wars had similarly devastating effects on populations outside of Tuscany.92 Such massive depopulation was disastrous. Cities that had had thriving markets were virtual deserts after 1348, their industries ruined and their fields left untilled due to labor shortages. Children were

24

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

needed to repopulate cities, which meant that marriage, not celibacy, had to be encouraged. In the context of this social upheaval, many humanists and preachers turned from the monastic ideals of Christianity and looked to the Old Testament and classical letters for guidance. The need to repopulate made the command in Genesis to multiply more attractive to intellectuals than the celibacy ideal of the New Testament and the Early Church. Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406) was the first humanist to reevaluate marriage in the light of these social and economic changes. At first he followed Petrarch and medieval ideas concerning marriage. In the treatise, On matters secular and religious (1381–1382), he argued that the contemplative life of the religious was higher than that of the active layman: “Perfection, however, is fuller when by daily service of divine majesty . . . we bind ourselves outside the world through the clerical order . . . to all Christians sowing in good soil a thirty-fold fruit is reserved, to clerics a sixty-fold, to religious, indeed, a hundred.”93 The virgin state is a higher ideal than marriage. The fact that this work was written for a friend who had just become a monk might explain its character. Florence was also in political turmoil in 1381, and Salutati found himself accused of treason, which might explain the appeal of a withdrawal from public life.94 Although he later changed his views on marriage, there is no reason to think that Salutati was being cynical in 1381 when he wrote against marriage, since he was a deeply religious man.95 Like Petrarch, Salutati had to reinterpret Cicero, the great stylistic authority and model scholar, when he discovered previously unavailable works. Petrarch had initially followed the medieval tradition of seeing Cicero as a contemplative philosopher aloof from all earthly worries. But he was confronted with a very different scholar when he found Cicero’s previously unknown Letters to Atticus in 1345.96 These letters reveal a Cicero who was ambitious and active in politics. Far from being a contemplative recluse, Cicero was a keen politician and a married man concerned about his family. Petrarch struggled with this revelation and even wrote an accusatory letter to Cicero in Hades, criticizing him for wasting his talents on the vanities of politics rather than pursuing philosophy in solitude.97 In 1392 Salutati discovered another unknown collection of Cicero’s letters, his Familiar Letters. In these letters, Cicero again appears as an ambitious statesman and champion of civic liberty. But rather than

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

25

condemn this aspect of the great rhetorician as Petrarch had, Salutati saw in this new Cicero a model of the politically active sage.98 In 1393 Salutati reversed his previous position and argued that the active life was superior to the contemplative: Different people come to God in different ways. Some choose the secret and solitary life, like the hermits . . . and I know that many come to God’s glory following the busy life in society. The great riches of Abraham did not corrupt his son Isaac . . . High position did not harm Moses or Aaron . . . For although the solitary life is considered safer, it is not so; for to engage (vacare) in honest activity honestly is as holy and perhaps more so than to give oneself (ociari) to the solitary life. Indeed, holy seclusion is of advantage only to oneself . . . But holiness in the affairs of the world edifies many because it is available to many and because it furnishes an example to many and brings many along with it to the gates of heaven.99

While the contemplative monk benefits only himself, the active citizen benefits an entire community and city. Salutati has now reversed his opinions and emphasizes the public over the private good. To justify his belief that the active life of commitment to city and religion is superior to the contemplative life, Salutati used an Augustinian and Franciscan theological framework. Augustine had asserted the primacy of the will in the struggle for salvation. Elaborating upon this, Franciscans preached that the soul and God were united not by an intellectual vision but by an act of love. In this view, the main task for the Christian citizen is not to contemplate truth but to increase one’s capacity for loving through social and civic activity.100 This conception is essentially in agreement with the Ciceronian ethic of political activity. Salutati believed in what might be called “Christian patriotism;” all Christians are united by a certain bond of affection. For Salutati, mankind is by nature social and political.101 Salutati defended the active life most clearly in a 1398 letter to Pellegrino Zambeccari, who at the time was thinking about becoming a monk. Salutati refers to Old Testament prophets who were both married and active in politics.102 He maintains that the active life of the lay citizen is equal in merit to the contemplative life of the religious. Heaven is not limited to monks but is open to all, lay and cleric alike. Salutati uses an abundance of Church authorities to convince Pellegrino that he will

26

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

not be any closer to heaven by fleeing the world. His defense is even more forceful, because Salutati senses his own life under attack: I have quoted all these passages . . . that you not damn me for remaining in the world and justify yourself fleeing the world. Clearly your fleeing the world can draw your heart from heavenly things to earth, and I, remaining in earthly affairs, will be able to raise my heart to heaven. And you, if you provide for and serve and strive for your family and your sons, your relatives and your friends, and your state (which embraces all), you cannot fail to raise your heart to heavenly things and please God. Indeed, devoted to these things, you are perhaps more acceptable since . . . striving as hard as you can for things necessary to your family, pleasing to your friends, and salubrious for the state, you work together with that same cause that provides for all.103

Salutati believes that there is a providential role in life for everyone. Different people have different vocations. Some are called to be contemplatives, while others should marry and work in the world. No life is more perfect than another, since all are judged according to their role in life.104 As a father and a citizen, Pellegrino has a duty and a responsibility. For him, the acive life of marriage is more perfect than contemplative bachelorhood. Salutati has now distanced himself from Petrarch. He is firm in the belief that the life of political and civic activity is equal, if not better, than monastic or academic withdrawal. Salutati’s thought on marriage followed a similar development. When Salutati married in 1392, he initially worried that a wife would distract him from his studies. Even after a few months he was still pessimistic about the compatibility of marriage and philosophy.105 Soon, however, he changed his mind and argued that it was indeed possible to enjoy marriage and be a successful scholar. When a friend used Petrarch and Jerome to criticize his marrying, Salutati, in response, condemned the traditional image of the solitary wise man and refuted Petrarch.106 Writing against those who criticize marriage, he says: The ills which authors have written about do not pertain to marriage; they are not the woes of marriage, but the vices of people: the constant worries, arguments, dowry anxiety, haughtiness of relatives, mother-inlaws, and adultery, are not the woes of marriage but the vices of those from whom they arise.107

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

27

Any problems or hardships in marriage, then, have nothing to do with marriage, but are rather to be ascribed to the frailty of the people who marry. Salutati uses this logic to attack Petrarch’s criticisms of marriage.108 Women are not inherently bad. When considering a wife, the man should look not at her dowry but at her morals. Let those wicked detractors of marriage be gone, who, like stones, cast the faults and fortunes of men upon holy and noble matrimony; and let them agree with us, that whichever life we have chosen, whether temporal or spiritual, solitary and contemplative or social and active, we will have many torments.109

No life is easy for the Christian pilgrim in this world. For Salutati, there are good wives and bad wives; while some may hinder, others can help in achieving both wisdom and sanctity. In declaring this, Salutati turned against the celibate sage tradition, which had been handed down from antiquity and advocated by Petrarch. Salutati defended marriage both from personal experience and with Stoic and Biblical arguments. He was particularly critical of the ideal of celibacy.110 Later humanists still used Petrarch as an authority against marriage. But many, like Salutati, disagreed with his conclusions. In the 1390s the otherwise unknown Giorgio di Parma wrote a poem in the vernacular against wives.111 In the poem wives are depicted as nagging, unfaithful, and talkative; standard commonplaces. In a letter following the poem in the manuscript, Giorgio explains in Latin to his brother that he wrote it when he heard that his brother had married. Immediately after this is a letter in which the author renounces his poem and apologizes for all that he had written against women.112 He explicitly blames his misogyny on his reading of Petrarch.113 But “women,” he writes, “deserve no less glory and praise than men. Isis founded Egyptian and Carmen Latin literature . . . In sum, there are more examples of famous women than this papyrus could hold . . . Who would be crazy enough to attack them? If I have ever seemed to do so, I retract, recall, revoke, deny, annul, and recant everything.”114 The author informs us that his sudden change of opinion is due to the fact that he himself has married.115 Like Salutati, Giorgio changed his mind after he had experienced marriage. While they read Petrarch’s writings with reverence, Salutati and other humanists struggled with his misogyny and misogamy. They challenged his contemplative and monastic ideals and advocated a more civic and politi-

28

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

cally active philosophy, which embraced marriage as the foundation of stability and wisdom. The Venetian humanist Francesco Barbaro (1390–1454) produced one of the earliest Renaissance works on marriage, On Wifely Duties (1416). Since Barbaro assumes the value of marriage at the outset, his treatise is not so much a defense of marriage against celibacy as a blueprint for the selecting of a wife and the ordering of a household. While Barbaro follows conventional marriage thought in declaring that the purpose of marriage is to procreate both for one’s family and for the state, as a Venetian nobleman he has a particularly aristocratic conception of marriage. Aristocrats, he asserts, should only marry women of the ruling class, so that their lineage might remain pure and their offspring might be able to obtain offices in the Republic. Venetian aristocrats, Barbaro affirms, have an inherited right to rule and a responsibility to provide future rulers through marriage.116 Shortly after writing his treatise, Barbaro himself married and fathered five children.117 Later, in Italian courts, wedding orators asserted a similar aristocratic conception of marriage. Some orators cite Barbaro as an authority on marriage in their epithalamia.118 He was one of Guarino’s most influential followers, as will be discussed later. In his marriage treatise, Barbaro also defends the acquisition and use of wealth. In the fourteenth century, humanists often championed the ideal of poverty as a moral requirement and contempt for riches as a sign of true wisdom. In his treatise, On Matters Secular and Religious, Salutati asserted that both the secular and the sacred institutions “were built by the poor and undermined and corrupted by the rich.”119 Already in the 1350s and 1360s, however, Petrarch had declared that Cicero and Seneca were not opposed to riches per se and that they were permissible within bounds even to the wise man.120 Barbaro similarly argued that the possession of wealth facilitated the practice of Christian charity. In his view riches were necessary to aid friends and relatives and to ensure that one’s children received the best education.121 While translating the pseudoAristotelian Economics (1420/21), the Florentine humanist Leonardo Bruni found similar ideas. In his dedication of the work to Cosimo de’ Medici he affirmed Aristotle’s teaching that, in addition to helping and adorning their owners, the possession of money enables the practice of virtue.122 Wealth is of great help in achieving honors and dignities. If marriage and wealth can help one lead a virtuous life, then, humanists reasoned, the wise man should not reject a wife or money.

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

29

The humanist defense of wealth was directly related not only to marriage thought, but also to fifteenth-century marriage practice. Marriages were overwhelmingly conducted in a very practical and businesslike manner.123 Money was a deciding factor. Dowries had become such an expense that in 1425 Florence was forced to establish the Monte delle Doti, a savings bank where a father could invest in his daughter’s dowry from her birth, adding to it and receiving interest as she grew.124 Marriages of the elite were just as constrained by economic necessity and were usually contracted for political alliances between powerful families. Arranged marriages were a common practice throughout Italy as elsewhere.125 Thus the theoretical justification of wealth reflected and served the realities of the age. Rather than pursue an ecclesiastical career, Leonardo Bruni (1370– 1444), who eventually succeeded Salutati as chancellor of the Florentine republic, refused benefices and chose to marry in 1412. He preferred to lead the life of a married lay intellectual.126 In his biography of Cicero (1415), Bruni offers some glimpses into his decision. Benefiting from the new sources Petrarch and Salutati had found, he reconstructed a biography that focused on Cicero’s political and civic activity. He was particularly interested in the seeming incompatibility of the active and contemplative in Cicero’s life. “No one who sees Cicero’s literary legacy would believe that he had any time for people; and no one who reads about his political activities, his speeches, occupations, and struggles both in public and in private life, would ever imagine that he had leisure for reading and writing.”127 According to Bruni, Cicero taught that the philosopher had a duty as a citizen to participate in government and to serve the community. But rather than impeding his contemplation, this activity nourishes and stimulates him. “From the selfsame sanctuary of philosophy [Cicero] took the factual knowledge needed for the administration of the republic and the expressions and phrases used in his writings and teaching.”128 Although they may conflict on the surface, philosophy and statesmanship are mutually beneficent. By reevaluating the life of the ancient orator and philosopher, Bruni resurrected Cicero as a role model for the politically active citizen. In his Introduction to Moral Philosophy (1424–1425), Bruni drew upon his knowledge of the Nicomachean Ethics to define active and contemplative lives: “Wisdom, science, and understanding . . . nourish the contemplative [life], but prudence controls every active pursuit. Both kinds

30

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

of life have their proper kind of esteem and merit. The contemplative life is, to be sure, the more divine and rare, but the active is more excellent with respect to the common good.”129 Although he concedes that contemplation is more divine, Bruni asserts that the active life, which includes marrying and raising a family, serves both the welfare of the state and the individual. Bruni still struggles with the paradox between active and contemplative lives, sometimes seeing them as complementary, other times as mutually exclusive. Bruni expanded on these ideas when he confronted the biographical tradition of another literary icon and role model in his Life of Dante (1436). Previous lives of Dante had condemned the poet’s decision to marry. Boccaccio, for example, asserted that the poet ruined his life by marrying.130 In his biography of Dante, Bruni criticizes Boccaccio for holding the ideal of scholarly leisure and solitude above all other concerns. He praises Dante the citizen, who had readily accepted civic duties even to the point of fighting in battle to defend his native city. Dante had followed the greatest philosophers, such as Aristotle, Cicero, Cato, Varro, and Seneca in marrying. Echoing Aristotle, Bruni asserts “. . . man is an animale civile. The first union, the multiplication of which forms the state, is that of husband and wife; there can be no perfection where this primary condition does not exist.”131 Marriage is natural and the foundation of a harmonious polity.132 Bruni completely transformed the images of two renowned authorities. He reversed the tradition by representing Cicero and Dante as models of politically active citizens and married philosophers. He used them as authorities not so much for their writings as for their lives. Like Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini (1380–1459) worked in the Papal Curia and had to choose between an ecclesiastical career and the life of a layman.133 In 1436, at the age of fifty-six, Poggio married.134 As a response to those who criticized his decision to marry, especially at an older age, he wrote a dialogue, entitled On Whether an Old Man should Marry (1437).135 In the treatise, Poggio defends his marriage by criticizing the ideals of the solitary life and religious asceticism. Like the ancient Stoics, Boccaccio, and Salutati, he asserts that, if the wise man uses nature as his guide, then he should behave and use his body in accordance with its natural functions. The sage cannot act contrary to the order and rule of nature, which is the source of living well. Marriage in no way distracts from literary

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

31

leisure. Wives in fact did not prevent Socrates, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Cato, Tullius, Varro, Seneca, and other learned men from surpassing in virtue and learning those who rejected marriage.136

Rather than hindering, wives assist their husbands in the pursuit of wisdom. Poggio argues that marriage is natural and useful at every stage of life, but especially for the elderly, since they are in need of both help and pleasure.137 Because of his anticlericalism, Poggio’s arguments in favor of marriage are sometimes more acute than those of earlier humanists. Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472) does not directly address the question of marriage and celibacy. In his Books on the Family (1434–1437), Alberti, who himself never married, is more concerned with the question of how one should marry than whether marriage is good or bad.138 The fact that he was illegitimate might explain why Alberti chose to write a work on the importance of the family. In his dialogue, the older Giannozzo Alberti recommends that families should be large, and that all members should live under one roof under the father’s rule.139 Such large families, however, rarely existed in the fifteenth century. In 1427, for example, the average household size in Tuscany was 3.8 to 4.4 persons.140 Like Bruni, Alberti was outspoken in his belief that marriage serves to gain political and economic power. He follows Barbaro’s aristocratic conception of marriage. Marriage is good because it maintains lineage and property, and, consequently, supports the state.141 In his dialogue Alberti follows Xenophon’s precepts for domestic management, which include placing the wife wholly under male control.142 For Alberti, marriage is practical. Men marry because they want offspring and women because they need protection. All men, including the wise man, accordingly, should marry to preserve themselves and their property. The Florentine Chancellor from 1465, Bartolomeo Scala (1430–1497) wrote a short dialogue entitled On Whether a Wise Man should Marry (1457–1459).143 He married in 1468 and fathered a daughter.144 Scala defines the wise man as someone who studies the causes of nature and the behavior of men. He conceives of wisdom not as religious asceticism but as an active philosophy based on the Stoic wise man who follows nature as his guide to behavior. Epicurus had argued that marriage was in the middle between good and bad, and that since the wise man should avoid everything uncertain, he should not marry. Against this argument, Scala asserts that everything in life is uncertain and dubious. “If the wise man must avoid all uncertainty, then he should flee life altogether, since

32

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

everything in life is full of doubts and dangers. Even the wild beasts who use all their energy to guard and preserve life attest to how absurd this is.”145 The anti-utopian aspects of this argument are especially interesting in the context of the mid-fifteenth century, when many humanists were emphasizing a more secular view of the world.146 Rather than flee the uncertainties of this life, the wise man should learn to deal with the inconsistencies that abound in the material world, even the unpredictability of women. As for the inconveniences of marriage, Scala’s character asserts that “there are no toils that the wise man who holds death and the pains of death in contempt cannot bear.”147 Such troubles, he states, are nothing compared to the conveniences and joys of marriage.148 The implication is that celibacy is a cowardly form of escapism. Against the traditional female vices, Scala, like Boccaccio in his book On Famous Women (1361), offers numerous historical and literary examples of female devotion and fidelity.149 He then cites examples of married wise men and women: I declare not only that women are not an impediment to philosophy, since almost all wise men have been married, including priests, princes, prophets, kings, and judges among both gentiles and Hebrews; but that there have been very many wise women who have been famous in every kind of learning: Sibyls, prophetesses, poets, and many more.150

Again, the defense of marriage is linked to the defense of women. Scala concludes: “Since a wife is in no way harmful but is rather a great pleasure, the wise man should not reject nature or abandon human society but should marry.”151 In this opusculum, Scala redefines wisdom to embrace the active life. Following Cicero he asserts that the true sage should not be aloof from society but active in politics and the household. Like Salutati, Bruni, and Poggio, Scala uses Stoic arguments to contend that marriage is both natural and a necessary component of society. The humanist defense of marriage reflects a wide range of changes that occurred at the turn of the fifteenth century. Underpopulation due to plagues and wars made celibacy unattractive. Humanists found philosophical justification in newly recovered classical texts to support new attitudes toward marriage and wealth. In favoring the active life, nature, and the enjoyment of wealth, they were rejecting the values of ascetic and monastic Christianity.152 Florentine and Venetian humanists used

Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance

33

Aristotle and Stoic sources to argue that marriage was both natural and a civic duty. Coluccio Salutati, Francesco Barbaro, Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and Bartolomeo Scala all chose to remain lay and to marry. Their praise of marriage was founded on difficult life decisions that each of them had to make. In praising marriage, they were asserting and defending their roles as lay intellectuals within the secular world. Essential to their reevaluation of marriage was a much more positive view of women. While earlier advocates of philosophical and spiritual bachelorhood saw them as obstacles, humanists considered wives to be assistants in the pursuit of wisdom and sometimes wise themselves. Many of these same republican arguments in favor of marriage had parallel developments in Italian signorial courts and recur in wedding orations. Like the Florentines and Venetians, Guarino Guarini of Verona (1374–1460), who spent most of his life in the courtly city of Ferrara, opposed the antimarriage tradition. He married twice and had thirteen children.153 When he married for the first time in 1418, Antonio Corbinelli lectured him on the incompatibility of marriage and wisdom. Guarino replied with a letter in which he argued that marriage is a great help in dealing with the practical necessities of life, and that the trials of married life should not be avoided but embraced by the philosopher, since it is by rising to such challenges and enduring hard work that virtue is achieved.154 He cites married philosophers and statesmen of antiquity, including Cato, the Gracchi, Cicero, and Caesar, and refers to the contemporary Greek teacher and scholar, Manuel Chrysoloras (d. 1414), to prove the value of marriage.155 “Marriage,” Guarino contends, “is not an impediment; rather we ourselves, our depraved behavior, wicked desires, and bad habits are an impediment to philosophy.”156 Using the characteristic humanist mixture of ancient authorities and experience to justify his own decision, Guarino attacks the most famous antimarriage source, Theophrastus: He does not act as a philosopher but as an advocate or a persuasive orator, since he is biased in his treatment of marriage. For he diligently describes the woes and inconveniences that he imagines to be in marriage, but is silent about all the benefits, pleasures, joys and uses of marriage. He is like those people who, wishing to attack farming, number only the brambles, thorns, thistles, tares, hailstones and the such, but ignore the fruits, vegetables, crops, and amenities of worked gardens and fields.157

34

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

A philosopher should examine both sides of a problem in order to understand, Guarino asserts. Theophrastus was in essence a dishonest scholar. (Of course, Guarino himself became a prolific orator, a biased advocate on the other side.) When Theophrastus refers to the inevitable infidelities of wives and the docility of the cuckolded husband, Guarino retorts: “This is not the role of a legitimate husband but of an impudent effeminate pimp . . . I would like Theophrastus to say whether he believed his own mother and father were like this!”158 Guarino is not afraid to attack classical authorities, even in such a personal way. He seeks rather to test his book-knowledge by experience, his own life and that of his contemporaries. When what he reads is inconsistent with his own experience, he has no problem disagreeing with classical authorities such as Theophrastus. The fact that he wrote this letter in a different political context shows that a republican form of government was not necessary for the reevaluation of marriage and the active life.159 Guarino used the same arguments in favor of marriage in the signorial court of Ferrara as humanists in Florence and Venice proposed. Guarino expanded on these ideas about marriage and integrated them into latin orations in the context of court society. He taught humanists arguments in favor of marriage and trained them in the art of nuptial oratory. Under his direction, the Studium of Ferrara became the main training ground for court epideictic and nuptial oratory. Francesco Barbaro studied under Guarino from 1414–1419, and in fact credits his teacher at the end of his On Wifely Duties (1416) for training him in the classics.160 In reaction to the debate about marriage and celibacy in antiquity, and the medieval tradition of denigrating marriage and women, Renaissance humanists in republics and courts decided in favor of marriage as an intellectual ideal and a way of life. Guarino and his many followers publicized and expanded on these new pro-marriage ideals in wedding orations.

2

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

The positive reevaluation of marriage found support in the revival and practice of nuptial oratory in fifteenth-century Italian courts. Guarino Guarini, Ludovico Carbone, Francesco Filelfo, and many other humanists at work in the signorial cities of Ferrara, Naples, and Milan delivered prose epithalamia at the weddings of rulers and the elite from the 1420s throughout the fifteenth century. These orations were a medium for conveying and popularizing ideas about marriage and wisdom, and for promoting particular ruling families. Wedding orations are in form and purpose epideictic, which is the genre used to praise and blame in classical rhetoric.1 They are panegyrics praising both the institution of marriage and those being married. These epithalamia bear little relation to other forms of nuptial speech, either contemporary notarial formulae or marriage sermons. Instead, Humanists based their orations on classical rhetorical models. This newly revived medium also contributed to the increasingly magnificent and sumptuous weddings in Italian courts. Humanist orators performed a central role as entertainers and publicists, both in the exuberance of their rhetorical delivery and in their elaborate panegyrics. In the ancient genre of the epithalamium, humanists and Italian rulers also found a more laudatory, secular, and personal medium to promote and support the interests of courtly families. Before church regulations were codified in the Tametsi decree at the Council of Trent in 1563, ecclesiastical control of marriage was limited.2 In general, notaries rather than priests performed nuptial rites. They read a short legal formula to the couple in front of witnesses.3 The ceremony itself was usually brief and limited to demonstrating the consent 35

36

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

of those involved. In the High Middle Ages, notaries could follow prescriptions for marriages in the numerous formularies of the ars dictaminis, which was specifically concerned with letter writing and the training of notaries, chancellors, and secretaries of church and state in practical administrative communication.4 Since letters were meant to be read aloud, the rules of the ars dictaminis focused on oral presentation, and in this way formed the basic background for humanist rhetoric.5 By 1200 demographic expansion and greater participation in communal politics created a need for manuals in speech writing, the ars arengandi.6 Although this secular oratory was an important predecessor of humanist rhetoric in general, no secular wedding speeches survive before the fifteenth century, except for brief legal formulae.7 The thirteenth-century dictator, Matteo dei Libri, for example, provides sixty-six form speeches for advising ambassadors on various occasions but does not include weddings. His three different summae artis dictaminis also offer model letters for various legal situations but not for weddings.8 When artes dictaminis do offer formulae for weddings they are succinct and limited to legal necessities. Guido Faba, a thirteenth-century master dictator, provides such an example in his summa dictaminis.9 Another more elaborate and contemporary example of the notary’s role is in the papal master of ceremonies, Burchard’s description of the extravagant 1493 wedding of Lucrezia Borgia and Giovanni Sforza. The bride and groom knelt down before the notary, who then addressed them in the vernacular: “You have before you the marriage contract . . . and the dowry and other things included in it. Are you content to accept and promise to observe this contract, and to bind yourselves according to the formula and words of this contract?” The groom responded in the vernacular: “I accept and promise to observe and bind myself . . .” The notary then called those present to be witnesses and asked the groom: “Are you content to take Lucrezia Borgia as your lawful bride and wife and do you promise to treat her as your lawful woman and wife?” The groom replied: “I do, and willingly.” The notary then asked the bride the same question. After this, a bishop gave the ring to the groom to place on the bride’s finger while a captain held a sword over their heads. When this was completed the bishop delivered a “short sermon on the sacrament of marriage.”10 As is evident here, the notary performed a strictly legal function at the wedding. The bishop, not the notary, delivered a short sermon on marriage.

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

37

The late nineteenth-century Italian legal historian Francesco Brandileone attempted to find a legal function in humanist wedding orations equivalent to notarial formulae.11 He argued that the words and actions of orators were necessary to demonstrate that the marriage was consensual and legal. Brandileone documents his argument with a few speeches, including one by Guarino, in which the orator oversees the exchanging of vows at the end of the oration. However, the majority of surviving wedding orations include neither the exchange of vows nor consistent legal formulae.12 Extant marriage contracts are brief and formulaic, and, unlike humanist epithalamia, do not follow the rhetorical dictates of classical oratory.13 Wedding orations for the most part did not serve a legal function (although they did publicize the marriage), but were rather used to entertain, to inform, and to reinforce a ruler’s civic control through panegyric. Humanist wedding orations are in many ways more similar to marriage sermons than to notarial formulae. Preaching manuals first appeared in large numbers in the early 1200s under Pope Innocent III, and there are numerous examples of marriage sermons from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries.14 Preachers usually modeled their sermons on formularies such as that written in the fifteenth century by Christophorus Leronensis.15 In this formulary, the author supplies a list of authorities for use in marriage sermons. Most passages are from the Bible, some from the Fathers, and others from classical authors such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca.16 Until the fifteenth century, the precepts of classical rhetoric had a limited influence on both the form and content of sermons. Saint Augustine’s De doctrina christiana was one of the few treatises available in the Middle Ages on preaching.17 While Augustine deals primarily with the topic of invention, he does discuss some elements of classical rhetoric in the fourth book of his work.18 For Augustine, sacred oratory is based on Scripture and serves to elucidate the sacred text. The didactic purpose of preaching was further emphasized in the twelfth-century treatises by Guibert of Nogent, Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debet, and Alan of Lille, Summa de arte praedicatoria. Guibert focuses on the exegetical purpose of preaching, and Alan similarly defines sacred oratory as “an open and public instruction in faith and morals.”19 Later artes praedicandi followed this definition. Such strong emphasis on teaching necessarily influenced the structure of sermons. In the thirteenth century, scholastics developed the thematic sermon, which consisted of a “highly developed struc-

38

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

ture of theme, pro-theme, prayer for divine aid, repetition of theme, division, and (usually) three clearly delimited and often unrelated parts. The thematic sermon was animated not by the technique of the grammarian in the classroom, but by the technique of the dialectician in debate.”20 Marriage sermons tend to follow this didactic scheme as well.21 Sacred oratory underwent significant changes at the end of the fourteenth century. In Padua, Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder followed the precepts of the Ciceronian Ad Herennium in a 1393 funeral oration and his panegyrics of Saint Jerome.22 In a 1396 letter he outlined the principles of epideictic rhetoric, emphasizing clarity of style and the imitation of only the best ancient authors.23 Vergerio’s adaptation of classical epideictic and demonstrative oratory greatly influenced both sacred and secular oratory in the fifteenth century. The renowned preachers Bernardino of Siena and Alberto da Sarteano attended lectures in classical rhetoric at the school of Guarino.24 Franco Mormando has recently argued that Bernardino’s training in classical rhetoric did not influence his preaching, since the Franciscan believed that secular oratory was an inappropriate form for the Christian message.25 Bernardino, however, adopted classical rhetorical techniques in his vivid descriptive portraits and in his appeals to emotions.26 Preachers at the papal court in Rome also integrated the rules of classical rhetoric into the form and style of their sermons.27 But despite the attempts of some preachers to integrate classical rhetoric into sermons, many fifteenth-century humanists looked on the artes praedicandi with disgust. They called the sermons formulaic, repetitive, and lacking in the style that was so essential for a humanist. As the Roman humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457)28 remarked: “There is such a stuffing of themes, such a redundancy of exempla, such a repetition of the same things, such a flow of speech that lays hold of whatever comes to hand like grape-vines, that I do not know whether it is more useless or ugly.”29 Both Coluccio Salutati and Poggio Bracciolini had similarly criticized the preaching of their age.30 Most humanists preferred to model their orations on newly recovered examples of classical rhetoric. In the early fifteenth century many speeches entitled wedding orations, especially anonymous ones, are in fact indistinguishable from sermons. The following directions for composing a wedding oration in an early fifteenth-century manuscript demonstrate this affinity: In delivering or composing a nuptial oration, after the proemium divide the oration into three parts. In the first part, praise the sacrament

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

39

of marriage and its effects and circumstances, with the works of saints, jurists, decretalists, and philosophers. Next praise the virtues of the groom’s family and the bride’s family, if they deserve it; otherwise, the praise of marriage is enough. Look at the book on wifely duties (Barbaro’s?) and Jerome’s Against Jovinian. In the proem, you have to capture the audiences’ attention and invoke God and the Trinity that they may sanctify and bless the nuptials; quote from the biblical book of Tobias. Let this invocation be cordial; these words are better said in song. In conclusion, say that there is nothing holier, more useful to the state, and better for living well and in a blessed way.31

Unlike later humanistic orations, the author remains indebted to the Bible, canon law, and Jerome as authorities on marriage. It is particularly odd that he tells the orator to consult Jerome’s Against Jovinian, since this was a notorious authority against marriage! Unlike humanistic orations, marriage sermons are hortatory. Clerics call their audience to virtue by preaching against adultery and fornication. Sermons are primarily based on biblical sources and limited in their didactic theological purpose. The thirteenth-century preacher Alanus de Insulis, for example, begins his sermon Ad Coniugatos by quoting Saint Paul (1 Cor. 7), “Let each man have his own wife on account of fornication” and “It is better to marry than to burn.” He then says: “How great is the worth of marriage, which had its beginning in paradise, which removes the evil of incontinence, which embraces within itself a heavenly sacrament, which preserves the faith of the marriage bed, which maintains between the husband and wife an undivided life together, which preserves children from dishonour, which frees carnal intercourse from guilt.” Alanus ends his sermon with a number of biblical quotes to warn against adultery.32 Although Jean Leclercq has shown that thirteenthcentury French preachers presented marriage positively, their praise is still limited by their strict adherence to biblical sources and their religious and moral purpose.33 Marriage sermons and humanist wedding orations often share commonplace notions, such as the divine institution and prelapsarian sacrament of marriage, the harmony necessary between husband and wife, and the importance of offspring. In sermons, however, the belief in celibacy as a higher ideal is always implicit and sometimes explicit. In contrast, wedding orators sometimes criticize the ideal of celibacy, as will be discussed in chapter five. In keeping with the ancient erotic purpose of the genre, they celebrate physical beauty and sometimes praise

40

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

sexual pleasure, as will be discussed in chapter four. While preachers tend to emphasize universal qualities, humanists often draw attention to the particular qualities of their subjects. They describe brides and grooms in specific terms, especially their virtues, both those inherited from an illustrious genealogy and those acquired.34 If preachers teach by reworking generalized themes and by relying on authorities and syllogistic reasoning, orators impress through panegyric, figures of speech, and description.35 The epideictic form and festive context of epithalamia require that they be laudatory rather than admonitory. Although there had been a long tradition of marriage sermons and notarial formulae in Italy, which continued throughout the fifteenth century, the humanist wedding oration differed in both form and content. By reviving the rules of ancient rhetoric and emphasizing the specific subjects of their speeches, humanists distanced themselves from the legal requirements of the ars dictaminis and the theological purpose of marriage sermons. The earliest Renaissance wedding orations were written and delivered by Guarino Guarini.36 Guarino had studied in Constantinople (1403– 1408), and when he returned, laden with manuscripts, he was considered the foremost Greek scholar in Italy.37 After brief residences in Florence (1410–1414) and other places, he settled in Ferrara, where he first tutored the Este children and then in 1442 began teaching at the university. Under Guarino’s direction, the Studium of Ferrara became an important center for the study of rhetoric and classical literature.38 He wrote and probably delivered at least twenty-one wedding orations at the court of Ferrara.39 His orations served as models in content, style, and organization for his students and later wedding orators. Just as Pier Paolo Vergerio had resurrected the ancient funeral oration, Guarino brought classical rhetoric to weddings. He trained his students to write and deliver wedding speeches for rulers and the elite at the Este court.40 His many students included Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481)41 and Ludovico Carbone. Guarino’s rules for oratorical composition were culled from the pseudoCiceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium, Quintilian, and pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus.42 In 1418 Guarino had already begun commenting on Cicero’s orations, and continued his studies of the great orator as his remaining orations became known.43 His commentary on the Ad Herennium was the standard in the early fifteenth century.44 By choosing these classical authors as his models, Guarino sought to eliminate the

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

41

awkward constructions and inarticulate jargon that he saw in medieval rhetoric. He wanted to simplify and distill the rules of oratory so that the practical skill of an applied rhetoric could be learned while maintaining a high standard of eloquence. Yet it was this strict adherence to these fundamentals and classical rules that sometimes gave his orations a stiff and artificial, not to mention repetitive, character.45 George of Trebizond criticized Guarino’s 1428 panegyric of the mercenary captain, Francesco Bussone, known as Carmagnola, in his rhetoric manual.46 Paolo Cortesi praised him for his teaching and classical knowledge rather than his eloquence in his De hominibus doctis (1489).47 Whatever some of his contemporaries might have thought, however, Guarino’s influence as a teacher of ancient rhetoric is indisputable, especially for the history of the epithalamium. It was Guarino who replaced the Augustinian triad dominant in sermons (fides, proles, sacramentum) with Quintilian’s categories of honestas, utilitas, and iocunditas.48 In this new scheme, honestas refers to the moral purity and dignity of marriage as a cure for lust; utilitas denotes the benefits of marriage such as forming family alliances, gaining wealth, and protection through children; and iocunditas refers to the physical pleasures and emotional support within marriage as well as the overall joys of family life.49 Most humanist orators followed Guarino in adopting this classical framework. According to classical rhetoric, the epithalamium was a demonstrative or epideictic genre used to praise or blame people, events, or institutions.50 Guarino chose and adapted this epideictic form to praise marriage and to celebrate the Este family and their subjects in Ferrara. Guarino’s orations not only reveal his Latin stylistic models, but also show the influence of Greek authors as models for structure and sources of ideas. Mauro de Nichilo has established from internal evidence that Guarino used the precepts of pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Menander Rhetor for his wedding orations.51 Guarino’s sojourn in Constantinople, his broad reading of Greek authors, and the contact he had with Byzantine Greek refugees, both Chrysoloras and Gaza, are all pertinent to the revival of the nuptial oration. Unlike Western Europe, Byzantium had preserved essentially intact the ancient system of rhetorical education and the practice of epideictic oratory.52 From the late fourteenth century on, several important Byzantine scholars moved to Italy.53 Manuel Chrysoloras, who was perhaps the most influential Greek intel-

42

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

lectual, came to Italy and began teaching Greek in Florence as early as 1397.54 Latin humanists benefited not only from the classical texts that Greeks brought to Italy, but also from the teachers themselves, who were exponents of an epideictic tradition still very much a part of Byzantine society. The Byzantine scholar Theodore Gaza worked with Guarino and taught rhetoric and philosophy in Ferrara from 1446 to 1449.55 Gaza is important for the history of marriage oratory, since he was the first to translate into Latin the precepts for the epithalamium written by the late antique rhetorician pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus.56 In his dedication to Luchino de Medici, Gaza says that he was asked to translate Dionysius so that Luchino might learn from the author’s style and content.57 The translation of Greek texts was a major activity of Renaissance intellectuals. Their conviction that language conveyed meaning both by its content and by its style was at the heart of their educational theories of imitation. From Cicero, Horace, and Jerome, they culled a basic theory of translation, which they appropriated and changed accordingly. In the fifteenth century there were generally three methods of translation: Filelfo and Guarino tended to follow the medieval tradition of translating ad verbum (literally), which led to a stiff Latin style; Chrysoloras expounded the ad sententiam (according to the sense) method without concern for formal qualities; and Poggio Bracciolini adopted a versio libera (freer) method where he often left out words or phrases of the original. Leonardo Bruni was the earliest and perhaps most innovative Renaissance translator. In his treatise on the subject, he attacked the literal translations of the scholastics as illegible, and championed an ad sententiam method.58 In his Latin translation of pseudo-Dionysius, Gaza attempted to preserve some of the Greek style without sacrificing content.59 His translation, however, was more important for its content than as a model of style. In addition to Dionysius, the recovery of the thirdcentury Atticist writer, Menander Rhetor, was essential for the development of marriage rhetoric in the Renaissance.60 The only surviving ancient works that treated the ancient epithalamium in prose were those of Dionysius and Menander.61 In their handbooks, both rhetoricians discuss the rules of epideictic for special occasions, such as funerals, birthdays, and weddings. Such ceremonial speeches, far from law courts and deliberative assemblies, acted as accompaniments or sometimes substitutes for poetry in antiquity. In his second letter, Dionysius

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

43

deals with the nuptial oration, and lists such points to be praised as fatherland, family, character, education, and the ancestors of the couple.62 Menander lists similar topics in his treatment of the epithalamium, but emphasizes the inclusion of mythological stories and the erotic nature of the speech.63 The structure and sources of many Renaissance wedding orations reveal the use of these ancient precepts. Indeed, epithalamia became popular just after these Greek rhetorical works were available in the mid-fifteenth century.64 Although Italian humanists had access to these two fragmented accounts of the prose epithalamium from late antiquity, they had no models of actual ancient wedding orations on which they could base their own creations. Fifteenth-century humanists had examples of judicial and deliberative oratory in the works of Cicero and Demosthenes, and examples of epideictic in Pericles’ funeral oration in Thucydides, Aristides’ praise of Athens, and Pliny’s panegyric of the Emperor Trajan, but no ancient prose epithalamia. Menander Rhetor and pseudo-Dionysius may have supplied them with a generalized outline of the epithalamium, but humanists had no actual orations to imitate. Fifteenth-century orators, therefore, did not so much adapt ancient epithalamia to fit a new context as created their own orations based on rules from antiquity. Other quattrocento teachers were also important for the recovery of classical rhetoric and the revival of the wedding oration.65 Gasparino Barzizza (1360–1431) wrote a popular rhetorical treatise based on the stylistic rules of newly recovered works of the Latin rhetorical tradition. Barzizza taught rhetoric at Padua from 1407 to 1421, where he was in contact with Guarino and Francesco Filelfo. He then taught in Bergamo until his death in 1431.66 Although Gasparino himself does not discuss the wedding oration, a number of wedding orations written by his son, Guiniforte (1406–1463), survive.67 Guiniforte taught oratory and moral philosophy in Milan and Pavia before working in Ferrara for Borso d’Este from 1448 to 1455.68 Another Italian professor, the Sienese Agostino Dati (1420–1478), wrote a popular rhetorical treatise in the midfifteenth century. Dati studied rhetoric under Filelfo from 1434 to 1438. He worked in Urbino for Duke Oddo Antonio da Montefeltro, in Rome for Pope Nicholas V, and eventually returned to Siena where he held political offices and was chancellor for twenty six years.69 Dati’s oeuvre includes twelve wedding orations and a congratulatory letter written for Francesco Patrizi (1413–1494) on his marriage.70 But while there were

44

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

other humanists who were interested in this genre in the early fifteenth century, none was as prolific and influential on the genre’s later development as Guarino. Guarino’s most famous pupil was Ludovico Carbone (1430–1485).71 He taught rhetoric and “humanae litterae” at the University of Ferrara from 1456 and delivered numerous orations for the Este court.72 For his literary accomplishments, Pius II awarded Carbone the title of palatine count, and on his brief visit to Ferrara in 1469, Emperor Frederick III crowned him poet laureate.73 In his 1460 funeral oration for Guarino, Carbone credits his teacher with almost single-handedly restoring classical literature.74 He expanded on Guarino’s models by using a larger pool of classical and contemporary sources, more elaborate arguments, and personal anecdotes in his numerous epithalamia.75 His wide-ranging thought is couched in a sophisticated Latin style, and he often quotes authors in Greek. Carbone’s orations are much longer than the speeches of Guarino and most other orators.76 They are replete with self-referential information and comments about the Este lords and his status as a courtly humanist. In addition to praising marriage in his epithalamia, Carbone himself married sometime between 1466 and 1471.77 His literary production, which included dialogues and treatises as well as orations, was immense, and in his oration to Emperor Frederick III in 1469 he justly boasted: “I have written two hundred orations, up to ten thousand verses, and delivered them all myself. I have honored all the famous men of my homeland with a funeral oration, and have accompanied almost all the illustrious matrons with an oration at their weddings.”78 More than any other orator, Carbone was able to transform the wedding oration into a courtly medium of praise and propaganda. The wedding orations of Guarino, Carbone, and others were not just academic exercises. They were delivered at aristocratic weddings and played an essential role in the magnificent ceremonies. In Italian courts, all public events called for the exhibition of grandeur, wealth, and magnificence, but none as effectively as a wedding between two great families, each of a noble ancestry or having pretensions to nobility. Just as court festivals after 1450 became more chivalric and regal in tone, elite wedding ceremonies were increasingly complex.79 As rulers consolidated or established their dynastic hold over Italian courts, they developed a taste for aristocratic display and sought to increase their influence through spectacle. In Ferrara, Duke Borso and then Ercole d’Este used celebra-

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

45

tions for feast days and carnival as political propaganda.80 Epithalamia contributed to and formed a central part of the festive atmosphere of courtly weddings. Even in republican Florence, weddings became occasions for excess. Leonardo Bruni complained about his own wedding in a letter to Poggio Bracciolini: “I have not just spent money on my marriage, but almost entirely used up my patrimony on one wedding. It is unbelievable how much is spent on these new weddings; habits have become so disgusting.”81 Another Florentine, Matteo Palmieri, decried what he saw as the decadence of the wedding procession: Nowadays, in the midst of Christian observance, virgins are dressed up as much as possible, publicly displayed on horses, and painted with lascivious cosmetics. Trumpets go before them calling the people to come see the unbridled daring of meretricious passion. They take these brides-to-be to the jousting fields and parade them around the public squares to show that they are going to lose their virginity.82

Such complaints, however, are generally limited to Tuscany.83 In his treatise on marriage, the Venetian humanist Francesco Barbaro used classical authorities to argue in favor of splendid wedding celebrations.84 Almost a century later, the Neapolitan humanist Giovanni Pontano argued that weddings should be rich and magnificent events, since marriage is so important for the welfare of cities and morality.85 Weddings in papal Rome were no less sumptuous. Sixtus IV and Cardinal Pietro Riario spared no expense for Eleanor of Aragon in 1473, when she stopped in Rome on her way to Ferrara. They transformed a piazza into a magnificent theater and feted the bride with a banquet that lasted seven hours. There were four tablecloths; as each was removed, the scenery around the table and the costumes of the other banqueters changed accordingly. The many dishes were all shaped into elaborate stories, such as the toils of Hercules and the triumphs of Venus, and into intricate objects, such as ships and castles. Descriptive Latin verses accompanied them.86 The extravagant festivities and banquet for Eleanor were celebrated and described in minute detail in two lengthy Virgilian Latin poems.87 At the wedding of Lucrezia Borgia and Giovanni Sforza in 1493, 150 Roman matrons each kissed Pope Alexander VI’s foot before the ceremony began.88 The wedding of Lucrezia Borgia and Alfonso d’Este in 1502 coincided with carnival celebrations. In addition to the

46

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

traditional races of Jews, youths, and prostitutes, there were mythological floats, bull fights, and the storming of a massive wooden castle.89 In Rome, weddings were occasions for theatrical performances, comedies, and poetry readings in the late fifteenth century. Elite weddings in all the Italian courts were expected to be elaborate. After listing the marriages that Ercole d’Este had arranged, the humanist Sabadino degli Arienti emphasized that all of these weddings were performed magnificently and at great expense.90 In his description of the 1487 wedding of Lucrezia d’Este and Annibale Bentivoglio in Bologna, Filippo Beroaldo says that Giovanni Bentivoglio “desired to be called the most complete host and wanted this nuptial banquet to be an example for the future.”91 As a climax for the seven-hour long banquet, pastry chefs spent an entire day constructing giant sweets in the shape of castles, ships, people, and animals. A Florentine engineer constructed a huge flaming wheel for a fireworks display; flames erupted loudly, and spectators ran for cover as their clothes caught on fire, and the whole sky seemed to be burning.92 Pontano described weddings with over 30,000 guests, which featured banquets, fountains of wine, horse races, and hunting performances.93 While such figures are probably exaggerated, in addition to foreign and provincial guests many local citizens would have participated in wedding celebrations. The large populations of Naples, Milan, and Ferrara make Pontano’s estimate not entirely outlandish.94 In 1473 Eleanor of Aragon was met at the gates of Ferrara with a giant procession of allegorical floats and 120 trumpets. Festivities lasted eight days. There was a banquet of fifty-six courses including peacocks raised by the Este lords, followed by a dance. At one of the many jousts 130 plates of sugar sculptures in the form of castles, maidens, and animals were served.95 In 1502, Lucrezia Borgia was similarly met at the gates of Ferrara by a procession of nobles led by seventy-five archers on horseback and eighty trumpets. The groom, Alfonso d’Este, wore red velvet and rode a gold-covered horse. Fourteen floats carrying ladies-in-waiting, two white mules and two horses covered in velvet, and eighty-six mules carrying the bride’s clothes and jewels followed. At one point on their way to the center, Lucrezia fell when her horse took fright from a canon, but the duke helped her onto another horse and the procession continued. That evening the Ferrarese entertained the bride with music, epithalamic poetry, and an oration. Festivities continued for another six days.96 By the mid-fifteenth century most nuptial celebrations in Italian courts

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

47

included a rhetorical performance. In a 1455 oration, Gabriel Paverius Fontana (1420–1490)97 described a courtly wedding in Milan: If only you had been here earlier, Antonio, you would have seen the celebrations that Francesco Sforza prepared for his son Tristano’s wedding. They were so sumptuous and extravagant and laid out with such splendor that no one could have or will ever do better. Plutarch praised Lucullus for his banquets and Virgil imagined the magnificent games that Aeneas held for his father’s funeral. Augustus instituted the Actean games after the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. But none of the great men of Antiquity or any of those living can compete with Francesco Sforza. For their splendor is like that of the stars; the rising sun leaves them in the dark. But I shall describe to you the wedding, the bride, the banquets, and the games. For his own glory and that of his sons and daughters, as well as the court, our prince spent fortythousand gold pieces on the festivities.98

Classical models of extravagance were not only to be imitated but also surpassed. Fontana then recounted the numerous grand and extravagant weddings of the Sforza family, listing details such as what clothes and jewelry the brides wore, the seating arrangements, the processions, and musical performances.99 A focal point for these entertainments was the wedding oration delivered by Francesco Filelfo.100 In an exceptionally long epithalamium, Francesco’s son, Giovanni Mario Filelfo, described the extravagant nuptial ceremonies and festivities for Roberto Malatesta and Elisabeta Feretana (Montefeltro) in Rimini in 1475.101 Similar celebrations accompanied the wedding of Isabella of Aragon and Giangaleazzo Sforza in 1489. The courtier Giovanni II Tolentino described the procession, boats, musicians, triumphal arch, and the prince and noble guests who all gathered to hear the nuptial oration.102 Before she left Naples in 1473, Pontano composed a verse epithalamium for Eleanor of Aragon, and Giovanni Brancati delivered a wedding oration. While Carbone was not able to deliver the oration he had composed for the occasion, Battista Guarini recited a verse epithalamium to the bride on her arrival in Ferrara, and a couple of months later Matteo Canale presented his poem.103 The wedding oration held a prominent position in all these festivities. It served to entertain, like a musical and theatrical performance. Orators were chosen on the basis of talent rather than social position, and more often than not lay humanists were selected over clerics.104 When the Florentine ambassador Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) delivered

48

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

an oration in Naples for the wedding of Prince Ferrante, “the impression he made was so great that the king sat motionless on the throne, ‘like a brazen statue, and did not even brush away a fly, which had settled on his nose at the beginning of the oration.’”105 Such a display of eloquence created a sense of richness and learning, and evoked an ancient imperial magnificence. In addition to the style and content of the oration, the delivery itself was a vital part of the performance. Epithalamia were delivered at banquets and sometimes in or in front of churches.106 Orators would usually read speeches that they had previously composed, but sometimes they had memorized them beforehand. Vespasiano da Bisticci tells how Ambrogio Traversari lost his place while delivering an oration at the Council of Basel, but was able to consult a written copy in his sleeve, find his place, and finish the speech without further problem.107 Some humanists delivered an oration first in the vernacular and then translated it into Latin.108 In Venice, for example, Manetti reportedly delivered such an outstanding oration in the vernacular that he afterwards had it written up in Latin.109 Other humanists delivered a shorter vernacular version after the Latin oration. Such vernacular speeches differ for the most part only in language and length, not content.110 The extant works of the Sienese humanist Agostino Dati include seven wedding orations in Latin and thirteen in the vernacular. His fourth Latin and fourth vernacular orations were delivered by his ten-year-old (great)grandson.111 This practice was apparently not uncommon, as the Milanese canon Pier Leone di Cavaglia had his four-year-old niece deliver an oration at the wedding of Beatrice of Portugal and Carlo III, Duke of Savoy in 1521.112 Like Ippolita Sforza, who at the age of fourteen delivered a Latin oration before Pius II in 1459, these examples of children delivering Latin orations in the Renaissance demonstrate a fondness for child prodigies and a belief in the difficulty and importance of a classical education in Italian society. At weddings, child orators perhaps also served to emphasize procreation. Although some orations were delivered in the vernacular, most wedding orations were written and delivered in classicizing Latin, as the ancient language no doubt added to the spectacle of the occasion, allowed for greater rhetorical flourish, and would have been considered a more appropriate language for the subject matter. Many surviving epithalamia are short and formulaic, but some are quite long.113 Orators generally followed a consistent rhetorical formula and used similar categories of

The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings

49

praise. Most orations were constructed in the same way as Pandolfo Collenuccio’s oration for the wedding of Costanzo Sforza and Camilla of Aragon in 1475, as described by an anonymous contemporary: All the ornately dressed guests, ambassadors, gentlemen, and ladies were ushered into a room and asked to be silent. There the famous doctor of law, Pandolfo Collenuccio of Pesaro, stood up on a prepared pulpit and delivered a most worthy oration, which lasted over an hour. He discussed marriage, praised the bride and groom, the Houses of Aragon and Sforza, the gentlemen and ambassadors in the audience, and the city. He said things that pertained to the act of marriage and prayed to God that it might prosper.114

This is similar to the ancient epithalamium in that the orator discussed marriage and the lineage of those marrying. In his encomiastic poem about the wedding, Antonio Costanzi says that “Federico da Montefeltro attentively listened, and Sixtus’s delegate approved, as Collenuccio spoke in such great Ciceronian periods that he could have halted wild tigers, moved a mountain, and stopped the flowing Ganges.”115 Collenuccio also included a panegyric of the city and praised famous members of the audience, just as orators in Ferrara included extensive praise for Borso and Ercole d’Este in their epithalamia. Latin wedding orations were popular until the early sixteenth century, when verse epithalamia and music began to replace them.116 In the late fifteenth century, verse epithalamia already played a prominent role in elite weddings. They were read either during banquets or as part of a separate entertainment. Weddings in Rome and Bologna tended only to have verse epithalamia, and in the other courts poetry often accompanied and was sometimes read in place of a prose oration.117 (Giannantonio Campano’s epithalamium is an exception, as it was originally delivered as an oration in Rome in 1458 and then expanded into a treatise in 1468.)118 Ferrara, Naples, Milan, and Rimini were the centers for Renaissance nuptial oratory, but in the sixteenth century, music, dance, and theater became the favored entertainment for courtly weddings. Apart from changes in taste, the growing acceptance and popularity of the vernacular no doubt contributed to its obsolescence. In composing wedding orations, fifteenth-century humanists looked to antiquity and the precepts of ancient epideictic rhetoric for models rather than to the more traditional marriage sermon or notarial formu-

50

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

lae. They revived the genre of the epithalamium to fit the peculiar ceremonial needs of Italian Renaissance courts. By adopting classical forms, humanist orators were able to fashion a less legalistic, less didactic, and less religious discourse about marriage. The revival of the ancient nuptial oration is tied to the humanist belief that form not only conveys but affects and shapes meaning. What started first in Ferrara under the guidance of Guarino became popular throughout all the signorial cities of Italy. Later orators in Ferrara, Naples, and Milan added more complexity, variety, and sophistication to the early Renaissance models for epithalamia. This newly revived form was essential for expressing the new values in the courts of Renaissance Italy.

3

Weddings as Propaganda: Rhetoric and Court Culture

In the second half of the fifteenth century, rulers in Ferrara, Naples, and Milan sought to reinforce their political power and to create an atmosphere of legitimate and consensual government through cultural means.1 The Este, the Aragonese, and the Sforza families adopted many of the ceremonial and cultural accoutrements of the northern courts of France. They read chivalric romances and patronized courtly entertainments, such as jousts, theater, and ballet.2 But while they continued to place themselves in a medieval courtly tradition, Italian rulers also drew inspiration from classical antiquity. They employed humanists to praise them in classical terms and to defend the legitimacy of their political power in wedding orations. Before an audience of elite persons and foreign dignitaries, orators argued for the superiority of monarchy and delivered extensive panegyrics of rulers. The terms of these panegyrics reveal the ideals of Italian Renaissance courts and the images that rulers wished to project to their subjects, allies, and foes. Marriage for signorial families was the principal means of forming alliances with other princely families, which, in addition to strengthening their own power base at home, allowed them to extend their territory and influence abroad. Accordingly, the wedding itself became an occasion to reaffirm their status. Increasingly elaborate nuptial festivities, processions, and banquets emphasized the grandeur of ruling families, and as the century progressed, orations were used more and more as a medium for propaganda. The newly revived ancient epithalamium expressed the values of an heroic classical past within and sometimes in conflict with the Christian society of the fifteenth century. 51

52

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Wedding orations functioned as panegyrics for rulers and elites in Italian courts. The genre of panegyric has provoked mixed reactions. Augustine dismissed it as lies, while Leonardo Bruni limited its use by separating history and praise.3 The great quantity of extant Renaissance panegyrics, however, is proof in itself of the historical importance of this rhetorical genre. Encomia reveal how rulers and elites wished to be presented. But Renaissance panegyric was not only flattery; it also served a didactic purpose both for the princes and for their subjects. By praising rulers as just and benevolent, orators hoped to influence princes to practice such qualities.4 When they compare rulers and elites to virtuous Romans in wedding orations, humanists present them with models of behavior.5 The purpose of panegyric, Erasmus, expanding on Aristotle,6 explains: “consists in presenting princes with a pattern of goodness, in such a way as to reform bad rulers, improve the good, educate the boorish, reprove the erring, arouse the indolent, and cause even the hopelessly vicious to feel some inward stirrings of shame.”7 The power of praise to change and improve behavior, accordingly, justifies exaggeration or even the telling of lies. Erasmus continues: “Are we not right sometimes to inspire children to enthusiasm for goodness by means of false praise? Do not the best physicians tell their patients that they find their appearance and colour satisfactory, rather in order to make them so than because they are so?”8 Behind the humanist revival of ancient panegyric was the belief that praise and blame can move to perfection. In addition to presenting models of behavior to be imitated, humanists sometimes offered negative historical examples. Boccaccio and Poggio Bracciolini, for example, wrote about illfated and corrupt rulers to show princes how not to act.9 The humanist educational theory of exemplum is ultimately Socratic and implicitly anti-Augustinian. It equates the knowledge of virtue with virtue, and claims that the knowledge of punishment acts as a deterrent against immoral activity.10 Rulers were constantly told to imitate the virtuous kings and emperors of antiquity. The Persian King Cyrus, whose education Xenophon had recounted in the Cyropaedeia, was a particularly popular model for Renaissance rulers. In his treatise, “On the Prince” (1468), for example, Pontano repeatedly referred to Xenophon’s life, and Filelfo ended the preface to his translation of the work by stating: “In one king, Cyrus of the Persians, Xenophon shows all the qualities necessary in a just and high prince.”11 There were many translations of Xenophon in the fifteenth century. Lorenzo Valla translated parts of it for

Weddings as Propaganda

53

Ferrante in Naples, and the Ferrarese humanist Matteo Maria Boiardo translated it into Italian for Ercole d’Este.12 When Poggio Bracciolini dedicated his translation to Alfonso of Aragon in 1451, however, the king did not at first accept it. He was offended by Poggio’s assertion that the Cyropaedeia was not true history, since “no prince like this had ever existed,” but that it was rather a story about the ideal education of a perfect prince.13 By saying that no perfect prince had ever existed, Poggio was in effect criticizing Alfonso. The story reveals not only the high regard Alfonso had for himself, but also the importance that rulers placed on panegyric. Images of the perfect prince could theoretically create problems for rulers who did not live up to such ideals. Such problems rarely occurred, however, since humanists most often praised rulers for emulating and even surpassing ancient models. Panegyric was believed to have the same transformative and didactic effect as the figurative arts.14 In addition to books, Ludovico Carbone says in a wedding oration that he filled his study with a thousand paintings and statues: “I can never look at the image of Leonello d’Este without my eyes filling with tears. I keep your statue, oh glorious prince, like a queen in the middle of the rest. By its venerable gravitas and august majesty it urges me to virtue, to wisdom, to eloquence and promises me something great if I should persevere in my undertaking.”15 While Carbone praised the power of sculpture to inspire virtue, he asserted the primacy of poetry over the figurative arts by explaining that Zeuxis and Phidias achieved fame by following the divine verses of Homer.16 Carbone’s ekphrasis of the statue competes with the statue itself. The power of the word to conjure up an image, to influence behavior, and to transform is a central tenet of rhetoric. An orator identified only as Alessandro, says of the Marquis of Mantua: “We should celebrate the prince as eternal and immortal with praise, so that we may reveal the divine image of his virtues not only in statues and pictures but in imitation and deeds.”17 While art can be protreptic, the spoken word, the orator implies, has a greater ability to urge an audience, including the ruler, to virtue. Humanists also used panegyric to justify and promote a monarchical form of government. In the second half of the fifteenth century, advice books for rulers proliferated. Like earlier works designed to support the claims of rulers, the treatises of Pontano, Francesco Patrizi, Platina, and other humanists were written both to advise princes and to defend their

54

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

right to rule.18 Similar defenses of monarchy were also included in wedding orations, which, unlike political treatises, have been neglected by scholars.19 Whereas political treatises were written for princes and advisers to princes, wedding orations addressed a much broader, although still elite, audience. The two media also had different functions. In the former it was the humanist advising the prince; in the latter it was more often the prince projecting an image to his court through the humanist orator. In the beginning of the fifteenth century humanists revived the ancient form of civic panegyric. Leonardo Bruni based his laudatio of Florence (1404) on Aristides’ panegyric of Athens.20 In it, Bruni claimed that Florence was superior to all other Italian cities in every respect, including its geographical position, its constitution, and its citizenry. He argued that since Florence was founded by Sulla in the glorious period of the ancient Roman republic, she was free of the corruption that followed during the time of the emperors. Humanists in other Italian cities were not surprisingly critical of such politically charged assertions. Accordingly, in 1435, the Duke of Milan’s secretary, Pier Candido Decembrio, responded to Bruni by writing a panegyric of Milan in which he asserted that his city excelled Florence in every respect.21 Long before Florence was founded by the wicked tyrant Sulla, Decembrio declared, a most noble Celtic king established Milan as a timocracy, which, according to Decembrio’s interpretation of Plato, was the best political system.22 Both of these works demonstrate how humanists in republics and courts shared many of the same classical forms and assumptions.23 Soon after, wedding orators would also use panegyric as a medium for political philosophy. Orators at court weddings often argued that government by a prince was the best political form. While some scholars, such as Marsiglio of Padua, used Aristotle to defend constitutional forms of government, others quoted him to assert the superiority of monarchy.24 Francesco Bertini (d. 1475), for example, who worked at the court of Naples for King Ferrante of Aragon,25 supports his arguments for monarchy by referring to Aristotle. At the wedding of Ippolita Sforza to Alfonso II of Aragon in 1465 he declared: “Kings were placed on earth in order to preserve justice and equity, since men willingly obey, cherish, and admire them in whom this singularly excellent and divine virtue shines.”26 Bertini stressed that kings are the proper guardians of justice. Weddings were considered

Weddings as Propaganda

55

an appropriate time for humanists to declaim such laudatory political philosophy. The Sforza family, who ruled Milan in the second half of the fifteenth century, provides a good example of the use of rhetoric and myth in wedding orations to support princely power. Francesco Sforza, a condottiere of humble origins, inherited the Visconti dukedom of Milan by marrying his employer’s daughter, Bianca Maria Visconti, in 1443. When Bianca’s father Filippo Maria died in 1447, the Milanese did not consent to Sforza’s rule. Instead, they formed a republic. Francesco fought this so called Ambrosian Republic for three years, and in 1450 took the city with the aid of Venetian troops.27 In a 1487 wedding oration, the Milanese orator Giovanni Marliani described Sforza’s seizure of power.28 Citing Homer (Iliad II. 204–205), he proclaimed, “Let there be one prince, one king. For the rule of many is not good. With the singular consent of all, they [the Milanese] greeted Francesco as prince of Milan.”29 Other humanists also used Homer to defend monarchy.30 Sforza initiated a program of cultural propaganda to reinforce his military superiority. The audience of these Latin orations would have included the elites who had set up the Ambrosian Republic, who were well aware that Sforza had not received any such universal acclaim. In a wedding oration to mark the marriage alliance between the Sforza and the Este families in 1477, Francesco Filelfo began with an argument for the necessity of having an elite class of citizens. Referring to Aristotle, he declared that “in every kind of state it is necessary to establish a society of those to be most powerful . . .”31 Filelfo maintained that nature and God accorded this to be the most fitting society. A powerful elite is necessary to protect citizens. Filelfo was no doubt sincere in his aristocratic sentiments, as he saw educated humanists and propertied elite in constant tension with the lower classes.32 It was, of course, in a humanist’s best interest to favor the elite upon whose patronage he depended and who were most likely to require his services. Filelfo developed these ideas further in a preface of the same year (probably dedicated to Francesco Sforza) to his translation of Xenophon’s Cyropaedeia.33 In the perfect government there is no dissension but consensus. For a long time and even today both nobles and commoners have decided that this form of government is represented in a certain royal princi-

56

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

pate. For even the Venetian Senate, which is made up of aristocrats, creates a Doge, as do the Florentine people a Standard-bearer of justice. Even among the Romans it occurred like this . . . [They chose] Julius Caesar, who was more perfect than anything in nature and absolute in every kind of virtue. After quelling the civil war, he first stabilized and established the empire which still remains today . . . We see and recognize even in our time Filippo Maria Duke of Milan and King Alfonso, two perfect and most noble princes; not to mention the popes of the Church . . . Eugene IV . . . Nicholas V . . . and Paul II.34

According to Filelfo, even the so-called republics of Venice and Florence appointed a single leader. One-man rule was a necessary and superior form of government, since only in this way could dissension be avoided. Both Pier Paolo Vergerio and Platina had used the same argument in earlier political treatises, and Sabadino degli Arienti later asserted this in his encomium of Este rule in Ferrara in 1497.35 Filelfo argued that Milan, Naples, and the Church of Rome all followed the great example of Julius Caesar and other Roman emperors. He, however, did not limit himself to past and present examples of just rulers; Filelfo contended that monarchy was superior because it was both divine and natural. The human mind ought to conform with the mind of God in whose image it was created . . . Just as the heavens are held together by the first mover, the body by the soul, and all the virtues by one wisdom, so does one prince rule. If it naturally happens that one God arranges all things in a certain order and the same God regulates and controls the functioning and preparation of the world, who should doubt that government is most wisely and healthily established and extended by the industry and art of one prudent and great man who follows and imitates nature? Cranes and bees follow one leader.36

Castiglione further developed the argument of nature in the Courtier (1528).37 Following Aristotle, Filelfo argued that the family is also proof of the natural superiority of an hierarchical government. “For just as the entire household is under the pater familias, so is the state justly under one prince. As Alexander said to the conquered Darius, there are neither two suns over the earth nor two kings over Asia.”38 Filelfo closes his defense with an historical argument: “What need is there for other arguments when God Himself created man to rule over all the other animals and Himself desired to become man at the same time as one prince, Cae-

Weddings as Propaganda

57

sar Augustus, ruled the entire world? While among men He acted as a prince and when He left them He returned to heaven as a king.”39 Such argumentation reveals tensions between classical antiquity and Christianity. When orators compared rulers to Roman emperors, they had to somehow christianize these pagan role models. Thus Jesus’ birth during the reign of Augustus is used as proof for Christian approval of the Roman Empire. Ludovico Carbone, a fellow student with Filelfo under Guarino, similarly defended the princely rule of the Este in Ferrara and the Aragonese in Naples. While Filelfo only referred briefly to the superiority of monarchy in wedding orations and more extensively in a dedicatory preface, Carbone included elaborate discussions of political philosophy in epithalamia. In his 1473 oration for Eleanor of Aragon and Ercole d’Este, Carbone emphasized the particular problems of preserving justice in a signorial regime: If [justice] is maintained, a king has respect and outstanding glory. [The king], since he presides and dominates over others, has in his power the laws and institutions of his lands, and can either follow, abandon, change, or pervert them. This is not permitted in a government which is ruled by the consensus of many and not by the judgment of one. Such a government does not have the power to turn from just laws and to spurn its decrees.40

Rather than favoring a republican form of government over monarchy, however, Carbone asserted that a wise and just king is “like a god.” Ferrante of Aragon personifies this virtue. In such a great position of power and license, a king, if he is motivated by nature or reason to join his will with the will of the laws, obtains such great respect and reverence that he appears like a god on earth and seems to rule men with a divine power. You, O prince, present yourself as such a man, so that everyone believes that you have a beneficent divinity in you and divine power. For law and equity is so well maintained that in your kingdom and empire there is no injustice or trouble . . . everyone is able to have his own business, and to retain and to increase his resources according to his judgment. Your people are not compelled to sustain great burdens and to bear heavy tributes; and if they are involved in a legal dispute, whether rich or poor, they can expect justice.41

While a republic maintains the consensus of its citizens as a protection against tyranny, a benevolent monarchy is superior in that the prince’s

58

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

will is equal to the law.42 According to both Carbone and Filelfo, monarchy reflects the divine order, since the prince is like God, the sole ruler. When he must praise Florence, Carbone makes no mention of its republican form of government. In a wedding oration for Paula Strozzi and Zarabinus Turchus in Ferrara in the 1460s, he provided an apolitical panegyric of Florence: What shall I say to you about the divinity of the city of Florence? If you look at her sunny choice geographical position, you will think her built by the hands of the gods. If you contemplate her august buildings, magnificent churches, palaces and streets, you will confess that divinities had made their home there. If [you see] the beauty of her women, the elegance of her youth, the keenness, industry, [and] moderation of her men, you will say that the gods love them alone . . . Florence is renowned throughout the world . . . Where are Florentine merchants not living? Germany, France, [and] Britain are full of Florentines.43

Carbone, nevertheless, perpetuated the myth of Florentine invincibility: The powerful ruler of Milan could not vanquish Florence even though he had brought almost all of Tuscany under his yoke. In our time the very strong king Alfonso [of Aragon] was unable to carry out his plans in Italy because of Florentine opposition and skill. Florence is considered the head of Tuscany itself, so that she is seen to have descended not only from the Fiesolans but from the Romans themselves.44

Carbone’s encomium reflected both the fifteenth-century revival of the ancient rhetorical practice of praising cities and the power of Florentine propaganda. He only indirectly referred to Florence’s foundation myth. In addition to Giangaleazzo Visconti’s death and defeat before Florence in 1402, Carbone praised Florence’s diplomatic settlement to end King Alfonso of Naples’ advance into Tuscany in 1447–1449.45 He did not mention Florentine liberty or refer to the superiority of Florence over other cities. Carbone also circumscribed his praise by emphasizing that Florence is head of Tuscany (not Italy). In another oration, which he planned to deliver in Naples, Carbone argued that the Ferrarese government was consensual: In Italy, the Este princes are so esteemed by their citizens, so beloved by their peoples that they are often asked by foreigners to rule over them. The Este are not cruel tyrants nor unjust lords but the most in-

Weddings as Propaganda

59

dulgent fathers of their citizens and subjects. They do not seize the property of others but rather share their own most liberally with those whom their nobility has embraced with such strong benevolence, and such pious, sweet, and paternal heartfelt love.46

The Este became lords of Ferrara in 1264 when Obizzo d’Este was elected signore for life by a popular vote.47 This in turn became hereditary. Thus there is some historical basis for the claim that Este rule is legitimate, because the people consented to their leadership. The image of foreigners asking to be subjugated, however, is a rather audacious one to include in a wedding oration to be delivered before the allied court of Naples. Ercole d’Este was particularly well-versed at manipulating public opinion. While his brother Borso was in power, Ercole gained his confidence and worked his way into a strong position within the regime. He was careful not to raise suspicions—internal conspiracies occurred often in Italian courts.48 In 1469 Ercole revealed a plot against Borso by their nephews, who planned to replace Borso with Ercole. The conspirators were beheaded, and Ercole became even more dear to his brother and the people.49 Borso died that summer and Ercole easily succeeded him. In his Neapolitan wedding oration, Carbone turned this episode into historical proof for the legitimacy of Ercole’s rule: This matter [Ercole’s revelation of the conspiracy] wonderfully increased the citizens’ love for Ercole, since they understood that he was not gaining princely power by force, deceit, or treachery, but only insofar as God and nature allowed. Indeed, he had our hearts before, but by this most noble and glorious deed, he doubled the benevolence of all toward him.50

Not only was Ercole’s rule sanctioned by God and nature, but he had the universal approval of the people over whom he ruled: Borso had not yet breathed his last when the Senate and the entire people proclaimed their allegiance to Ercole with the highest approval of gods and men, so that we could easily believe that the Romans did not greet Scipio returning from conquered Carthage with such great joy or that Scipio Africanus received such great applause, or Pompey was greeted by so great a throng when he led Aristobulus, king of the Jews, in triumph.51

Carbone presented Ercole’s accession to power as superior to even that of the great Roman generals, since his was a peaceful triumph rather

60

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

than a military victory. The affirmation of popular support for the prince would have been particularly important in a foreign context, such as in this oration before the Aragonese court in Naples. Even when rulers were not the ones marrying, humanists spent an inordinate amount of time singing their praises in epithalamia. Humanists in Italian courts appropriated the rules and models of ancient rhetoric to flatter and to support specific rulers before subject elites and foreign dignitaries. In 1428, Guarino composed a panegyric for the well-known condottiere, Francesco Bussone, known as Carmagnola, following the scheme for praising famous people in the Rhetorica ad Herennium.52 For their encomia of rulers, orators in signorial cities also used the panegyrics of the emperor Trajan as models. In 1433, Giovanni Aurispa discovered this collection of twelve panegyrics, which included the famous oration by Pliny.53 In praising the second-century Roman emperor, Pliny used basic ideas and categories that humanist orators would take up in their orations. He presented Trajan not as lord (dominus) but as father (pater) of his people. Among other attributes, he stated that the emperor should be just, moderate, brave, truthful, magnanimous, and caring for the welfare of his people.54 Pliny’s oration was already a popular model for fourth-century panegyrics. In the dynamic and sometimes unstable world of late antiquity, Roman emperors were particularly conscious of the usefulness of panegyric for cultural manipulation and propaganda.55 They employed orators to praise them as fathers, benefactors, and generals. The genre appealed in the same way to fifteenth-century Italian rulers, who had to govern in similarly unstable conditions.56 Fifteenth-century wedding orators presented rulers as models of virtue to be imitated. In the epithalamium for Eleanor of Aragon and Ercole d’Este, Carbone praised King Ferrante of Aragon by stating that he had learned from his father, Alfonso “in whom we see all that is expected in the highest and perfect king.” Starting with prudence, Carbone defined each of the regal virtues, then praised Ferrante for practicing them.57 The orator then asserted that a ruler should be just and merciful and he compared the prince to Roman emperors as models of these virtues: Like Caesar, you forgive injuries, pardon acts of revenge, and are lenient toward your vanquished enemies . . . For Caesar is not praised for war, robbery, slaughter, and bloodshed, but for being most lenient after his victory in the civil wars. Vespasian used to say that he would

Weddings as Propaganda

61

rather die than punish. Hadrian and Antoninus both said “I prefer to save one citizen than to kill ten-thousand enemies.” Alexander the Great restored the kingdoms of Asia to their vanquished princes and treated king Darius’s mother and wife with reverence. O most gentle king Ferrante, do you see that you are like the great emperors or rather that you follow the precepts of Jesus Christ who prayed for his persecutors . . .58

Clemency was the essence of good kingship and a heroic and Christian virtue. Carbone continues: Clemency alone makes man equal to the immortal gods. In no way do we approach the gods more than when we grant men life (salutem). Princes have no greater fortune nor better nature than when they are able and willing to save as many people as possible, to win their minds, to quell their anger, to temper their victory, and not only to raise their fallen adversaries who are outstanding in nobility, character, and virtue, but even to increase their enemies’ former dignity. Those who perform such deeds should not only be compared to the greatest men but should be judged very similar to God.59

Clemency was, accordingly, not only the mark of a good king but of God. Carbone transformed the value of Christian forgiveness and the imitation of Christ into a form of pagan divinization. In another wedding oration, he praised Borso d’Este in even more Christ-like terms: “[Borso] is given to making treaties between the discordant and joins enemies in friendship. He is generous to the people and loved by everyone. He is a shepherd and soul to citizens. Borso has descended from the sky to mankind so that he may love like a true divinity. Borso pours forth rays from his face like stars, Borso, the delight of mankind.”60 In no uncertain terms, Borso was deified. Orators sometimes included prayers to rulers as if they were themselves divine. Carbone addressed Borso, “O magnificent ruler, whom we most justly adore as divine, show us your most blessed forehead so that you might calm the swollen sky.”61 While admittedly Borso d’Este was something of a special case in his insatiable thirst for praise,62 I still wonder whether such deifications provoked accusations of impiety. The frequency of such panegyrics in wedding orations, however, suggests that elite audiences had a permissive attitude toward mixing Christian and pagan terms of

62

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

praise.63 Carbone and other court humanists seemed to have been expected by their audiences to present rulers in such celestial proportions. To illustrate ideal traits, orators often used historical facts and actions from rulers’ lives. Princes were presented as being god-like in their ability to cope with injury and defeat. In his 1473 epithalamium in Naples, Carbone praised the groom, Ercole d’Este, as the ideal ruler, soldier and emperor. In 1467 Ercole fought on behalf of the Venetians alongside the condottiere Bartolommeo Colleoni at the battle of La Molinella near Bologna. Although in the Florentine Histories (VII.20) Machiavelli famously said that no one was killed but only a few horses wounded in this battle, it was actually one of the bloodiest battles of the fifteenth century and losses were closer to six hundred. Colleoni had employed artillery to devastating effect, and for a while afterwards the whole countryside reportedly stank of rotting corpses.64 In the epithalamium, Carbone praised Ercole’s essential role in this battle: Ercole’s presence was so important that the enemy who had before rejoiced as victor, confessed to being closer to defeat. He used such foresight in anticipating traps, setting up battle lines, urging the brave, chastising the timid, helping the suffering, and replacing the wounded that he fulfilled the duty of both an energetic soldier and a prudent general not only in commanding but in carrying out himself what he demanded of others.65

In his discussion of this battle, Antonio Cornazzano praised Ercole’s heroic actions, but only as an example of the many heroic captains fighting under Colleoni.66 Carbone instead made Ercole seem to have been the sole general of the battle. When Ercole’s foot was badly injured, he had to abandon the battlefield.67 In order to show how greatly Ercole was loved by his people, Carbone described their celebration of his victory and concern for his injury. I do not know whether the people of Ferrara were more excited over the great glory he had won or more disturbed on account of his injury. They came from all parts to visit and help him. Out of his great kindness and gentleness he refused no one admittance no matter how lowly they might be. He willingly welcomed all who came to him. In addition to the learned doctors, who most diligently treated him, all the priests, religious, and virgins prayed to immortal God to free such a good and prudent prince from such great danger.68

Weddings as Propaganda

63

Carbone then offered his audience a detailed description of all that Ercole suffered at the hands of the doctors: His wisdom and fortitude was amazing. We could hardly watch as he endured the most constant pain of the cutting, slicing, and burning of his flesh, bones, and sinews . . . With a fearless face, he endured two-hundred blows of a red-hot iron. What Marius, what Mucius Scaevola, what Christian martyr could have endured such great torture?69

Such violent details seem out of place in a wedding oration, and perhaps Carbone was counting on their shock value to emphasize his point. In presenting Ercole in his most human moments, Carbone raised him to a higher, almost divine, level. Ercole had surpassed both the pagans and even the Christian martyrs in his brave endurance of pain. There was an impious (but typical) merging of the pagan ideal of sacrifice for the state with the Christian ideal of suffering for God. In wedding orations, rulers were often presented as having earned their power by virtue of excellence and toil rather than birth. To support this, orators provided lengthy accounts of military exploits.70 Carbone suggested that virtue is based on hard work with the example of Ercole d’Este: Nature has seen to it that bad is always mixed with good and that the good is more pleasing when we have overcome the trials of the bad. O prince Ercole, would your principate be as dear to you if you had gained it through crimes, carelessness, and luck? Not at all; since you gained it by the greatest toils and dangers, you cannot consider it other than most dear. You redeemed with your precious blood that procured by virtue alone. I think, therefore, that he is out of his mind who, by avoiding toil, does not dare to engage in difficult and useful matters. Toils and troubles have made Ercole a god. Romulus ascended to heaven through toil. Toil brought Cyrus, Philip, Alexander, Numa, Pompilius, Marius, Sulla, and Caesar to the peaks of power.71

Carbone not only claimed that toil had made Ercole a god but also equated him with Christ by blasphemously declaring that Ercole “redeemed with his precious blood.” Like Ercole, Ferrante of Aragon was depicted as exemplary in his endurance of misfortune. After Alfonso of Aragon died in 1458, Angevin and baronial lords sought to keep Ferrante from succeeding to the throne.72

64

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

In 1460 Ferrante suffered a great defeat at Sarno and practically lost his kingdom. In a 1465 wedding oration delivered before Ferrante, Francesco Bertini referred to this disaster: The slaughter of Sarno followed, which inflicted a great wound on your forces. But as you have always had an unconquered and excellent spirit [and] were not broken by an accident of fortune, you accepted whatever loss there was. You strove to bear it in good spirits, to restore your lost resources sooner than anyone expected and to return this tragedy on your enemy.73

Ferrante fought back, and with the help of Milanese troops retook his holdings in Apulia and Campania: You, o most unbeaten king, have extinguished bloody war. You have freed peoples of depredations and attacks, and the roads of thieves. You have restored peace and quiet to your citizens and brought back the most desired light. The courts, laws, religion, talent and virtue have been restored to their rightful places and your peoples so liberated that they almost seem to have forgotten the many evils that they had to endure for five years.74

In order to emphasize the greatness of Ferrante, Bertini created a myth of the return of the Golden Age.75 The king represented law, religion, and virtue. Panegyric included admitting defeats, but only when they could be presented with a positive gloss, as tests of character. In epithalamia there is a tension between two competing ideas of nobility, one based on birth and the other on merit.76 When possible, orators praised both lineage and personal accomplishments. Collenuccio, for example, declared that the “Marzani sought success not through luck or their family connections, but laid claim to it through their own virtue and most renowned exploits.”77 Family connections are here identified with the whims of favorable fortune. Wedding orators, like other humanists, believed that people could shape their own lives to a large extent. Marco da Carpe stated that “everyone becomes as great as he makes himself by his virtue and merits.”78 Such statements reflected a common belief among humanists in the dignity of man and the ability to transcend one’s genetic predisposition.79 In this respect, conduct is more important than origins. “[A]lthough Niccolò Speradeo comes from an illustrious family which has shown innumerable well-honored men,”

Weddings as Propaganda

65

Carbone affirmed, “he has surpassed all of their glory by the splendor of his life.”80 Here genealogy set the standard of excellence. Orators resolved the nobility question by proposing that it is through imitation that one lives up to and surpasses illustrious ancestors. The divine gift of noble birth bestows a responsibility to succeed through merit. While orators praised merit, they nevertheless emphasized genealogy to a much greater extent. The most obvious reason for this was the very young age of elite grooms and brides. Genealogies are prominent in the Old Testament, the Iliad, the Aeneid, and chivalric romances, and from the eleventh century rulers and aristocrats increasingly used genealogy to legitimate their hold on property and power.81 In his epic poem about Duke Borso d’Este, Tito Vespasiano Strozzi traced the Este back to Troy and Charlemagne; and Boiardo and Ariosto included a similar hymn to Este genealogy in their vernacular epics, the Orlando innamorato and the Orlando furioso.82 A family’s antiquitas provided honor and proof of the legitimacy of their authority. In wedding orations, humanists constructed and promoted elaborate genealogies for ruling and elite families.83 At the court of the Este in Ferrara, Carbone declared that the Trotti family “is so old that it believes on account of its antiquity that it is one of the families who founded our golden Ferrara.”84 In Rimini, Pietro Parleo similarly established the antiquitas of the Attus family.85 Orators presented brides and grooms as the products of their ancestors.86 After explaining the many exploits of her family, Carbone has a bride say, “little needs to be said about me, the nobility of my ancestors praises me enough.”87 “For,” as Carbone says, quoting Plato, “people are good because they are born from good people.”88 The bloodline establishes the worth of rulers and elites. Wedding orators exaggerated the most in their encomia of rulers’ families. In Milan, for example, Guiniforte Barzizza89 praised the Visconti family “whose lineage stems first from the Trojans, then from the Alban Kings.”90 Orators often focused on ethnic or geographical identity rather than specific connections by blood. At the wedding of Ferrante of Aragon, the Florentine ambassador Giannozzo Manetti praised the Spanish origins of the Aragonese family, calling Spain the most fertile land for fruits, grains, honey, olive oil, horses, and men. He then discussed ancient Roman exploits in Spain and the great Spanish emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Theodosius, and concluded this section by saying “we have spoken

66

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

enough about your ancestors.”91 Manetti then suggested that Alfonso had equaled such illustrious ancestors in his own deeds of prowess. The king had ingeniously besieged a fortified city and recovered the realm of Naples from the French. Manetti compared Alfonso to Belisarius, Justinian’s famous general who came up from Sicily to drive the Goths out of Italy in the sixth century.92 Orators sometimes used the vaguest of associations to fabricate a connection to past heroes. Since he was Spanish, Alfonso was descended from the great Spanish Roman emperors, and in subduing Apulia, he was like the great Byzantine general Belisarius. While genealogies flattered and impressed, they also served a didactic purpose by supplying models to be emulated. Giovanni Marliani adopted a surprising and potentially offensive panegyric strategy for the planned wedding of Johannes Corvinus and Bianca Maria Sforza in 1487.93 He discussed at length the groom’s barbaric ancestors. In his lengthy genealogy of the bride, the orator emphasized Bianca’s role in the potential political alliance between the Corvinus and the Sforza families. He defined the bride and the groom by their genealogy. The groom, Marliani declared, “will rejoice that his father has chosen for him such a wife that he can compare the praises of her ancestors to those of his own without injury.”94 Probably due to the fact that she was only sixteen years old in 1488, the bride received little praise in this epithalamium. The orator instead focused on her female ancestors and her grandfather Francesco Sforza.95 Here genealogy served both to praise the Sforza family and to reinforce their rule over Milan. Marliani presented both a nobility of birth on the part of the bride’s grandmother, Bianca Maria Visconti, and a nobility of merit in the deeds of her grandfather, Francesco Sforza, who was of humble origins.96 If Marliani found little in the bride to praise, he at least had her family. The Sforza were not old nobility, but he could present Francesco Sforza as becoming noble on account of his deeds and virtues. Johannes Corvinus, the groom, had a long list of noble ancestors, with whom, as the orator said, Bianca’s family could be equally compared.97 But instead of singing their praises, Marliani made tenuous claims and embellished his history by focusing on Hungarian antiquity. In his genealogical history of the groom, he first lists the Roman emperors who came from Hungary. Hungary, which was rich in gold and silver, became the Roman province of Pannonia under Valentinian, a virtuous emperor and a de-

Weddings as Propaganda

67

vout Christian . . . The emperor Julian was from Pannonia; [and] if he had not attacked Christians so ferociously, he could have easily been numbered among the outstanding emperors on account of his great virtues.98

Julian (Emperor 361–363) had been brought up a Christian but was fascinated by the paganism and magical arts still practiced in the empire. During his pagan revival, he set himself up as pontifex maximus, discriminated against Christians, closed down their churches, and wrote his famous tract, “Against the Galileans.”99 Marliani’s contemporary, Platina wrote that Julian persecuted the Christians in a more devious and effective manner than previous emperors, since he won them over to paganism with honors and rewards rather than torture and violence.100 Although Marliani mentioned Julian the Apostate’s persecution of Christians, he nevertheless still praised him as a geographical, if not blood, ancestor of the groom. In the Middle Ages Hungarians were thought to be descendants of the Huns.101 Although Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini rejected this association, claiming that the Hungarians had left Scythia long after the Huns, most humanists still conflated the two peoples.102 Marliani continued this tradition and praised the most famous of all Huns, Attila: Attila ruled the Hungarians. In cunning and skill in warfare he is to be compared to Hannibal. For although he was hostile to Christianity, he nevertheless [showed great skill] in invading Italy with great force, raiding and burning Aquileia and other Italian cities and towns . . .103

Marliani praised Attila for his military exploits, and for the pillaging and destruction of Italy. This seems somewhat inappropriate in front of an Italian audience. After all, in the Golden Legend, Attila and his Huns slaughter Saint Ursula and her ten-thousand virgins. Dante (XII: 134) had placed Attila in the seventh circle of Hell with the tyrants and murderers, calling him a “scourge on the earth.” Leonardo Bruni similarly presented Attila as the “terror of the world,” who had killed his own brother to gain power.104 Platina wrote “Attila called himself God’s scourge and spared neither male nor female, old nor young,” in besieging, sacking, and burning Italian cities.105 In his Cosmography, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini claimed that women copulating with demons had brought forth Attila and the Huns.106 Yet, even with this formidable anti-Attila tradition in Italy, Marliani

68

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

praised the barbarian as a noble ancestor of the groom. To salvage Attila, Marliani presented him as pious and almost-Christian in his respect for the pope: “When the most holy pope Leo went to meet him to save Italy and Christianity, the pope’s authority was so respected by Attila that immediately after meeting him, Attila commanded his troops to abandon Italy and return to Hungary.”107 Attila’s encounter with the pope was not seen as a miracle, the humiliating defeat of brute force by spiritual strength, as it was usually depicted in histories and art. Marliani did not include the famous vision of saints Peter and Paul, who in most versions appear over Attila’s head and threaten him with brandished swords.108 Instead he attributed the decision to retreat to Attila’s great respect for the pope. His positive reworking of the Hun’s exploits meant that Attila’s name could be used as praise before an Italian audience. In Hungary, however, which had been Christian from the early eleventh century, Attila had already been resurrected. A thirteenth-century Hungarian chronicle even tried to beatify the “terror of the world” by claiming that Attila had received a vision of Jesus and afterwards battled against heretics.109 In the 1460s, the court poet Janus Pannonius called Matthias Corvinus, the groom’s father, a “second Attila.”110 Thus while Marliani would not have shocked Hungarian guests at the wedding, his Italian audience would have still held the image of Attila as scourge and pagan menace. Perhaps such a reversal of expectations added to the overall rhetorical effect. To counter the perception that the Corvinus family were anti-christian, Marliani narrated their more recent exploits, in particular their leadership in crusades against the Turkish infidels.111 In the fifteenth century, Hungary was often praised as the bulwark of Christianity and a defense against the Turks.112 Why did Marliani not limit his praise to the Corvinus family, their crusades, and other exploits on behalf of Christendom? Instead, he presented what seem to be the most embarrassing representatives of Hungary, Julian the Apostate, persecutor of Christians, and Attila, barbarian and invader of Italy. Marliani’s rhetorical strategy demonstrates that his audience valued antiquity of origins over a strictly Christian past. Wedding orators ascribed classical origins to ruling families in the same way that they praised them in heroic, even pagan, terms. In a wedding oration for Paula Strozzi and Zarabinus Turchus in Ferrara in the 1460s, Carbone presented a similarly extensive and surprising genealogical history. While he praised the bride through her connection

Weddings as Propaganda

69

to the famous Strozzi of Ferrara and Florence,113 Carbone adopted an unexpected rhetorical strategy in his panegyric of the groom Zarabinus Turchus. The Turchi were a noble family who had been in Ferrara since the twelfth century.114 But rather than praising the well-established Ferrarese Turchi, Carbone focused on the family’s distant origins and turned his epithalamium into an encomium of the Ottoman Turks. Unlike Hungarians, who, as Marliani emphasized, were renowned crusaders, the Ottoman Turks were seen as the greatest threat to Christian freedom and civilization in the fifteenth century. In the 1460s Ottoman forces raided parts of the Veneto, and in 1480 they sacked and occupied the Apulian port city of Otranto, where they desecrated churches and enslaved half of the city’s inhabitants.115 Even before these encroachments into Italy, Muslims were repeatedly demonized in the almost incessant calls for a crusade.116 When a humanist, therefore, decided to praise the Ottoman Turks, particular decorum, skill, and sensitivity were needed. Carbone decided to embellish the groom’s supposedly barbaric origins. Early in the epithalamium, he states: If you look for the origins of the Turks, you will find that the race comes from the Trojans. What is more noble than their origins, which go back to those from which the Latin race, the Alban fathers, and the walls of Rome [arise]? Troy dominated all of Phrygia and most of Asia. . . . This is the Troy that Homer recounts . . . We Latins owe very much to the Trojans, who perfected sacred laws and every elegance, when we were rough and uncultivated rustics. . . . Although in that oration to the pope I said that the Turks were not Trojans both to please the pope and perhaps because I thought so at that time, after studying geography I now realize that the same place where the Turks are is where Troy was and the glory of the Trojans.117

The etymological association of the Turks with the Trojans was not uncommon in the fifteenth century.118 In 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini attempted to remedy this confusion by asserting that the Ottoman Turks were not Trojans but Scythian barbarians.119 Other scholars, nevertheless, persisted in this view. Mehmed II himself, his semi-official chronicler Critoboulos reports, saw the Turkish conquest of Greece as just vengeance for the ancient sacking of Troy.120 In another account he is said to have raped a Greek virgin in the church of Santa Sophia in order to avenge Ajax’s rape of Cassandra in the temple of Athena

70

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

after the fall of Troy (Aeneid, 2.403ff.).121 In his epic poem on the deeds of Mehmed II, the Amyris (1471–1476), Giovan Mario Filelfo similarly blamed the Greeks.122 Carbone completely changed his views on the origins and worth of the Turks for the sake of his immediate goal of panegyric.123 Filelfo also said the exact opposite of his laudatory poem about Mehmed II in the contemporaneous epithalamium he wrote for Roberto Malatesta and Elisabeta Feretana in Rimini in 1475. Here he praised the deceased Sigismondo Malatesta for halting the onslaught of the Turks and this most brutal of all the Muslims.124 For both Filelfo and Carbone the rhetorical purpose prevailed over their integrity as historians. Once Carbone established that the Turks were in fact Trojans and, therefore, deserving of respect as heirs of a great culture, he confronted a more troublesome issue. He argued that although the Ottoman Turks were infidels and enemies of Christendom, they were still great warriors. The Turks have not strayed from that ancient Trojan virtue. Just because they are the most hostile enemies of the Christian name does not mean that we should maliciously disparage their praises and brave deeds. For what just judge does not admire with enormous wonder the great spirit of him who is now emperor, who a few years ago, while still a youth, brought Constantinople, the richest and most powerful Byzantine city of all of Greece, into his domain? He has already struck terror into all kings. Incredible news of his vigilance and great desire to rule is brought to us daily so that, except for his religion, he can rightly be judged one of the greatest emperors in human memory.125

Carbone argued that the Turks had some redeeming qualities “except for their religion” and the fact that they were “most hostile to Christianity.” To downplay this flaw, he praised Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, who was better known in the West for his infamy than his prowess.126 Compare this encomium to Carbone’s praise of King Ferrante of Aragon for fighting against the Turks in a different wedding oration in 1473: When that impious and most hostile enemy of the Christian name, Mehmed Amyrras dared to offer you a mad alliance, you gave him a response worthy of a Christian prince, that there could be no alliance of your majesty with such squalid barbarity, that you were waging war on him as a most ferocious enemy, and that all your kingdom’s resources and power were against this wicked pirate. For the love of the Christian

Weddings as Propaganda

71

religion you had to see to it that that stain, so unjustly placed upon the Christian name, be wiped out . . . We should not foolishly believe, as many do, that the Turks could not invade Italy as if we had not read about Pyrrthus, Hannibal, the Gauls, the Vandals, the Goths, and all the scum of the earth.127

This is all the more fascinating in that Ferrante was, in fact, at this time negotiating with the Turks against the Venetians.128 Instead of the “brave,” “rich,” and “vigilant” ruler of a “glorious” people, Mehmed is a “squalid barbarian,” “ferocious enemy,” and “wicked pirate,” and the Turks are the “scum of the earth.” Here, Carbone drew upon standard anti-Turk propaganda. In pledging to defend the Church from the Turks, for example, Pius II described them as a “most squalid and ignominious race, involved in every kind of rape and sexual perversion.”129 In his short poem, “Against Mehmet, the Wicked King of the Turks,” Pius said that the only achievement and glory of Muslims is their abstinence from wine.130 In his epithalamium for Eleanor of Aragon and Ercole d’Este in 1473, Giovanni Brancati said that out of their insatiable lust Turks marry five or ten wives.131 Turks were also commonly accused of being hostile to good letters and civilization.132 Like other fifteenth-century Italian humanists, Carbone used the term “barbarus” in both a cultural and a religious sense. The ancient Greeks had originally used the word simply to mean “foreigner,” but by the fourth century BC “barbaros” clearly denoted cultural inferiority. It not only referred to the outsider’s inability to speak Greek, as a babbler, but to the total absence of civil society founded upon logos, meaning both language and reason. Aristotle (Pol. 1253a) opposed political man, the city-dweller, to the less-than-human barbarian living alone in the wild. Aristotle (Pol. 1285a, 15–25) also wrote that tyrants can easily rule over barbarians since lacking reason they are by nature slavish.133 Mehmed was such a tyrant, ruling over hoards of slavish barbarians. In addition to being uncivil, the Ottoman Turks were barbarians since they were not Christians. Unlike the Greek city, however, barbarians could enter the Christian community by converting. In his epithalamium for Zarabinus Turchus and Paula Strozzi, Carbone demonstrated both meanings of the term barbarian. Here, he describes the origins of the Ferrarese Turchi: [T]his is how our Turks came to Italy. Three most noble brothers, Zarabinus, Amorbassanus, and Panzaninus whose names have the highest

72

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

dignity with the Turks, were sent to the Apostolic See as ambassadors. Delighting in Italian elegance and practical way of life and encouraged by the hope of future salvation, they cast off their most dirty sect and turned to the Faith of Christ. The pope himself baptized them and granted them an estate in Ferrara . . .134

For Carbone and most westerners, Islam was not a separate religion but a heretical sect of Christianity.135 Zarabinus and his brothers first became civilized by adopting Italian manners and refinement, then entered into the Christian community through baptism. By manipulating ethnic and cultural origins and stressing total conversion, Carbone succeeded in making the enemy into a noble ally. Rather than focusing on the longestablished Turchi in Ferrara and perhaps glossing over Ottoman origins, Carbone felt that antiquity of origins was an important enough topic of praise to reverse his opinions and perhaps shock his audience by praising Mehmed II. Genealogy formed the central part of Renaissance epithalamia. It served to demonstrate the legitimate family connection, the blood relation, and the powerful pedigree that bride and groom brought to the marriage alliance. Such family trees made claims for the inheritability of attributes and wealth. Genealogy also had a didactic purpose. By praising noble ancestors, orators presented audiences with models of behavior to be esteemed and imitated. The topos of genealogy in the Renaissance epithalamium expressed the values of an heroic classical past within and sometimes in conflict with the Christian society of the fifteenth century. In their fascination with antiquity of lineage, orators showed an ability to integrate pagan and even anti-Christian histories into a somewhat more tolerant interpretation of the past. Rather than avoiding the embarrassing origins of the subjects of their encomia, humanist orators focused on these weaknesses and converted them through rhetorical spin and historical re-readings into positive attributes. Even if they slaughtered Christians, Attila and Mehmed II were still great warriors. Such unusual interpretations were expected in an audience that valued antiquity and nobility of blood more than a strictly Christian view of history. Better to trace one’s roots back to Attila the Hun than to a Christian nobody. Along with being clement and of noble lineage, the ideal prince was supposed to be rich, magnificent, and generous. Rulers needed money not only for the general upkeep of their principalities, but also to finance

Weddings as Propaganda

73

the ever-growing need for display. Throughout the fifteenth century, humanists reaffirmed the classical virtue of magnificence. They wrote numerous treatises on this virtue, which were all loosely based on Aristotle’s discussion of it in the Nicomachean Ethics (IV.2) and were particularly popular in Italian courts.136 Rulers and elites were expected to use their wealth to assist the public, to beautify the city, and to hold grand ceremonies, including weddings. In his Prince, dedicated to Duke Federico Gonzaga in 1471, Platina says of Federico’s grandfather: “He left himself with nothing beyond the goodwill of men: for when he was not permitted to give money from empty coffers, he would give away whole estates and farms, claiming that he had done nothing in his life more gladly and with fewer regrets than that which he had performed out of munificence and generosity.”137 The truth of such claims is unimportant; it was the ideal that a prince should live up to and the memory of such acts that the public should recall. Displays of generosity, not the prudent accumulation of wealth, served the principate. “I disapprove of private luxury,” Carbone stated in a dialogue, “but love public magnificence.”138 Rulers, we are told, become godlike by being benefactors. In an epithalamium, Carbone asserted that the groom’s relative Giacomo had worked hard to build up the Ferrarese countryside: So that you, O greathearted Duke, may have many possessions to grant your friends and to exercise your liberality more easily. This is the particular virtue of kings and princes; if they lack this virtue, then they are unworthy of a principate which kindness alone commends. We [would] not love God if he [were] not kind and beneficent toward us. Such deeds are far more useful than building mountains in valleys and swamps against the gods and nature, like the giants did . . . An innate kindness and affability has made Leonello most pleasing and acceptable to the pope and all the other fathers.139

Rather than making war against the gods, like the giants, the prince should rule with gentleness and generosity. The preeminent virtue that defined a prince and made him most like God was his support of the people through largess. Carbone similarly praised Ferrante of Aragon: Your gifts have no end, your kindness denies nothing deserving of a gift. You not only grant favors to your household and to those who share in administration, but strangers and foreigners experience your

74

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

favor as well. You have decided to serve all of humanity and, like Titus Vespasian, you think that you have lost a day when you have not given anything. You have Alexander’s spirit; you think more about what to give than what others deserve to receive.140

Roman emperors along with God himself served as examples of generosity. Perhaps such an encomium served more as a prayer or a petition than praise. In his panegyric of Francesco Sforza, the professor of rhetoric at the university of Pavia, Baldassar Rasinus (1400/05–1468),141 discussed the importance of liberality at length. He begins by quoting Plato: “that man can be called happy who is distinguished with a strong and noble body and an abundance of wealth, such as Francesco has.”142 Wealth is an attribute of power, but it must be used. Rasinus, accordingly, then cited Aristotle’s advice to Alexander on the importance of generosity and compared Francesco’s munificence to Caesar’s.143 Orators emphasized a specifically ancient virtue that was praised by ancient philosophers and exemplified by ancient rulers to justify their praise of wealth. Along with rulers, elites were expected to nurture magnificence and generosity. In an epithalamium for the lawyer Niccolò Gillino, Carbone praised him for his noble lineage and riches: “He lived most honestly and never did anything unworthy of his generosity. For it is not the duty of nobility to enrich one’s patrimony and pile up more money, but to save that which his ancestors have bequeathed and to use the rest for munificence and largesse.”144 Hoarding was not an aristocratic virtue. Wealth was to be used. Carbone praised the Sacrati family for their riches but also emphasized the public role of wealth: “The riches and wealth of the Sacrati are so great that they appear more than enough to distinguish our Ferrara. Above all there is Francesco, who, like another Lucullus, surpasses all others in largess and magnificence.”145 The ancient Roman patrician Lucullus was famed for giving lavish feasts and letting others share his wealth. The Sacrati family, accordingly, were praised for spending their money not on themselves but on the city. “Private wealth,” as the orator Pietro Parleo (1400–1463)146 declared, “is necessary for the dignity and distinction of the State.”147 In his epithalamium to Giovanni Bonsa and Polissena d’Este Carbone praised the groom for: his honestly gained wealth of which he has generously given to friends and family alike. How many times has Giovanni supported the city

Weddings as Propaganda

75

granary and come to the aid of the treasury with his own money. (My best friends, I think, are the ones who give me money) . . . For, as Demosthenes says, nothing is possible without money. In fact, he used to call money the nerves of the State. Giovanni has built great buildings in the city and pleasant villas in the countryside. He has often given great feasts and entertained princes, cardinals, ambassadors, and orators most magnificently. On account of his magnanimity pope Pius II even made him a knight.148

Giovanni was praised both for his practical aid with the grain supply and the treasury and for the magnificence of his building and his banquets. Money and its conspicuous consumption, usually for public welfare, was coupled with a recognition among the elite of the day, including the pope. Civic welfare was equally served by supporting the city in times of crisis and in hosting sumptuous entertainments. Plato and Demosthenes, as Carbone knew, considered poverty equivalent to slavery both for the individual and the state.149 The true nobleman should have enough wealth to be free of economic worries and to be generous to others. Princes also showed their magnificence through building enterprises. Although the Medici and other aristocratic families in fifteenth-century Florence, such as the Strozzi, sought magnificence through building projects, they could not be as grandiose as ducal families due to the nature of republics.150 Giuniano Maio in his 1492 treatise, On Majesty, dedicated to Ferrante of Aragon, explained the advantages of magnificence through building: “This sort of virtue is usually displayed in all the works of princes, in line with their life-style and culture . . . the building of large palaces, fortified castles, magnificent temples . . . where more than anywhere else magnificence is praised . . . These are not only splendid ornaments; they also represent a public benefit and permanent utility. Because this sort of enterprise combines perpetual benefit with splendid beauty, it produces all the more glory and long-lasting renown.”151 By financing building projects, a prince could both provide something useful to the public and gain a favorable reputation. Architectural excellence was a particularly important feature of courtly cities such as Ferrara. In his epithalamium to be delivered in Naples, Carbone attempted to persuade Eleanor of Aragon of the delights of Ferrara: You will not regret coming to Ferrara, which I am accustomed to view as golden. You will see a most fortunate city . . . surrounded by new

76

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

walls, adorned with so many public and private buildings and laid out with palaces, punctuated with magnificent villas in the countryside . . . You will see a restored senate house and a game park filled with animals which Ercole completed.152

Humanists made explicit references to the buildings, walls, and improvements that princes had made.153 Among other structures, Ferrara was famous for its innovative urban design and fortifications. A good ruler needed money not so much to live well himself or to bequeath to his heirs, but to support and entertain his subjects. By sponsoring public festivities and building wondrous edifices, he displayed magnificence and generosity. Humanists publicized such acts in orations, which themselves were sponsored festive performances. While the Medici always had to temper their displays of magnificence to maintain their status as private citizens within a republic, courtly rulers could aspire to surpass the pagan emperors in all respects with only the limitations of their treasury. Weddings were essential to rulers not only because they afforded an occasion for display, but especially because marriage (on account of dowries and familial alliances) was an important financial source for such displays, as will be discussed in the next chapter. In his numerous wedding orations Ludovico Carbone not only praised the virtue of generosity but also unabashedly presented himself as a most deserving recipient. He argued vociferously that princes need humanists as both political advisers and teachers of eloquence. In his epithalamium for Ercole d’Este and Eleanor of Aragon, Carbone praised Ferrante of Aragon’s speaking ability.154 He declared: Although there are those who think that embellishment and richness of words is not necessary in a king and should not be sought, that the speech of princes should be short and precise, nevertheless, in the opinion of many, the eloquence of a prince, his abundant and brilliant speech, bears a regal dignity and a wondrous beauty. For very many generals could be recalled who dedicated great effort to rhetoric and themselves composed and delivered elegant and rich orations both in the Senate and in other places.155

Carbone used flattery to persuade rulers of the need for a humanist education and humanist advisers. He praised the prince’s support of his humanist secretaries Francesco Patrizi and Giovanni Pontano. It is because

Weddings as Propaganda

77

of them, he implied, that “you hold all of Italy in your hands, nothing important occurs without [your] Ferrante’s approval, and your enemies either do not survive or have become allies.”156 Learning was the cause of a prince’s success. In a wedding oration, Bertini also said that like the ancients, Alfonso the Great, and Ferrante, Duke Alfonso earned the respect of the people in Calabria through his ‘blanda oratio et humanitas’ rather than his army.157 The orator Troilo Boncompagni declared that Niccolò d’Este studied the different natures of many people and traveled throughout the world like Ulysses in order to understand human nature. From this acquired wisdom, one is led to believe, Niccolò’s kingdom was made even more tranquil and secure.158 Carbone and other humanists, who acted as teachers and advisers to princes, had an obvious personal stake in presenting rhetoric and learning as the foundation of princely power. Most humanists at various points in their careers had serious financial troubles and sometimes took any opportunity to plead their cases.159 Leonello d’Este (b. 1407, ruled 1441–1450) had established Ferrara as a center of humanist learning.160 He founded the studium and employed some of the most famous scholars of the day, such as Guarino and Theodore of Gaza. Leonello himself read widely, had an extensive library, and considered himself a humanist. When he died in 1450 and his brother Borso took control, many feared Ferrarese cultural supremacy was finished. Unlike Leonello, Borso had not been given a humanistic education. From an early age he was raised to be a mercenary captain and so was often away training in the field.161 Borso’s main interests were warfare and hunting, and he appears to have taken little pleasure in literature.162 Carbone, who had prospered under Leonello, feared what might result in the transition of power. He, accordingly, used a wedding oration to remind the new ruler of his duty to patronize the arts.163 Carbone’s reminder was also a defense and an affirmation of the function of humanists in courts. Recalling Horace’s famous satire (I, 9), Carbone began a wedding oration, whose audience probably included Borso himself, with an anecdote about how an annoying “hypocrite” approached him the other day.164 “O Ludovico,” the hypocrite began, I see that you are going to speak in the public assembly. I advise you not to make your speech too long, as it may annoy our Duke. For no longer

78

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

will you speak to your Leonello who loved and nourished letters . . . Borso is now in control who loves the glory of war and despises letters. Take my advice then, shorten your orations and quicken your panegyrics lest you annoy Borso.165

The hypocrite was obviously a foil that Carbone used to suggest that Borso continue the generous patronage of his brother. At these words, Carbone says, I grew angry and told this hypocrite to go to hell. I was still mourning Leonello’s death and he seemed to be putting down the honor of his brother. ‘Are you not ashamed,’ I said, ‘you obscene sewer, to disparage so confidently an outstanding king? Although Borso has never read any of my books and like great princes has spent his youth in military endeavors, he, nevertheless, esteems the learned and honors scholars. For we thought the gymnasium of Ferrara would perish when Leonello died, but Borso continued this patronage and built up the studium even more. He has given great and outstanding goods to his people and citizens. I indeed have even benefited from his generosity and been paid for my studies. He would never have done all this, if he did not think his citizens’ learning and eloquence pertained to the immortal glory of his name, if he did not willingly watch and listen to learned men.166

Carbone told this story, he said, to show his grief over Leonello’s death and his fervor for the study of eloquence; but especially to reveal that he “does not doubt that Borso in the future will love him whom Leonello so greatly adored.”167 Borso was in fact more interested in the visual arts than in literature or philosophy, since he seems to have believed that this medium could better display his glory.168 Unlike Leonello, Borso tended to treat his humanists as servants.169 Carbone’s oration, therefore, was more than praise; it was a plea for princely support of literary studies. Carbone risked indecorum in other wedding orations by complaining about his financial problems and his patrons’ neglect. In one, he threatened to stop writing orations if his lot did not improve.170 It is only by the intervention of some esteemed friends that he was persuaded not to lose hope in the prince and to take up his job of praising the newest couple to tie the knot.171 Carbone pleads: For my orations especially please you [Borso], and they help to expand the state, the commonwealth, and the immortal glory of your name . . . But please, O Prince, see to it that I can often deliver orations, since, to tell

Weddings as Propaganda

79

the truth, I have still not been paid that small salary that you have owed me for a year. Look at how dispirited and ill I am. There is no corner of our treasury in which I have not gone searching. By the gods, this is not right, o most just prince, nor honorable or fitting either to your highness or the dignity of my writing. Would that I had never read literature! 172

Finally, Carbone even threatened to leave Ferrara for a more generous employer: “I met a people who, though they had never seen or heard me, promised me two-hundred gold pieces a year without a problem. But I answered that Borso’s face and eyes are worth a hundred-thousand; yet you still dare to deny me what I am asking.”173 After being denied a raise, in 1465 Carbone actually did leave Ferrara and accepted the chair of rhetoric and poetry at the university of Bologna. A year later, however, Borso persuaded him to return and paid for his moving expenses.174 In his wedding orations, Carbone could be rather blunt. He seems to have often performed the role of a buffoon. Perhaps his complaints served as a safety-valve, as comic relief rather than open dissent. Carbone, nevertheless, had a serious purpose in mind. In another oration, he claimed that he was starving to death and was treated much worse than actors and musicians.175 But unlike mere entertainers, Carbone declared, he had many responsibilities. He then went on to say: “But I see what you want—you need a bishop, I have to go to Rome and come back Ferrara’s pastor; and all the while I will produce rich orations.”176 Carbone never took holy orders, but by threatening to do so he pointed out how learned clerics had a more secure livelihood than secular court humanists. Just as an artist, Carbone imagined, who has been poorly fed, cannot be expected to paint splendid pictures, so too must an orator be paid his deserved stipend and well-treated, if rulers wish to hear fine orations. For, if before I seemed to you unpolished, awkward, and ineloquent, it was because of my exceedingly meager pay; indeed, great intellects cannot be stimulated by a small salary; and now that my finances are better (though I still have not been paid in full) it is no wonder that I am speaking more eloquently and pleasing your ears even more; so that now for the first time I seem to have been shocked out of a deep sleep which has held me for so long.177

Performance then was directly linked to remunerative reward. Carbone was a professional humanist; he was a polished rhetorician who was unabashed about demanding money for his creations.

80

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Only after Borso had died in 1471 and Ercole succeeded him, did Carbone directly criticize the recently deceased duke’s lack of generosity. In his dialogue about his trip to Naples (1473) he extoled the Rome of Nicholas V, Pius II, and Sixtus IV against the criticisms of his Neapolitan interlocutor. Carbone declared: Erudite men can only come forth when they are rewarded for their virtues. This virtue is most rarely found among secular princes, except for the Neapolitan kings and the Este princes, who are the greatest patrons of literature and learning. What other princes are there in all of Italy, or rather in the entire world, who embrace, favor, cultivate, and reward the literati for their merits?178

He then qualified this praise by criticizing Borso for being foolishly overgenerous and rewarding the unworthy in his court: As you know, there were many kingly virtues in our Borso; but one vice sullied all of them, that he gave away thousands and made the most vile men very rich, men whom, by immortal God, I would not have as my servants. You could never say this about divine Ercole, who is very prudent and kind; nor is your divine Ferrante caught in such a pernicious error that he pours money into actors and performers, but instead treats the most outstanding and wise men very generously.179

Carbone was careful to praise his living patrons, and in doing so encouraged them in their generosity towards humanists. Under Ercole, however, Carbone was still unhappy. In vain he wrote an entire dialogue about how the duke should give him a house, in which to write poetry.180 Later in his 1474 dialogue, On the Happiness of Ferrara and the Best Principate of Duke Ercole, he lamented the duke’s unwillingness to grant his wish: “Do I not have a most just cause to be indignant since I have been unable to wring out my own living quarters from three very rich and powerful princes, whom I have so often honoured? If I had been a trumpeter or a fowler, I would have done better.”181 In the same dialogue the author had an interlocutor, Giacomo Trotti, pronounce a lengthy encomium of Carbone: “Who of such inhuman character, unjust judgment, and barbarian savage sense is there who would not support you, admire and love you, and venerate and cultivate your most lovable genius that has served most outstandingly your native land, prince, and all good people?”182 The encomium continued for another sixteen lines! Everything the author thought of himself, what he had

Weddings as Propaganda

81

done and what he deserved, his vanity, rancour, and resentment resound in this piece. Carbone was obviously trying to send a message to his patrons by placing such unabashed self-promotion in a dialogue dedicated and presented to Ercole. Carbone’s modest origins and his family responsibilities made his insatiable need of money more understandable. The Comune of Ferrara often suffered financial troubles and sometimes had to withhold officials’ salaries, as in 1469. Although he held the Chair of Rhetoric from 1456 and had the protection of influential men at the court, his income seems not to have been stable.183 Indeed, from 1458 until his death in 1485 Carbone was constantly in debt and would have surely finished in jail if Borso had not usually paid it off for him at the last minute.184 Carbone’s numerous pleas for financial relief were sincere, if potentially out of place in the context of a courtly wedding. Carbone’s complaints allow us to gain a greater understanding of the role of the court humanist and perhaps to question the common assumption that humanists working under princes were insincere flatterers with little chance to express their own views. He struggled not so much with his role as propagandist and flatterer as with his financial dependence on a prince who could be inconsistent with his support. He did not seem to mind writing panegyrics for rulers. Freedom of artistic expression after all is a very modern concept that would not have been understood in the fifteenth century.185 Humanists performed for rulers, but within that framework they had ample space for satire and complaint, as Carbone’s orations demonstrate. In public wedding orations before local elites and foreign dignitaries, courtly humanists criticized republican governments and proclaimed the virtues of monarchy. They used panegyric to cast favorable images of princes that acted both as political propaganda and as a reminder of the difficult ideals that rulers should strive to attain. By praising particular virtues and actions such as generosity and offering financial aid to humanists, orators were able to use panegyric as a medium of protest and petition. In these encomia, orators relied on classical rather than biblical sources. While humanists advocated Christian virtues such as mercy, they rarely compared rulers to Christian kings or saints. Instead, they referred to Roman emperors and the heroes of Republican Rome. When they compared rulers to Christian martyrs, orators impiously concluded that the ruler was greater. Rather than avoiding potentially unpleasant

82

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

issues, orators recast the traumatic events of recent history to present living rulers as heroes and gods in enduring and overcoming military defeat and personal loss. Rulers were praised as divine on account of their virtues and deeds. Humanist orators appropriated the ancient genre of panegyric to divinize Italian rulers in an overtly pagan manner by presenting them as gods who, Christ-like, suffer for their people and whose will is equal to the law.

4

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

In wedding orations, humanists asserted a courtly ideal of marriage.1 While their praise of marriage is similar to that of Florentine and Venetian humanists, wedding orators adapted, created, and emphasized particular arguments to fit the elite environment of fifteenth-century Italian courts. They taught rulers that they must marry for their own and their kingdom’s welfare. Orators were unabashed in praising utilitarian factors in marriage decisions, such as wealth and political alliance; but they also celebrated physical beauty, companionship, and the joys of sexual pleasure. In doing so, humanists revived one of the original purposes of the epithalamium in antiquity, as an erotic prelude to the wedding night. They also promoted ideals and particular attributes in brides that were not usually present in earlier conceptions of marriage. Drawing upon classical literature, personal experience, and contemporary history, humanist orators constructed a coherent set of courtly ideals of which marriage was at the center. Like humanists in republics, orators in courts presented married philosophers as role models of responsible citizenship.2 They repeated Cato the Censor’s dictum that it is harder to be a good husband than a good senator.3 Civic responsibility, they asserted, begins in the home, the microcosm of the community and state. The hardships of domestic life are the training ground for politics and philosophy. The popular antimarriage story about the torments Socrates suffered at the hands of his wife Xanthippe was turned upside down in wedding orations. Marriage is good, since, as Socrates explained, dealing with his wife is good practice for philosophy and an active involvement in politics.4 While praise 83

84

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

for the active life is usually seen as a particularly republican sentiment, the same ideals of marriage and the active life were praised in Italian courts. Orators also included discussions of the ancient debate about whether the wise man should marry.5 They flattered rulers by portraying them as wise-philosopher kings who, they said, should marry. While Florentine and Venetian humanists tended to emphasize married philosophers as role models, courtly humanists referred more to ancient emperors and living rulers.6 At the wedding of Costanzo Sforza and Camilla of Aragon in 1475, Pandolfo Collenuccio used anti-marriage sentiments as a starting point for his defense of marriage in an oration: “I am amazed at how many men are hostile to marriage, since they believe that wives are an impediment to work, studies, and the contemplation of the truth; these men, however, need to be informed of the ideas and lives of the philosophers.”7 Collenuccio then delivered a lengthy discussion of all the great married kings, warriors, and philosophers of Antiquity.8 He concluded that, since nature cannot be denied, marriage should be wholeheartedly embraced: There can be no happiness without a wife and no one should be judged wise, as Aristotle says, who spurns so great a good of nature, so great a pleasure of friendship, and the usefulness of so great a gift. . . . Wives have not stolen prudence from great statesmen, nor battle glory from great generals, nor fame and zeal from those philosophers whose writings we admire and whose learning we follow. What impious detractor of marriage then should be tolerated who dares to accuse and criticize petulantly the holiest pact? God established marriage; nature beckons us to use and enjoy it; peoples agree upon it; and individual cities have founded rites and solemn ceremonies for it. Kings, warriors, and philosophers have all embraced marriage and approved of it, so that the entire world accepts it.9

Collenuccio used arguments similar to Florentine and Venetian humanists to conclude that marriage is both divine and natural.10 But, in addition to philosophers, he stressed that great kings and warriors marry. Orators used contemporary examples of elites and rulers as models for reconciling wisdom and marriage. It was above all a ruler’s duty to marry and to have his family members marry for the future of the kingdom. There could be tension when a ruler did not marry. Borso d’Este,

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

85

for example, who ruled Ferrara from 1450 until 1472 did not marry and may have been homosexual.11 Marriage was seen as essential both for the preservation of the ruler’s bloodline and for the promotion of civic harmony, since the family was the building-block of the state. The Sienese orator Francesco Patrizi (1413–1494)12 praised Alfonso of Aragon for thinking about offspring and successors “so that there be nothing lacking for the stability of his kingdom and the promotion of peace.”13 Collenuccio concluded a wedding oration by presenting the ruler as a role model of the wise king who educated his citizens by marrying: “You have given us a model of this most holy Sacrament. . . . By this example, you have taught not only that wives should be married for public utility but even what kind of women and with what accoutrements they should be married.”14 The wise man has become a king who marries for the benefit of his people. As in earlier republican treatises, orators used classical and Christian arguments and exempla to defend marriage. But in courts, the focus shifted from defending the lay intellectual to celebrating the marriage of the prince and persuading others to follow his example. Orators presented marriage not only as compatible with the philosopher’s way of life but also as a prerequisite for a wise prince, who marries in order to fulfill his role as pater familias and pater patriae. In the fifteenth century, wisdom in marriage usually meant the very practical skill of choosing the right partner. Elite marriages in courts were more often than not contracted for political and economic reasons. The political expediency of a good marriage, however, was not an embarrassment to the orator or his audience but was openly celebrated. Like the ancients and humanists in republics, orators claimed that marriage helps men to cultivate friendships with important people.15 In the courts, these friendships took the form of marriage alliances between families and cities. Guarino asserted that marriage brings peace: Nothing disturbs and destroys human affairs more than mutual dissent and discord. By [marriage] innumerable grave enmities have been put down, seditions quelled, and battles broken off. There have been battle lines set up and wars between the most hostile peoples and countries. We see enemies, indeed the cruelest enemies who are bound by the same walls and the same homeland, share the same roof, the same food, the same room . . . so often joined by this bond [marriage] alone.16

86

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Orators used examples from ancient history to show the conciliatory benefits of a marriage between rival or warring groups. The otherwise unknown orator Francesco de Arquata Bertalono referred to the rape of the Sabine women and the ensuing war between the Sabines and the Romans: “through marriage, the most inimical Sabines became allies.”17 The violence of this episode was apparently lost on Bertalono, who used the forced marriage-rape to illustrate the pacific effects of marriage. The ancient story was also a central part of Marcantonio Altieri’s discussion of marriage rituals in Rome, Li nuptiali (ca. 1500). In the Courtier (1528), Castiglione had Giuliano de’ Medici similarly praise the role of the Sabine women in ending the war and saving Rome. It was also a common pictorial theme on fifteenth-century cassoni.18 The Paduan humanist, Egidio Guido, in a 1435 epithalamium, referred to other examples of the political benefits of marriage: I do not mention how often we have heard, read, or seen doomed peoples, desolated states, and cities saved, reconciled, and restored by this bond [marriage]. The Romans supply us with many examples . . . the Carians found peace through marriage, Caesar was bound to Pompey through it, and Alexander could not have joined Asia to Europe by any other means.19

The marriage of Caesar’s daughter Julia to Pompey was often used to demonstrate the importance of this kind of alliance. The ancient poet Lucan was the main source for Julia’s life. In his epic, he saw her early death as one of the causes of the civil war.20 Had she not died, orators asserted, she could have prevented the civil wars.21 After discussing historical proofs, Carbone referred to contemporary marriage alliances that ended conflict and prevented war: But, why do we look to the distant past when we have current examples? I ask you, what would have been the state of Italy, how wretched the condition of things, how great would the upheaval have been, when Filippo Maria [Visconti] of Milan died without a male heir and only Bianca, like another Lavinia, upheld the Visconti house and its great holdings, if the great . . . Francesco Sforza had not been found worthy to receive that government by the right of marriage?22

Francesco Sforza, the condottiere, gained an empire and established a dynasty by marrying Bianca Maria Visconti in 1443, as discussed in the previous chapter.

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

87

Fifteenth-century Italian rulers used marriage to form alliances with other powerful families and to increase their influence. The Este of Ferrara were particularly successful at negotiating marriage alliances. They married into the Sforza family of Milan, the Gonzaga of Mantua, and the Aragonese of Naples.23 By this strategy, the Este managed to extend their influence over much of the Italian peninsula. They formed ties with the most powerful families in the fifteenth century and were able to ease their financial troubles with the income from dowries. In wedding orations, marriage was often praised for establishing such political alliances. Filelfo referred to the marriage between Bona Sforza and Alfonso d’Este as an “alliance [societas], which for both princes will be the greatest adornment and of no slight utility.”24 Giovanni Marliani similarly praised the foresight of Lodovico Sforza in planning to marry his daughter into the Corvinus family of Hungary in 1487: Although Ludovico Sforza has done many worthy things, it is especially praiseworthy that he has arranged the marriage of the young Bianca to the son of the Hungarian king . . . He seeks nothing except the safety of his state and its increasing dignity. By his effort, the Hungarian and Milanese states have been joined so that they will be of the greatest help to each other.25

Such alliances were so common that Erasmus later complained about princes who coldly sent their daughters to far off lands for political motives and, in doing so, more often than not created greater problems. He revealed a remarkable sensitivity to the plight of the young brides: I shall not talk about the heartless effect (the result of these alliances) on the girls themselves who are sometimes sent away into remote places to [marry] men who have no similarity of language, appearance, character, or habits, just as if they were being abandoned to exile. They would be happier if they could live among their own people, even though with less pompous display.26

Sometimes brides would not have seen their future husbands before or even at the wedding. At the wedding of Ippolita Maria Sforza and Alfonso of Aragon, Duke of Calabria in 1465, for example, the orator says to the bride: “You have been promised in marriage to Alfonso, the Duke of Calabria . . . You can see an example of his beauty and dignity in his most illustrious brother Federico . . . He is like your groom, only older and larger in body.”27 Erasmus’ remarks were probably pertinent to many

88

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

arranged courtly marriages, but in orations, such practices were always portrayed as positive, even selfless, ways of helping the state and ensuring social and political harmony. Humanists at court were sometimes called upon to write histories of family alliances through marriage. Giorgio Merula and Mario Equicola both emphasized the mutually beneficial marriages between the Visconti/Sforza and Este families in their histories.28 Tristano Calco stressed how the Este and Sforza alliance had been strengthened through strategic marriages, and Antonio Trivulzio in his wedding oration for Giangaleazzo Sforza and Isabella of Aragon in 1489 also referred to the marriages between the Sforza and Aragonese families.29 Trivulzio began with the first alliance of the two families, which was created by the marriage of Francesco Sforza’s daughter Ippolita to Ferrante of Aragon’s son Alfonso II.30 He then went on to praise the present alliance: Now both families are wisely reinforcing their bond with the marriage of Giangaleazzo and Isabella . . . For, as Aristotle told Alexander, a king must cultivate friendships and alliances with powerful neighbors so that each may aid the other . . . [Your] two kingdoms are so connected that we can justly call the borders of one the boundaries of the other. Even though many have experienced how great your power is . . . who is there who does not tremble at your command.31

Orators pronounced such declarations of power before what were sometimes large groups of foreign dignitaries and local elites. While humanists in republics advocated marrying well-connected families for political advantage, orators in courts praised the marriage-formed alliances between ruling families and states that were sometimes verging on war. Marriage alliances between rulers not only benefited their immediate families but also ensured the survival of signorial cities. Wedding orators, like Florentine and Venetian humanists, explicitly praised another practical advantage of marriage, the acquisition of wealth.32 Against the tradition of Christian poverty, humanists often presented riches not only as a prerequisite for virtuous deeds but as a good in themselves. Fifteenth-century Italian courts were often in financial straits. Wars, weddings, state visits, the purchasing of titles, and numerous other occasions for display were very costly, and many rulers only survived with great difficulty.33 When taxes or mercenary earnings could not provide the nec-

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

89

essary funds, the salaries of court officials, administrators, artists, and humanists (including orators) were suspended indefinitely.34 Dowries were essential for the survival of elite families and were openly celebrated in marriage orations. An anonymous author offers the following advice: “In choosing a wife four things are to be considered: beauty, nobility, habits, and wealth.”35 Marriages often rested on the size of a future bride’s dowry. Filelfo criticized this practice in his Satyrae (IX, 8): “Without a heavily gilded dowry no girl thinks she can please a man. Neither birth nor good morals are sought; gold decides it and proves that her beauty is good.”36 Some orators cautioned against this cynical view. The duty of a wife, the otherwise unknown Paduan Giacobbe de Bodolono reminds us in a wedding oration, consists of high morals and modesty, not superficial things like gems and gold.37 An anonymous orator called wealth a wifely virtue but then criticized those who choose a wife solely on this basis: “because of their avarice they do not consider other factors and, in the end, they appear to desire not a wife but money.”38 Of course, potential husbands were also considered for their wealth. With typical self-reference and humor Carbone criticized the marriage practice of his day in a wedding oration: The reason why so many naturally suited youths avoid marriage, is that they see young girls who are worthy to embrace the greatest orator and to kiss a divine poet given to those who are not even deserving of life . . . A young virgin like Venus or Pallas Athena is married off to a rough and foolish idiot, who snores night and day. But I, a lover of the Muses, on account of my hard work will get a freckled redhead with an upturned nose and a weasel-like complexion whom you would not want to meet in the middle of the night. If only I had never read literature! O the great ignorance of parents who do not understand the saving advice of Ennius, who preferred to give his daughter to a man lacking money rather than to money lacking a man.39

In Carbone’s story, it is taken for granted that parents arrange marriages for their children. A humanist at the court of Sigismondo Malatesta in Rimini, Basinio da Parma (1425–1457) wrote similar sentiments in a poem to his girlfriend, who was marrying a rich old man. “I know this man,” he writes, “and believe me” you do not want to marry him; “his

90

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

wretched legs are covered with large open sores” and he is “hunched over like a dolphin . . . he thinks to win you with his riches, but you will be the unhappy wife of a rich man. Riches perish, and wealth slides away, but glory lives in eternity with poetry.”40 The importance of wealth in marriage was so accepted that it was the basis for jokes. Great wealth was often listed in wedding orations as if it were a virtue. In his praise of Isabella of Aragon at her wedding to Giangaleazzo Sforza in 1489, Antonio Trivulzio proclaimed: “There is so much wealth in the groom’s family that you envy no one and . . . you surpass the common beliefs about Croesus and Darius with your wealth.”41 Being rich was also a quality in which one attempted to surpass the ancients. At the wedding of Anna Maria Visconti and Alfonso d’Este in 1477, Filelfo declared: Concerning the wealth and riches of both families, they [riches] are very useful for many and great matters, and are wholly necessary for ruling in peace and for finishing a war. The parents of the bride and groom [both infants] are so rich that whenever some violence of fortune or wilder chance might occur or they might wish to oppose the treachery of men, they dare to hire armies and sustain them however long they wish.42

Filelfo asserted that wealth is not subject to fortune, as was generally believed; rather it allows one to control fortune. The wealth of marrying families was often linked to their good deeds and constituted an important attribute of aristocracy. It is not surprising that money was so important for the success of rulers or that marriages were often arranged for financial gain, but the forthright way in which humanist orators praised wealth and the riches of their elite subjects is remarkable. Without any sign of Christian humility or any concern about offending the bride and groom by attributing mercenary motives to them, humanists promoted the joys and practical advantages of wealth. While earlier humanists in republics had defended the uses of wealth for practicing virtue, orators asserted the practical need for money to raise armies, put down plots, and display princely magnificence. Even though most aristocratic marriages were arranged for political and economic motives, humanist orators nevertheless presented an ideal of romantic and sometimes overtly sexual passion. In antiquity, the epithalamium served as a prelude to the erotic pleasures of the wedding

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

91

night.43 Italian orators continued this tradition. In Renaissance epithalamia, orators described in detail the physical attributes of both brides and grooms. They often used platonic arguments to defend corporeal beauty. They contended that outward beauty is not superficial, but a sign of inner character and a reflection of truth. Against the ascetic tradition, which held beauty to be an enticement to sinful lust, they argued that physical beauty is important since it gives pleasure to viewers and leads to legitimate sexual pleasure. In fifteenth-century anti-marriage works, female beauty was presented as a temptation to vice. In his Oration in Disgust of Women, for example, the Venetian humanist Lionardo Giustiniani (1389–1405)44 painted a grim picture of women: The beauty and wiles of females distract men from the toils of virtue. They entrap us in their snares and we fall headlong into ruin. For even the coarsest female beauty is enough to destroy the human race, let alone all of their other enticements. This beauty subdued Adam, Paris, and Hercules. Women are steadfast enemies of human liberty. Therefore, young men, see female beauty as the burning of Troy! Beware of their wiles, arts, and traps, the wicked hissing and colored skins hidden under their golden and purple clothes. Be free and refuse to submit to such an untamed and indignant animal. If this does not disturb you, then at least let their unbridled habits excite fear in you and make you more cautious of their embraces.45

Woman is the great temptress, a devious and sensual snake, who seduces men from the path of virtue. Female beauty is false. Rather than revealing inner virtue or character, it hides under the artifice of gold and expensive clothes. Here, the author followed the anti-female pronouncements of Jerome and Tertullian, who in some of their writings represented women as basely corporeal and false on account of their use of cosmetics and ornament.46 In direct opposition to this misogyny, wedding orators praised the virtues of female beauty. Carbone began a wedding oration with an adaptation of a story from Boccaccio. He appropriated Filostrato’s story in the introduction to Day IV of the Decameron.47 Among other things, Carbone changed names and replaced the original Florentine setting with Borso’s Ferrara. In the story, Sylvester, distraught over the loss of his beloved wife, resolves to lead a celibate life and to have no further dealings with

92

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

the world. He moves to the forest with his two year-old son Pandion and builds a little chapel. For fourteen years, Sylvester shelters Pandion from the secular world and teaches him only about God. When Pandion turns sixteen, Sylvester allows him to accompany him on his weekly trips to the city market. Pandion is amazed at everything he sees in the city but is most interested in a group of women. He says that they are the sweetest and loveliest creatures that he has ever seen and refuses to leave without one.48 Carbone offered his own moral to Boccaccio’s story: Even though he had not yet experienced their pleasant embraces or sweet services, Pandion was still so moved by only the sight of women, by their glances, and by their dignity and beauty. He burned so much that he put aside all else and thought only of a woman. If a man educated in the woods acted like this, it is no wonder that, having been nourished on abundant delights, we so fervently pursue such a celestial and divine animal.49

Rather than concluding from this story that women were a temptation to lust and that human nature was fallen, Carbone celebrated female beauty and Pandion’s natural instincts. In his dialogue, On Pleasure, the humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) had his Epicurean character praise beauty in women: What is more pleasing, more delightful, and more lovable than a gorgeous face? Nor are women graced only with beautiful faces but with hair, breasts, thighs, and an entire body, whether they be tall, whitecomplexioned, luscious, or well-proportioned.50

Valla’s character, in fact, was so convinced of the utility of beautiful women that he advocated that they should be allowed to walk about the city naked or half-naked in the summer.51 “Why did nature’s genius create such great bodily beauty?,” he continues, So that it might wither with age and, like an old grape, lose all its juice and charm, while we men are consumed with desire at the sight of such great enticements? If this is the case it would have been better not to have made women beautiful. Beauty is not just to be admired but used and enjoyed, not only by men but by women as well. For in the same way we look at women, so do they pursue the handsome among us with eager eyes. Will anyone deny that men and women are born pretty and are especially inclined to mutual affection, so that they can get pleasure in seeing each other, living together, and passing their lives together?52

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

93

For Valla’s Epicurean character, beauty was not vanity but the main source of a cohesive society. People are attracted to the beauty in others. They crave to satisfy the natural desires that beauty excites and, in doing so, they obtain pleasure. Families are formed to perpetuate this pleasure and governments to protect it. Pleasure then is not a subversive force but the foundation of social and civic harmony.53 In fifteenth-century Italy many aristocratic brides and grooms would not have seen each other before the wedding. Orators were, accordingly, particularly concerned with praising the beauty of both bride and groom. In his wedding oration, Manfredo de Iustis described the bride as “having golden hair, a calm face, radiating with lively colors, and a perfect body . . .”54 In praising Ippolita Sforza, the orator Francesco Bertini declared to the audience: “Look at the appearance and charming beauty of her body,” and then appropriated Virgil (Aeneid 12, 67–69) to describe “her reddish lips, like ivory and lilies . . .”55 While such descriptions have an explicit erotic purpose, orators also emphasized physical beauty in order to demonstrate unseen qualities. Concerning the bride Phillipa, Carbone states: “It is impossible that there is not an outstanding character and bright virtue in such a beautiful body. For nature usually reveals inner feelings by certain external signs.”56 In another oration, Carbone wrote that the sweet and dignified appearance of Eleanor of Aragon revealed the purity of her mind.57 This kind of beauty was appreciated in males as well as in females. Carbone said of the groom, Zarabinus Turchus, that the “noble brilliance and beauty of his body indicates as well a wondrous virtue of mind.”58 In praising the groom Niccolò Speradeo, Carbone compared his beauty perhaps inappropriately to the Hippolytus of Greek tragedy: You yourselves can see how kindly nature has treated him. Who, after diligently observing him and contemplating the dignity of his beauty, would not think that so decorous a face, such joyful eyes, [and] so happy a look do not signify and promise a noble and unheard of generosity of spirit? I have always been of the opinion that those who stand out with an exceedingly beautiful body are endowed with a certain divine character and adorned by nature herself with every kind of elegance, which . . . is clearly in this young man. For in his tender and beautiful body he has a certain wondrous modesty, so that in this virtue he not only stands out among his equals, but we can compare him even to that famous Hippolytus.59

94

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

It may seem odd that Carbone equated physical beauty with modesty, since it was often associated with lust and crimes of passion, especially in the case of Hippolytus! But Carbone, who cites Plato in other contexts, subscribed to the Platonic ideal of beauty. In the Symposium, Socrates explained that bodies are beautiful because inner souls radiate outward beauty.60 Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) discussed this doctrine in the commentary he wrote to accompany his translation of the dialogue in 1469.61 It later became a trope in sixteenth-century dialogues on love and the ideal courtier. In the Courtier (1528), for example, Castiglione had Pietro Bembo explain the idea in the following way: beauty springs from God and is like a circle, the center of which is goodness. And hence, as there can be no circle without a center, there can be no beauty without goodness. Thus, a wicked soul rarely inhabits a beautiful body, and for that reason outward beauty is a true sign of inner goodness . . . as with trees in which the beauty of the blossoms is a token of the excellence of the fruit.62

For Carbone and other writers in the Renaissance, beauty was not a deceitful snakelike skin but the true mirror of inner virtue. Humanists argued that it was especially important for rulers to be good looking, since such a body expresses nobility.63 To rule well, they must be able to impress by their presence. The mere sight of a ruler should subdue his subjects and persuade them of his superiority. A perfect body is a sign of divine favor, strong character, and inner virtue. Humanists often described the particular physical attributes of rulers at length, and painted them as handsome heroes. In his panegyric of Francesco Sforza, Baldassare Rasinus presented this rather elaborate picture: Who would not be in awe at this powerful hero’s beautiful face and the great size of his reddish body? Who would not praise the fact that all his limbs from his toes to his head harmonize together in the most exact composition so that without a doubt he has obtained whatever nature herself could achieve? Look at the wondrous and glowing splendor in his face, the lively eyes, the pleasing forehead, the kindness that shows an ease, gentleness, and an unheard of severity, which joined with clemency is accustomed to protect and foster rule and authority.64

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

95

Such qualities, we are assured, are not superficial. For Rasinus called upon the ancients to prove that physical beauty has a much deeper significance. He cited Virgil that virtue is usually present in a beautiful body,65 and then called on Plato to support his claim that a beautiful body is always the bearer of virtue.66 The godlike beauty of Francesco Sforza expressed a virtue above all others and proved his place as a rightful ruler. Rasinus also praised Francesco’s ancestors and asserted that their beautiful bodies were a sign of the great character of the Sforza family.67 Carbone described Borso d’Este in elaborate heroic and mythological proportions in a wedding oration for another couple. Both Homer and Virgil profess how the dignities of beauty are fitting for a prince; as the former made his Achilles and Agamemnon, so did the latter always make his Aeneas most beautiful. But what prettier or more worthy face could either nature produce or the art of man imitate than the face which the favorable gods have granted to Borso? And Jupiter and Mercury decided that it should be joined to Borso’s body. Who is there who once he has noticed his yellow and red hair, most serene forehead, joyous eyes burning with a bluish gray light, his shapely face, Herculean chest, imperial gestures, and the tone of his swanlike voice, would not give himself and devote himself wholly to him, and would not judge him most worthy to rule over the whole world?68

Borso’s corporeal beauty and his very presence was enough to subdue the entire world. In fact, in another epithalamium Carbone asserted that the majesty of Borso’s body was so awe-inspiring and his “face so beautiful that they would calm the wildest storm.”69 Perhaps Carbone focused so much on Borso’s body, because Borso was not known for his intellectual qualities.70 Like Carbone, Lorenzo Valla, in his dialogue on pleasure, used the authority of Homer to argue for the utility of beauty: Homer not so much praised the actual beauty that he had found in Agamemnon and Achilles, but created the heroes’ beauty so that he might praise it and teach us that it is a great good and fitting for all the greatest personages, as if it should be raised up in the light of day and for the eyes of all so that those who are endowed with it and others contemplating it might receive pleasure.71

96

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Beauty, an attribute of nobility, demands attention and respect. Such nobility and authority were not exclusively the province of masculine beauty. At the wedding of Costanzo Sforza and Camilla of Aragon, Collenuccio called Camilla’s beauty regal and divine: Outstanding in bodily strength and grace and admired for the proportion of her body’s members, Camilla bears a truly regal dignity and majesty. Whenever I have seen a marble statue of you, I have always thought the sculptor more fortunate in the subject of his image rather than in his art, since we see that he has tried in vain. If we add to this her modesty, virginal decorum, and the brightness of her eyes, we no longer seem to see a mortal but something more divine.72

In describing Ippolita Sforza, Bertini asserted that there are many benefits of a pleasing appearance: Ancient philosophers thought a beautiful body to be the greatest help in obtaining love and reverence. As it matures, it brings with it a certain majesty by which weak minds are moved to obey superior. Often it is the grace and reverence of the body rather than its power that protects men.73

Even for women, a beautiful body was a tool with which to command. In addition to inspiring awe, beauty can act as an incentive to virtue. Like Valla, Carbone argued in wedding orations for the utility of the pleasure that was to be had from beautiful women. He praised the wisdom of the ancients: [The ancients] used beauty to excite youths to virtue, the liberal arts, and the love of letters. Among other prizes, they decided that the most charming bodies of the prettiest girls should be distributed and given to orators and poets to be embraced and kissed. Nowadays this good practice is, unfortunately, no longer preserved.74

Beauty is the prize and pleasure that we obtain as a reward for our toils. In another oration, Carbone emphasized that women were the cause of all good deeds (or at any rate get men out of the house for a walk). He flippantly said: Whoever does not respect women, commits a great error . . . Even if we make every effort to please women we are still bound to them. If there were no women, we could not go to masquerades or go for walks. Since

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

97

they cause men to do so many good and honest deeds, we should as much as possible desire to honor and please them.75

Men need women both for the pleasure of their company and as an incentive to virtue. A hundred years earlier, Boccaccio similarly recounted the story of the Cyprian Cymon, who was “coarsely inarticulate and with the manners rather of a wild beast than a human being,”76 but was completely transformed by a beautiful woman (Decameron V, I). Physical beauty is transformative. If beauty can inspire virtue, ugliness should accordingly lead to vice. In his dialogue on the trip to Naples in 1473, Carbone made an unexpected observation. Paolo the Neapolitan interlocutor asked Carbone what he thought of the court actress Paulella. The orator replied: “to tell the truth, I started to get irritated from the beginning when I saw such license in an ugly woman.” When Paolo commented that “if she were beautiful, she would not have been without some disgrace or suspicion,” Carbone continued: “I was scared and especially afraid that her impudence would force us to start dancing, as we were sitting with dignity and watching others. But later on as I diligently thought this over it occurred to me that the character and audacity of actors and performers was sometimes necessary for princes to deter and repel troublesome men who continuously and shamelessly annoy kings.”77 According to Carbone wise rulers should use the ugly to ward off intrusive courtiers and paparazzi. If beauty attracts and inspires, ugliness repels. Orators were unapologetic about emphasizing the importance of physical appearance and linking it to inner virtue. Just as they warned against feminine beauty, detractors of marriage similarly condemned all sexual activity as lust. The authors of antimarriage works focused on the vices and defects of women. Like Petrarch, later authors attacked marriage by drawing generalizations from historical and literary exempla of lustful women. The Latin poet Juvenal (55–127?) was one of the most widely quoted authors in the works of medieval and Renaissance detractors of marriage.78 In one of his satires (II, 6), he dissuaded a friend, Postumus, from marrying by recounting negative examples of lustful women. Anti-marriage tracts also relied on Jerome’s Against Jovinian (393) for descriptions of wicked women. Jerome cited many classical authors on marriage, including Juvenal and Theophrastus. The fifteenth-century inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer and

98

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

James Spranger compiled numerous Biblical pronouncements against women and marriage in the popular witch manual, the Malleus Maleficarum (1486?).79 Renaissance anti-marriage works also reflected the influence of Boccaccio’s Corbaccio (ca. 1356). In the Corbaccio a rejected lover is cured of his passion by a spirit in a dream. The spirit declares that: “A woman is an imperfect creature excited by a thousand foul passions, abominable even to remember, let alone to speak of . . . No other creature is less clean than woman: the pig, even when he is most wallowed in mud, is not as foul as they.”80 The spirit then elaborated upon the deceit that females practiced to cover up these defects, such as their use of cosmetics and wearing of expensive clothes. When he awakened, the lover resolved “to abandon the evil love of that wicked woman.”81 It is difficult to determine what exactly Boccaccio meant by this little work, which contrasts so pointedly with his earlier and more positive works on women, such as the On Famous Women and the Decameron. Some Renaissance intellectuals, nevertheless, came to similar conclusions about the dangers of women as the Corbaccio. Giustiniani, for example, concluded: “The female is a very greedy, angry, unspeakably unfaithful, lustful, and truculent animal more interested in vanities than certainties.”82 Attacks on women and marriage focused on the dangers of female beauty and lust. In his Dialogue on the Reasons for Marrying, Ambrogio de Vignate’s character Chizius elaborated on the dangers of lust for the individual and society at large. According to Chizius, it was lust that caused the downfall of Hannibal, since instead of conquering Rome he became soft and effeminized by the lust and luxury of Capua: He not only lost the glory he had gained, but that wretched pernicious craving of the body turned it into the greatest infamy, broke his spirit, and concealed his illustrious triumphs from dignity and authority. Since if you achieve some dignity by your own ability, lust makes it seem that you achieved it by luck rather than ability. Lust has often reduced outstanding men to the lowest servitude.83

Even empires are not immune to the ravages of lust. Rather than bringing people together, as Valla averred, it was the source of social discord and caused the fall of great civilizations. For, according to Chizius: “While Athens lost its great empire in its dedication to pleasure, Rome gained its

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

99

great empire in its love of work.”84 A virtuous renunciation of vain pleasure was the foundation of great civilizations. They were built on hard work, not sexual pleasure.85 In the dialogue of the otherwise unknown Domenico Sabino, On the Conveniences and Inconveniences of Wives, the character Hypolitus focused on female sexual desire. He declared that “it is much easier to defend an unfortified citadel on a low plain than to keep a wife free from shameless lust.”86 “It is almost impossible,” he continued, “to protect what everybody desires. Some seduce women with beauty and elegance, others with song, and still others with continuous gifts. Women, however, are by nature and will so inclined toward lust that even if men did not rely on these devices they would easily succeed in seducing them.”87 The anonymous thirteenth-century work, On Not Marrying a Wife, which exists in several fifteenth-century manuscripts, is particularly vivid about the dangers of female sexual desire:88 One woman can exhaust an entire people. Her insatiable vulva wears out her husband, who can never hope to satisfy or please his wife; and yet he must always be careful, since too much copulation leads to death. On account of this, most wives become unfaithful, and their husbands get bored with life, since they can not satisfy their wives’ desire.89

In this image, women are portrayed as a bottomless pit of sensuality. In contrast to wedding orations, in which humanists argued that beauty and desire create a cohesive society, here female libido tears apart the lives of men and destroys civilizations. While anti-marriage writers usually condemned women as the cause and object of lust, in Sabino’s dialogue the character Emilia criticized male lust: Why is it strange then that wives sin according to nature, since men are sinning against and in defiance of nature? We are all equal in sinning according to nature. But since the female vice is doing something natural, women deserve some leniency. The wicked deeds of men, however, are so great that they far surpass women in every kind of vice and disgrace . . . Men are not satisfied with servant girls, mistresses, or prostitutes, but resort to boys in order to relieve their wild and mad lust.90

Emilia’s defense of women is remarkable, since rather than arguing for female modesty, she claimed that women and men were both equal in

100

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

sinning. Yet, while women were only following their passionate nature, men sinned against nature. Sodomy was a greater sin than adultery. Wedding orators presented marriage as a way to transform lust into legitimate pleasure. Following Paul (1 Corinthians VII), Augustine had seen marriage as primarily a cure for lust.91 Preachers focused on this reason for marriage. In epithalamia the sexual urge was similarly viewed as a powerful force, which must be controlled and made legitimate through marriage.92 As the orator Pietro Parleo asserted, “that which was before very disgusting, becomes immediately honorable in marriage . . .”93 Marriage, as Guarino argued, confines the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, so that the married couple can no longer delight in the embraces of others.94 Once lust and promiscuity are eliminated, orators argue, the married man can focus on increasing his household and caring for his family.95 Marriage tames the libido and fosters social stability. Some writers condemned sex even within marriage. After declaring that a chaste marriage is the best way of life, Giovanni Mario Filelfo (1426–1480),96 son of the more famous Francesco, declared: Those who strive after the pleasures of the body, serve passion rather than reason. They do nothing praiseworthy nor anything for future honor. They completely ignore the furnishing of their minds and punish them with eternal exile as the greatest evil. They prefer to follow emotions rather than counsel and strive after titillating pleasures rather than immortal glory.97

The author reiterated the traditional opposition between corporeal pleasure and cerebral activity. Sensual pleasure leads to madness as reason is submitted to the whims of the body. Like the sinners in Dante’s fifth circle of Hell, those who forsake reason for the flesh are doomed to serve the flesh.98 Similarly, an author of a fifteenth-century treatise in praise of marriage discussed at length sinful copulation. He wonders whether there can be sexual pleasure without sin and offspring without sexual pleasure and concludes that sex should not be necessary for procreation, citing the spontaneous regeneration of bees, the efficacy of miracles, and the Virgin Birth.99 Such views, however, appeared more often in sermons and other clerical writings. The joys of licit sensuality are common in the majority of wedding orations. In fifteenth-century epithalamia and other humanist writings, legitimate passion within marriage was not only tolerated as an alternative to

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

101

worse vices, it was praised as a good in itself. Sexual pleasure within marriage was expected and sometimes carefully watched by the community. In a letter or oration entitled Sermo matrimonialis the otherwise unknown Peter Valvassor advised a young groom Spiritinus to strive with all his energy to show his power to his bride. He tells him that the night is short, and he must be sure not to let any of it pass without action.100 For if he does not succeed and his bride is unhappy, the following day all the matrons of the city will see what kind of a man he is from his and his bride’s faces.101 Valvassor encouraged Spiritinus therefore to try his best, since success in the bedroom would be both worthwhile for him and more pleasing than anything else to his bride who, unless Valvassor is mistaken, was ignorant of these pleasures. But if Spiritinus does not succeed, he must still at least boast of success. Valvassor ended by begging the young groom to write down all the details of his wedding night, so that he could show off to his friends Spiritinus’ great prowess.102 The importance of the woman’s sexual pleasure in this account is striking. The man’s main focus is on maintaining his virile reputation among both the women and the men of the community. The bride’s apparent or real sexual pleasure is the guarantee of the groom’s reputation. Leonardo Bruni was equally concerned about his performance and reputation on his wedding night. The young humanist described his heroic feats in a letter to Poggio Bracciolini (ca. 1411): “To speak after the military fashion, . . . the forts I’d come to conquer were invested and captured the first night; it was a bloody victory. I’ve now taken up position in those forts; although by day I make long sorties, I return to camp at night and keep up my vigil.”103 Unlike Valvassor, Bruni was more concerned with conquering rather than pleasing his new wife who seemed to lie passive and endure his frequent forays. In addition to putting the legitimacy of marriage into question, scandal and dishonour could follow when a groom or bride was unable to perform on the wedding night. After the Council of Trent, male or female impotence was the most frequent argument for annulments.104 This, however, was rarely a solution among elite and ruling families, who relied on well-placed marriages to form political alliances. The marriage of Isabella of Aragon and Gian Galeazzo Sforza is an example of how the failure to consummate could cause major problems. The celebrations for the wedding in 1489 were extensive and magnificent. Eleven Milanese galleys set sail from Naples with the bride and her

102

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

entourage of 400 amid great fanfare.105 The Neapolitan humanist Gabriele Altilio celebrated the grand departure and the wedding in a 260-line verse epithalamium that focused on the erotic and described the sweet loving embraces that awaited the Duchess in the arms of her groom.106 After they disembarked in Genoa, festivities continued in Tortona, where the bride met her groom for the first time, and in Vigevano. Here, after a banquet and an evening of dancing and erotic poetry, the couple left to consummate their marriage. When they lay down on the nuptial bed, however, Gian Galeazzo was seized with disgust, became cold, and was averse to having any kind of sexual relations with Isabella. Isabella believed that the groom’s uncle Ludovico, childless and envious of his nephew’s power, had employed witches to curse the marriage and to cause Gian Galeazzo’s impotence. Ludovico reportedly laughed at his nephew, saying that the failure was due to the frailty of his constitution.107 Rumours spread and the impotence became a subject of gossip in all the courts of Italy. Ludovico continued to ridicule and to lecture his nephew on the duties of marriage in front of his wife and the courtiers. The duchess of Amalfi and the Este ambassador made suggestions to Isabella, and the Neapolitan ambassador speaking for his king scolded Gian Galeazzo. A courtier even told the duke that his wife was ugly and had bad breath, which Gian Galeazzo denied, saying that he would remember the courtier’s words. Isabella apparently praised the servant for saying what he thought was true.108 Finally, one year later, the couple succeeded in consummating their marriage. The papal envoy reported the joyful news to the pope and all of Italy celebrated.109 For humanists as well as canon lawyers, marriage was considered incomplete and illegitimate without sexual relations. For most humanists, sexual pleasure within marriage was natural and to be enjoyed (at any rate by the groom). As Carbone said of a man marrying for the second time, He wisely marries another wife, which he would not do unless he clearly realized that marriage contains the most pleasing and unutterable pleasure, which only those who experience it can understand. For he would not be so insane as to marry voluntarily for a second time, if he knew that there were any bitterness in marriage . . . He understands that man’s life is nothing without sexual intercourse, the pleasure for which we were born.110

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

103

For Carbone, sexual pleasure was essential for happiness and only those who experienced it know how important it is. What, an anonymous orator proclaimed, can be “more pleasing to a husband than to feel himself joined to his wife?”111 When Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (1405–1464), the future Pope Pius II (1458–1464), cautioned a friend on the dangers of the sensual pleasures of marriage, he still nevertheless recognized the need of physical affection for happiness. He wrote to the imperial Chancellor: “The caresses of a wife can be so enticing that it is easy to forget about work responsibilities. Nevertheless, you can keep your wife in a place close to the Curia, so that she can often embrace you.”112 While moderation in all human endeavors is needed, the pleasures of the marriage bed are both natural and good. Aeneas defended heterosexual passion even outside of marriage. For him, sexual desire was a natural part of youth and should not be condemned. In 1443 Aeneas wrote to his father about an affair that he had had with a Tuscan maid.113 While in an inn a pretty vivacious girl entranced the young Aeneas. He thought of Moses, Aristotle, and all the great men who had fallen under the spell of women. His desire was too much, and during the evening he sneaked into her room and enjoyed her. Rather than expressing shame over this, Aeneas rejoiced in the birth of the son that came from the affair. He did not condemn his lust but saw it as a natural attribute of youth, which is quelled with age.114 (Aeneas’ definition of youth was not exactly in keeping with common opinion, since he would have been thirty-eight years old at the time of this affair.)115 In 1444 Aeneas also produced the fifteenth-century bestseller, The Story of Two Lovers, in which he tells a tale of love, seduction, and abandonment in the chivalric romance tradition. The future pope thought sexual passion to be natural and good even outside of marriage. Love and sexual pleasure within marriage are the themes of the three lengthy books of epithalamic poetry written by the Neapolitan humanist Giovanni Gioviano Pontano to his wife and two daughters.116 In over thirty-three poems he celebrates the joys of family life. For example, in a bizarre and uncommon consolatory elegy to his wife on losing her virginity on their wedding night Pontano tells her not to cry, that her shame understandably moves her, but that she is in Venus’ debt, not born for herself alone but having a conjugal bond. “Your shame,” he writes, “now belongs to your husband, who uses what is granted him by marriage.

104

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

You have nothing to lament; shame has been transformed and pleasure now belongs to you, dear girl; enjoy your lot and do not absent yourself from yourself by crying nor spoil joy with remorse.”117 In comforting her, Pontano emphasized the pleasure that she should experience from sexual intercourse. In other poems he lamented being absent from his wife on military campaigns, celebrated the birth of a son, and told the baby to suck his mother’s breasts, as he mimics baby-talk. In the verse epithalamium for his daughter Aurelia the poet likened her to a flower in the Spring sun and said that “the young virgin embraces her husband on their soft bed and shines forth naked; loved, she plays in the dear bosom . . . Play and complete your short youth in delights, and please your desiring grandparents with offspring.”118 Advocating sexual pleasure in marriage was even a part of the advice a father could give to his daughter. Physical descriptions and praise of sexual pleasure in epithalamia had an immediate erotic purpose. As in Pontano’s poem, orators concluded orations by telling either bride or groom to hurry into the bedroom.119 They also sometimes recalled the first moment of erotic attraction between spouses. In an epithalamium at the court of Rimini, Parleo described the effects of beauty on Sigismondo Malatesta (1417–1468) when he saw his future bride for the first time: When the queen of the Amazons, Thalestris, saw the regal majesty of Alexander the Great, she at once desired to sleep with him and bear his children. In the same way did Sigismondo react when he saw Isotta’s lineage and beauty, heard her voice and laughter, and observed her approach. He thought that there must be the spirit of kings within her body and something more than human in her mortal person. He burned with an unbelievable fire of love and longed that Isotta might burn with an equal flame so that they might be joined in joyous and perpetual love.120

Parleo told this story in an oration at the wedding of Isotta’s brother Antonio Atti. Even if the majority of aristocratic marriages in fifteenthcentury Italy were contracted for political and economic reasons, romantic passion was at least a polite fiction. In this story, Sigismondo is in love with Isotta’s beautiful body and longs to have sexual intercourse with her. Sigismondo in fact wrote a number of vernacular love poems to Isotta starting in 1445, when she was only twelve or thirteen years old.

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

105

Court artists later depicted her beauty, and humanist poets celebrated their mutual love in popular Latin poems.121 Political alliances prevented Sigismondo from marrying Isotta, but her unwilling father finally allowed a liaison after Sigismondo knighted her brother Antonio Atti. Isotta had already been Sigismondo’s mistress for many years before he married her in 1456.122 In this epithalamium Parleo emphasizes that both sexes should feel passion by comparing Sigismondo’s desire with that of an Amazonian queen’s. Although Amazons were often described as manly in arms and virtue, it is, nevertheless, odd that Parleo compares the virile Sigismondo to a female, Thalestris.123 That Sigismondo wants Isotta to desire him with equal passion is indicative that, at least in theory, female as well as male pleasure was important for a successful marriage and the procreation of children. Such stories and rhetorical evocations of physical charms created an atmosphere of romance. Orators sought to excite groom and bride to the sensual pleasures of the wedding night. Humanists defended the natural inclinations of the body in banquet speeches as well as in wedding orations. Banquet orators asserted that the pleasure and relaxation of the body are essential for the mind to function well. They justified the enjoyment of elaborate feasts and entertainments with classical exempla. An anonymous orator declared: “Neither Plato nor Libanius the rhetor denied themselves the joy of banquets and symposia. Even Cato the censor, the severest of moralists, after long hours of government work would party with friends for two whole nights. It is therefore right to yield to the worthy pleasure that even the severest philosophers allowed themselves.”124 In defending physical relaxation, humanists affirmed a much more positive view of human nature in its material existence than the ideals of ascetic Christianity.125 Like sex, the pleasures of food and wine are necessary and should not be denied. As Valla asserted, “We are superior to animals in two respects, that we can speak what we feel and think, and that we can drink wine. Although it is not always enjoyable to speak, it is always enjoyable to drink, unless the wine or palate be defective.”126 For humanists, following Aristotle, people are social by nature. Happiness, indeed our very humanity, is found in the enjoyment of both social interaction and the natural pleasures of the body. Valla argued forcefully against the ideal of abstinence. It was in his view, a renunciation of life: “If anyone dares to attack or prohibit food, he is praising death more than life; in fact, in my opinion, I pray that he should be tortured by his fasting and

106

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

painfully starve to death.”127 For humanists, a happy life consists of fulfilling our body’s natural inclinations. In this way, one is following the Epicurean rule of nature rather than an ascetic spiritual ideal. To be human and alive is to enjoy beauty, sex, conversation, wine, and food—all the pleasures of the material world. Humanists praised voluptas as a positive natural virtue, rather than equating it with the base lust that is the blemish and constant reminder of our fallen state. In fifteenth-century Italy, the teachings of Epicurus became widely available and led to a reevaluation of the philosopher’s controversial doctrine of pleasure.128 Medieval authors for the most part had condemned Epicurus as a lascivious rake.129 Authors of anti-marriage treatises were particularly fond of using Epicurus as a straw man.130 A few Renaissance writers followed in this tradition. The wedding orator Giovanni Pietro Simonetti, for example, attacked a caricature of Epicurean teachings: Nor should we wish to imitate the Epicureans who believed that pleasure was the highest good. They have no proof. Those who dare to protect and wish them well should be dealt the bitterest penalty and the greatest punishment. Believe me, there are already enough of those who spoil marriage with pleasure.131

Simonetti’s defensive condemnation reveals the popularity of the application of Epicurean ideas to marriage thought. Other humanists reevaluated Epicurus’ life and ideas. In the fourteenth century, Petrarch, following Seneca, criticized his doctrine of voluptas but praised the moral purity of Epicurus’ life.132 In the fifteenth century, Leonardo Bruni offered a more positive account of the Epicurean definition of happiness in his treatise on Hellenistic moral philosophy.133 The Epicureans, he writes, say that we do all things in order to be able to live content and tranquil in joy and happiness.134 “Happiness,” he states, “is so linked to pleasure that the two cannot be separated.”135 Bruni’s interpretation of Epicurus, however, was biased by his Aristotelian conception of morality. He asserted that “it is the act of virtue and the knowledge of having behaved uprightly that provides the greatest pleasures and that no life can have pleasure unless it is lived with justice, temperance, and prudence.”136 Influenced by Ciceronian eclecticism, he also attempted to prove that the Stoics and the Epicureans were not opposed on the question of happiness but essentially in agreement.137 In

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

107

order to do so, Bruni de-emphasized the sensual aspects of Epicurus’ concept of voluptas. Like Bruni, Francesco Filelfo, who later wrote and delivered a number of wedding orations, made an early attempt at resurrecting Epicurus.138 In a 1428 letter, he contended that Epicurus had distinguished the pleasures of the mind from those of the body and that only those of the mind were to be praised. Both Bruni and Filelfo lacked less biased ancient sources on the philosopher’s teachings. In 1433 Ambrogio Traversari remedied this by translating Diogenes Laertius’ life of Epicurus.139 Diogenes included three letters of Epicurus and presented his ideas more favorably than had Cicero and Seneca in their accounts of Epicureanism.140 Diogenes, however, like Jerome, reported that Epicurus thought that the wise man should not marry.141 Nevertheless, Epicurus still appears in some wedding orations as a supporter of marriage for the wise man.142 In his dialogue on pleasure, Lorenzo Valla used both Bruni’s ethical works and Diogenes’ life of Epicurus. In contrast to Bruni, Valla argued that the Christian message had been blurred by the ascetic ideals of Stoicism and that true Christianity reaffirmed nature and the body.143 He concluded that Epicureanism was more compatible with the Christianity of the Bible than Stoicism.144 His character Maffeo Vegio denies Aristotle’s distinction between the base pleasure of the body and spiritual joy: Aristotle himself affirms that there are two sorts of pleasures, one residing in the senses and some other kind in the mind. But I cannot understand, given that the word is the same for both, how can we turn voluptas into something else. All the more so since every pleasure is felt not just by the body but also by the soul, as I believe Epicurus held.145

For Valla’s character, there is no difference between spiritual contemplative pleasure and active bodily pleasures.146 Unlike the ancients, however, Vegio asserted that the love of God is the source and the greatest of all pleasures. Valla was one of the first scholars to read Epicurean voluptas positively as sensual pleasure. A more straightforward vindication of the philosopher’s teachings, however, came in Cosimo Raimondi’s 1429 letter in defense of Epicurus. Raimondi argued that the human desire to enjoy pleasure and the body’s ability to receive it was proof that Epicurus’ teaching is correct.147 In wedding orations, Carbone similarly defended sensual pleasure

108

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

and referred to Epicurus as a most noble philosopher.148 Carbone, like Epicurus and Boccaccio, used nature as an argument for the enjoyment of pleasure. As in the story quoted above, Sylvester failed to train away Pandion’s natural instincts, since they were not vicious but an essential part of his humanity. While some humanists still condemned Epicurus, others such as Valla, Raimondi, and Carbone used newly available ancient sources to interpret Epicurean thought more positively. Rather than presenting him as an immoral hedonist, they saw Epicurus as a wise philosopher who advocated the enjoyment of the pleasures of nature and the body. Wedding orators, more often than not, defended this view of human nature when they praised corporeal beauty and pleasure. However, they adapted and limited their defense of corporeal pleasure to marriage. In their defense of passionate love, humanist orators adopted ideas prominent in the literature of medieval courtly romance, which, in contrast to traditional Christianity, held that earthly love can be a positive force.149 Chivalric romances were popular throughout the Italian peninsula but especially in the courts.150 Humanists, however, differ from this literature in that the passion that they praised was not adulterous, but can and should be found within marriage.151 Rather than being furtive, incomplete, and divisive, this kind of sexual passion completes the person and does not involve the pain and torment of illicit love. Dante vividly described these torments in the fifth circle of Hell, in which Paolo and Francesca tell how they were seized by this fury while reading a medieval romance.152 Love in medieval romance often leads to pain, since it is usually either unrequited or, if accepted, adulterous and punished. Instead, humanists offered an elegant oration as a prelude to the wedding night and the legitimate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. There is no shame in discussing this almost public performance. While wedding orators praised brides for their wealth, status, physical beauty, and ability to provide legitimate sexual pleasure, they also sometimes presented them as intellectuals. Like humanists in republics, courtly orators defended women against the long misogynistic tradition, which was central to anti-marriage arguments. But while republican humanists such as Barbaro and Alberti tended to limit their praise of women to the domestic sphere, some courtly orators praised specific women for their political acumen, humanist learning, and rhetorical ability.153 Wedding orators often followed Aristotle and Xenophon in praising

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

109

traditionally feminine virtues.154 In a wedding oration, for example, Carbone complained that he needs a wife to be his housekeeper: If a marriage goes well and prospers, then that is the happiest life; but when it does not work, life is wretched inside and outside the house. I myself am the best witness of this since I am alone. . . . Whatever I see in my little home is confused and disorganized. I often think, O Lodovico, if only some kind and pretty girl were to befall you, all would be in order, arranged correctly, clean, polished, and bright. She would wash your clothes, shake out the dust, throw out the dirt, wash the dishes, make the bed, decorate your study, and free you of your worries with her sweet conversation.155

While such self-reference is entirely in keeping with the ancient genre, Carbone was no doubt sincere in his longing for a wife. He wrote numerous love poems to Francesca Fontana in an unsuccessful attempt to woo her, and sometime between 1466 and 1471 married another woman.156 He and other orators praised wives for keeping the house clean, saving the money that their husbands earned, and taking care of their husbands when they were sick and depressed.157 Lists of devoted females from ancient literature provided orators with examples of virtuous wives who sacrificed all for their husbands.158 Although they advocated the traditional domestic role, orators also emphasized that the highest form of friendship is the conjugal bond.159 Ideal wives work and clean, but are also friends and counselors. Orators also argued against negative stereotypes of women. Carbone states: Even if Medea and Circe used poison and magic, and Cleopatra and Pasiphae were libidinous and mad, we should not condemn the entire female sex as wicked. For there have been many faithful, honest, noble, and modest women. Nor have all men been good. If you call up the Metelli, the Fabii, and Cicero as great patriots, I can give you Cinna’s, Mario’s, and Caesar’s as parricides. In fact, if we thought about it, we would find not only modest women, but women outstanding in every virtue . . . I therefore think it not unjust that women complain against us for depriving them of the prize of their labor.160

The “prize of their labor” for Carbone was not only praise for their modesty and chastity, but also for their intellectual accomplishments. His defense of women, however, was not as forceful as Bartolommeo Goggio’s De laudibus mulierum dedicated to Eleanor of Aragon in the late 1480s.

110

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

In this vernacular treatise, Goggio attempted to prove that women are superior to men in every way. His treatise has been interpreted as either a serious argument or a facetious satire.161 Carbone’s defense of women and marriage, however, must be serious in the context of a wedding oration delivered before a specific bride and groom. In general, elite women in the princely courts of northern Italy had greater freedom for cultural and intellectual pursuits than their republican counterparts.162 In the Courtier (1528), Castiglione included abundant praise for courtly women, which was the main source for Joan Kelly’s negative assessment of the role of women in the Renaissance. “[F]or the woman,” she concluded, “charm had become the primary occupation and aim.”163 Nevertheless, wedding orators often presented wisdom and learning as ideals in prospective brides. After stating that whatever might be lacking in the great Francesco Sforza could be found in his remarkable wife, Marliani called Bianca Maria Visconti a woman “of great counsel and mind . . . flowing with so many goods of mind and body that . . . everybody thought that she was somehow divine.”164 In a wedding oration Carbone had a bride, Anna Guererius, similarly speak about herself: If you should like to talk about me, you will not find things lacking. The dignity and beauty of my body has given me no small comeliness, so that I think myself not inferior to many that your poets celebrate. But what is dearer to me [is that] I am strong in the gifts of the mind, [and] I have always judged nothing to be more beautiful than virtue.165

Carbone found a precedent for learned women in the prophets of Antiquity. The sibyls of Greece and Rome predicted the fall of Troy, Alexander’s reign, Rome’s power, and Christ’s coming.166 These women were intelligent, virtuous, and powerful. They were the polar opposite of the lustful she-beasts of the anti-female and anti-marriage tradition of Theophrastus and Jerome. In the quattrocento, women’s education was for the most part confined to the vernacular.167 In one of his only epithalamia in the vernacular, Carbone defends the vernacular and says that he was asked to deliver it in the vernacular in order to please the women present.168 Some men and women criticized scholarly women and felt that they should not be taught classical letters and rhetoric. The eloquent Isotta Nogarola, for example, was accused of loose morals and incest in an anonymous 1438

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

111

pamphlet. Laura Cereta found it necessary to write an invective “Against women who disparage educated women.”169 In the curriculum Leonardo Bruni set up for Battista da Montefeltro, he asserted that the practice of rhetoric was unbecoming in a woman because of its public, performative, and argumentative nature. He wrote: [W]hy should the subtleties of . . . rhetorical conundrums consume the powers of a woman, who never sees the forum? The art of delivery . . . [is] so far . . . from being the concern of a woman that if she should gesture energetically with her arms as she spoke and shout with violent emphasis, she would probably be thought mad and put under restraint. The contests of the forum, like those of warfare and battle, are the sphere of men.170

A hundred years later, the Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives, in his treatise on women’s education, similarly asserted that girls should not study rhetoric. Both Aristotle and Plutarch had also praised silence as a female virtue. Later, this was the most important trait in Alberti’s ideal wife.171 Eloquence and erudition, however, appeared quite often on the list of a noble bride’s attributes. Many elite women in courts, including Battista herself, did not follow Bruni’s advice and shun the fora. Perhaps the peculiar context of a signorial court allowed women to have greater access to rhetorical training than they would have had in the political culture of a republic. Many women in courts had to perform public roles. Eleanor of Aragon was often praised as a model wife in wedding orations both for her devotion to her husband and for her intellectual abilities. She took an active role in the administration of Ferrara.172 Carbone compared her eloquence to the ancients: We saw her (speaking) before many great men, citizens, masters, princes, cardinals, and the pope. She spoke with such great dignity that the Holy Father was greatly awed by so noble a talent in a girl, a talent that approached the eloquence of the ancient orators. I do not wonder that the Neapolitans are most upset that she is leaving . . . A wondrous work is in her, a man’s mind in a female sex.173

Since rhetoric was considered a male domain, Eleanor’s success at this art proved that she had “a man’s mind in a female sex.” Learned women were often complimented for their virile minds. Rather than hurting their marriage prospects, however, a command of classical rhetoric was presented as a desirable accomplishment for a courtly bride. In his dia-

112

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

logue on the trip to Naples in 1473, Carbone’s character Paolo similarly praised Eleanor for her eloquence: “. . . when she enters the company of great men, she has no need of a translator nor of your eloquence, Lodovico, since she herself will answer in her own words ambassadors, princes, chancellors, cardinals, and the pope.”174 In addition to emphasizing Eleanor’s fluency in Latin, this passage reveals much about diplomatic relations in fifteenth-century Italy. The one common language used between cities and governments was Latin. Ambassadors and chancellors spoke in Latin. Those who did not understand needed a translator. Such praise for Eleanor’s classical learning demonstrates that she had benefited from and was expected to make use of an advanced humanist education.175 Ippolita Sforza also received accolades for her public display of erudition. She married Alfonso, Duke of Calabria, in 1465, and was the main binding force between Milan and Naples until her death in 1489.176 After the orator Bertini praised the beauty of her body, he turned to her humanist learning: What should I say about her literary training and learning, in which she has so well succeeded and made the ancient Romans and Christians so familiar to her that she has attained an extraordinary skill at speaking and writing? I saw her a few years ago at the assembly of Christian princes in Mantua [probably in 1459]. She spoke before the pope with such great eloquence that he [Pius II] who is considered the best at every kind of learning not only praised her but also was in awe of her and called her the greatest glory and pride of our age. Women who know Latin letters should be all the more praised, since they are rarer. Just as the Greeks boast of Aspasia, Diotima, and Macrina, and our Roman ancestors of Proba, Aemilia Africana, Hortensia, and others, so do we in our time rejoice that Ippolita has been born in Italy and has been taught literature.177

Delivering a Latin oration before the pope and many princes required a good deal of training and talent in a fourteen-year old girl.178 In a wedding oration for the same occasion, Francesco Patrizi also emphasized Ippolita Sforza’s intellect: “You are outstanding in the sharpness of your mind and in your literary studies, which rarely shine in your sex. You not only surpass young ladies, but are to be compared with the most eloquent men. No one surpasses you in corporeal beauty and success.”179 Of course, there were not many Ippolita Sforzas, as Bertini and Patrizi emphasize. The praise that she received for her learning, however, suggests

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

113

that Italian court society was at least sympathetic to female learning for an elite few. In a wedding oration for a Ferrarese couple, Carbone praised women for their learning in literature and rhetoric. Our time is not lacking in outstanding women who deserve praise. Who has not heard about Battista Malatesta, who delivered a fine oration before pope Martin? Or Paula, Gianfrancesco Gonzaga’s wife, who was so generous and high-spirited that advice was sought from her on the most important matters? We saw her daughter Margarita, who married Leonello [d’Este] . . . she was so prudent and well-read that all were astounded. Who does not know that in Barbara, Lodovico Gonzaga’s wife, there was such great constancy, magnanimity, and wisdom that she shared the concerns of the kingdom with her husband and governed like a prince? You, O most gentle prince, can certainly boast since your sister Bianca, who has added an unsurpassed fame of Greek and Latin letters to the Este family, . . . even wishes to read my orations and to listen to me delivering them. Therefore, let those who accuse women of not desiring great things look at this and confess that very many and great goods come from wives . . .180

Catalogues of illustrious women were popular in Italian courts. Authors generally followed the example of Boccaccio’s On Famous Women (1361). In 1405, Christine de Pizan argued that Boccaccio’s emphasis on exceptional women implied that the majority of women were inferior. Later in the century, the humanist Laura Cereta made a similar point in her defense of women.181 Bertini and Patrizi could be accused of a similar misogyny in their emphasis on the unusual nature of Ippolita’s accomplishments. Carbone, however, used his examples to argue that women in general, and wives in particular, are good. The list of contemporary learned women in wedding orations also reveals that intellectual ability, if not essential, was appreciated in courtly wives. Carbone was humorously boastful in praising Bianca’s learning by saying that she enjoys reading his orations and listening to him. He praised another bride for her literary accomplishments in a similar way: An elegant and generous girl, Leona is distinguished no less by the Romea family than by the Patrata family, yet she is even more renowned for her modesty and matronly bearing. She is learned as well; in fact, she was my student. How often she used to recite before me those verses that I once wrote about you, O Borso.182

114

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

Leona, according to Carbone, was not only learned, but was learned in the ways of courtly flattery. Orators no doubt praised learning in women out of self-interest, since a humanist could find employment teaching elite daughters as well as sons. But rather than presenting this learning as an end in itself, a mere ornament such as “fine needlepoint or musical skill,” orators often equated women’s excellence in classical oratory with the practical training needed for ruling.183 If, as Joan Kelly argued, noblewomen in fifteenth-century Italy had less economic and political power than they would have had in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, they were nevertheless praised for their prudence and contribution to government.184 Through panegyric, wedding orators offered an ideal public image of women who were learned and at least peripherally involved in politics. While humanists defended marriage and women both in republics and in courts, courtly orators, unlike Florentine and Venetian humanists, affirmed that the public display of humanistic learning was an appreciated attribute in prospective brides, an ideal for courtly women, if not often a reality. Wedding orations offer a vivid picture of marriage ideals in fifteenthcentury Italian courts. Orators promoted a particular conception of marriage that was drawn more from pagan antiquity than from the Christian tradition. Orators were not pagan in a Burckhardtian sense, as they did not reject Christianity. Humanists usually included prayers to God at the end of their epithalamia and often referred to the sacrament of marriage. The distinctively classical element in wedding orations is the focus on a social and political conception of marriage. Both in sermons and in orations, marriage is good from the perspective of Christian morality as a cure for lust and a source of procreation. But, unlike priests and like the ancients, orators also stressed that marriage helps rulers achieve personal ambitions. Through marriage, rulers strengthen and expand their empires and gain the economic resources essential for achieving and maintaining political power. Marriage also fulfills the natural desire for physical beauty and sexual pleasure. Orators supported such essentially anti-ascetic arguments with the works of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Cicero, Livy, Lucan, and other classical authors. Since epithalamia are panegyrics, orators chose classical and contemporary examples that would be flattering to specific living rulers, brides, grooms, and families who were usually present in the audience. In prais-

The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts

115

ing the political and economic benefits of marriage, orators cited the rape of the Sabines, the marriage of Caesar’s daughter Julia, and the recent marriage of Francesco Sforza and Bianca Visconti to demonstrate the utility of marriage for ending wars, forming alliances, and saving kingdoms. To prove that marriage is useful to men in power, they referred to the classical examples of Alexander the Great, Caesar, and Augustus, as well as to contemporary models such as Alfonso of Aragon and Francesco Sforza. By adopting the vocabulary and examples of Greek and Roman Antiquity and comparing them to contemporary history, wedding orators asserted a continuous imperial tradition and presented living rulers as equal and often superior to the ancients. They also selected a variety of examples from Antiquity to praise courtly accomplishments in women. While humanists in republics restricted wives to a domestic role and emphasized female silence as an ideal, many wedding orators praised brides for their eloquence and referred to women in power as role models. To demonstrate the excellence of women, they compared learned brides to accomplished women of Antiquity and to contemporaries such as Battista Malatesta, Barbara Gonzaga, and Ippolita Sforza. In epithalamia, classical role models and panegyric were used to praise actual courtly practices and to encourage ideal courtly virtues. While there were clearly different expectations for men and women in Italian courts, brides and grooms were often praised in surprisingly similar ways. Orators praised both brides and grooms for their physical beauty, their virtues, and their families’ wealth and position. When describing the political expediency of marriage, orators created the impression that both bride and groom were equally powerless in choosing a mate. However, by posing the question of whether the male philosopher or king should marry and making it a central part of orations, they implied that the decision is wholly the man’s. In arguing against the antimarriage and anti-female tradition of Theophrastus, Juvenal, and Jerome, orators presented a more positive image of women. If some orators supported the traditional domestic role of women, others praised wives for their learning and the assistance that they can provide rulers. While they praised both male and female learning, it was still seen as an essentially masculine accomplishment, so that learned women were seen to have “male minds in female bodies.” While some orators limited their praise

116

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

of sexual pleasure to the groom, others suggested that brides should also experience passionate longing for the marriage bed. At least in theory, in fifteenth-century Italian courts both ideal brides and ideal grooms were wealthy, powerful, beautiful, learned, and passionate, if not always equally so.

5

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

Fifteenth-century Italian humanists not only praised marriage and sex but also proposed arguments against celibacy in letters, dialogues, and wedding orations. Some humanists and preachers compared the stability, utility, and joys of marriage with the miseries of bachelorhood, while still maintaining that chaste celibacy was a higher ideal. Others criticized the clergy for not living up to their ideals and questioned whether anyone could resist nature and remain chaste while celibate. A few went further and questioned the idea that holy celibacy was superior to marriage. They asserted that both chaste and unchaste celibacy were unnatural, and sometimes explicitly attacked clerical celibacy. If Italian humanists often made exceptions for religious celibacy, their critiques nevertheless provided the discursive framework for the sixteenth-century debate over the value of marriage and holy celibacy among Erasmus, Luther, and other reformers. The philosophical and religious celibate ideal did not lack supporters in the fifteenth century. The humanist educator Pier Paolo Vergerio, for example, attempted to dissuade a young man from choosing a life of passions and marrying.1 Vergerio himself never married.2 The Venetian humanist Ermolao Barbaro (1453–1492), when still a young man, wrote an entire treatise on the superiority of celibacy to marriage.3 He criticized the arguments in his famous great uncle Francesco’s treatise on marriage, and openly rebelled against the social and political responsibilities of his patrician family by refusing to marry. Ermolao found sexuality repugnant and lamented the impossibility of achieving absolute purity, since children had to suck the breast.4 His arguments in favor of celibacy, 117

118

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

however, are generally philosophical rather than religious. Late in life he wrote that there was nothing worse for a scholar than to marry.5 He remained a bachelor throughout his life. In most defenses of celibacy, however, religious motives are central. In an anonymous fifteenth-century sermon on the four states of life, for example, a cleric ends his account with the declaration that in order to be perfect, one must avoid marriage: “Marriage should not be avoided on account of its troubles, worries, and concerns (for this is weak and unbecoming in a strong man), but so that we may keep ourselves pure and continent.”6 Fifteenth-century Latin translations of the Greek desert fathers also nurtured a growing interest in monastic contemplative spirituality and provided more venerable authorities in favor of virginity.7 The humanist monk Ambrogio Traversari translated Chrysostom’s treatise On Virginity and dedicated it to Pope Eugene IV in 1434.8 In his preface, Traversari lamented the failure of his brethren to maintain their vow of celibacy.9 Like Traversari’s translation, works in praise of celibacy often seem to have been written as a reaction against the popularity of promarriage ideas already in circulation.10 Some clerics praised marriage and criticized celibacy, though not clerical celibacy. The humanist bishop, Giannantonio Campano (1429– 1477) offers a vivid picture of the wifeless man in his oration on the dignity of marriage, which he later turned into a treatise: He who lacks a wife has almost nothing that he can call his own. Servants rob him, household slaves whisper about him, and friends and neighbors slander him. His retinue, boxes, and drawers are not safe from traps. All lie exposed to deceit and neglect. All grow squalid in mold. The whole house is dirty, nothing saved, nothing adorned. Every thing is scattered and thrown down without restraint, order, or cleanliness. He who has no wife is not at home. Even when he is at home he thinks in one way and longs in another. He lives like an outsider in a guest house. He recognizes no purpose, no domicile, no bedroom, and no household gods. Reluctantly he finds his domestic gods full of solitude and empty of comfort. No light illuminates, no food tastes good, no drink, nothing is pleasing without a wife.11

To be wifeless is to be perpetually in domestic, emotional, and intellectual confusion. The Franciscan preacher Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) also vividly described the woes of bachelorhood, emphasizing that the celibate life is corporeally and spiritually miserable, and closer to an ani-

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

119

mal’s life than a human’s.12 He believed that celibates who refused to marry were or were destined to become sodomites. Single men, Bernardino concluded, should not be allowed to hold office and, after a certain age, should be exiled from the city.13 Marriage sermons and orations often stressed the need for marriage in order to control contra naturam cravings. In the later Middle Ages contra naturam was broadly interpreted to mean any non-reproductive sexual behavior, including heterosexual behavior.14 In wedding orations, married humanists praised the Spartan Lycurgus and ancient Roman legislators for passing laws against celibacy.15 They followed ancient models in arguing that celibates have no self-control and that their intemperance is a danger to society, since it threatens and destabilizes the population.16 Here, celibacy is not practiced for religious or philosophical reasons but for self-seeking pleasure. These advocates of marriage are for the most part not anticlerical. Campano did not marry and was himself a cleric.17 Bernardino was also a cleric, and defended spiritual celibacy.18 How could he argue for the preeminence of celibacy and virginity, and then describe the unmarried as lost in chaos and hopelessness? Bernardino was responding to social crisis. As discussed in chapter one, continual plagues, wars, and internal factional strife had reduced the population of Siena from 70,000 before 1348 to 15,000 in the 1420s.19 In Siena, Bernardino lived amid this social upheaval and depopulation. As a mendicant friar he had to live and preach in society. He knew what ailed the city and saw marriage as the solution. Marriage would replenish the lost population; marriage would reform the violent and immoral; and marriage would create and maintain social and civic harmony.20 For Bernardino, the welfare of the secular world depended on marriage; but for a select few, chaste celibacy was the higher ideal. The Sienese humanist Agostino Dati illustrated these seemingly contradictory ideals. He talked about the social penalties of celibacy in a wedding oration at Siena: “The unmarried are scorned and reviled and receive blame, calumny, and universal hatred, so that they are known as infamous.”21 He immediately, however, qualified his condemnation by adding: “Except for those who are dedicated to contemplation and are free for the sacred mystery of divine worship. This is the better and more perfect life.”22 While Dati advocated marriage as the norm for most people, he nonetheless maintained, following Paul, that religious celibacy was a higher way of life.

120

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

While there were defenders of the celibate ideal in the fifteenth century, some questioned whether it was possible to live up to such a high ideal. In his dialogue, On Whether an Old Man should Marry (1437),23 Poggio Bracciolini’s main character claims that celibates are rarely, if ever, virtuous: In what way can one who abstains from marriage avoid being an adulterer or a fornicator or [avoid] becoming more attached to another more detestable vice? Nor do you show me a life of continence, and there are indeed very few people who embrace such virtue. Therefore, one should embrace the married state, since it is a more virtuous life.24

Compared to most celibates, the married lead a purer life. For Poggio’s character, marriage did not represent servitude but the greatest freedom from the vices that plague the unmarried.25 When he was criticized for openly having a concubine before his marriage, Poggio responded: As far as my choice of ways of life is concerned, I decided long ago the course of my life, by which I proceed without deviating from my established path. I do not want to be a priest. I do not want benefices. For I have seen very many men whom I thought to be good . . . become greedy and unvirtuous after joining the priesthood . . . Since I am afraid that this might happen to me, I have decided to live what remains of my pilgrim life far from your order: the priestly tonsure cuts away not only hair but conscience and virtue.26

Poggio reversed traditional categories, when he asserted that the lay state is virtuous and the clerical is fallen. The celibate state is more prone to the evils of lust, since it lacks the virtuous balance of marriage. The layman, not the cleric, can live according to the ideals of philosophy and religion. The true intellectual for Poggio should not be associated with any institutions that could corrupt his virtues and his ideal of learning.27 Poggio held libertas, understood as freedom from hierarchical or tyrannical control, as an ideal to live by.28 Although he worked for the papal Curia, Poggio refused to enter into its hierarchical discipline in order to maintain the libertas of his lay status.29 His entire career in fact constituted an affirmation of the role of the laity within the church. In 1436 Poggio, an apothecary’s son, married Vaggia di Ghino di Manente dei Buondelmonti, who was from one of the oldest and noblest families in Florence.30 For him, virtue was to be sought outside the church. Poggio had already voiced his discontent with the institution of the

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

121

church in 1417 at the Council of Constance (1414–1418). He was present at the Council as papal secretary, and what he witnessed there provoked him to write a tirade against the avarice, luxury, pride, gluttony, and spiritual turpitude that he saw plaguing the clergy.31 Denys Hay has argued that the tension between celibate curialists who could advance within the church and married curialists who could not advance was the underlying cause of such disrespectful works as Poggio’s Facetiae (1438– 1452).32 Poggio’s answer to corruption was to reform the morality of the individuals who made up the church. The clergy should teach morality by living as models of virtue. They should correct bad morals by setting a good example in deed as well as word.33 Reform should be centered not on the formal structures of the institution, but on the individuals who collectively are the church. Another curialist, Lapo da Castiglionchio wrote in his 1438 dialogue that the woes of the curia were due to the sexual behavior of its members: Now I shall not go into any detail about private debaucheries, domestic prostitutes, adulterous matrons, or even the courtesans of more honorable status . . . But let me include in my speech common prostitution and harlotry by saying that in the Curia all of the streets, districts, narrow lanes, public baths, hot baths, and taverns are swimming with them.34

At the heart of the corrupt curia were sins of the libido. Celibate clerics, in fact, were the main customers of Rome’s ever growing population of prostitutes.35 Fifteenth-century Italian Novelle, which are reminiscent of Boccaccio’s tales, are full of images of lusty religious persons.36 Corruption in the church had become so widespread that the immoral religious figure was a literary commonplace. Anticlericalism was not new to the fifteenth century. Fourteenthcentury writers did not hesitate to condemn church corruption. Dante had placed his contemporary popes in Hell for simony.37 Boccaccio had criticized the hypocrisy of the church on the issue of celibacy in his popular collection of stories, the Decameron (ca. 1350).38 His numerous tales of libidinous and corrupt clerics are all set to the background of his experience of the Plague (1347–1349), which he describes in his introduction. The chaos and trauma of plague gives the stories an escapist and even therapeutic character. The tragic context also highlights the con-

122

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

tradictions between ideals and human nature. In the Decameron, clerics, monks, and friars often used their claim to a higher way of life and morality to seduce and abuse a gullible laity. The desert monk Rustico, for example, representing the high ascetic ideals of virginity and chastity, used his claim to holiness to deflower a young girl (III, 10). Dom Felice (III, 4) and a Tuscan Abbot (III, 8) similarly seduced wives of penitents with the help of their holy status. Rather than condemning such acts, however, Boccaccio affirmed that sexual desire is natural and that its denial will lead to pain and corruption. His stories imply that if the clergy could marry, much hypocrisy and abuse would be prevented. In all his stories, Boccaccio criticized the adoption of ideals which are against human nature. Ideals of virginity and chastity in the end cannot be maintained. Such unnatural ideals will eventually lead to corruption. In the fifteenth century anticlerical sentiment was widespread.39 In addition to criticizing the degeneracy of church members, Italian humanists offered their readers an alternative set of moral and theological ideals. Anticlericalism in this respect was not a safety valve that reinforced the status quo, as some scholars have argued.40 It was a vehicle for reform.41 Fifteenth-century Italian humanists were part of a secularizing process centered in an anticlerical tendency.42 They justified the active life and defended the lay state over the clerical. In the early fifteenth century, a modicum of economic and civic stability provided greater opportunities for lay intellectuals. While Petrarch, Boccaccio, and other humanists of an earlier generation had found both financial and social security in the clerical state, most fifteenth-century Italian humanists decided not to enter orders and to marry.43 Compared with other European cities, Rome was a backwater town populated by more sheep than people, and it would remain so throughout the fifteenth century.44 Even after Martin V and his successors reasserted a stronger papacy in Rome, many humanists still chose to remain laymen.45 In the early- to mid-fifteenth century, only about one tenth of all humanists were clergymen. Of the fifty most prominent humanists in Florence, for example, only six were clergymen.46 Similarly, of the 600 ‘writers’ and ‘humanists’ whom Peter Burke calls the Italian elite, only forty-four were clerics.47 By the end of the century, however, growth and professionalization made the clerical status essential for advancement in the church, and more humanists followed the path of Adriano Castellesi (1458– 1522?), who, finding marriage a hindrance to his career, petitioned for

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

123

and received a papal annulment in 1487.48 In the sixteenth century almost fifty percent of all humanists were clergymen.49 Because of their language skills humanists easily found employment as secretaries in the Roman curia.50 Both Leonardo Bruni and Poggio Bracciolini worked in the papal secretariat but nevertheless chose to remain lay and to marry, although significantly late in life. Other fifteenthcentury humanists, including Coluccio Salutati, Bartolommeo Scala, and Ludovico Carbone defended their decisions to remain lay intellectuals instead of embracing clerical celibacy, as discussed below. Like Poggio, the Roman lay humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) states that clerical celibacy is virtually unattainable. The main character (named Lorenzo and clearly a mouthpiece for the author) in Valla’s dialogue, The Profession of the Religious (1439–1442), offers these arguments against celibacy: It is much better to reach the middle point safely than to climb to the highest point but then risk falling down. Oh how I wish that bishops, priests, and deacons were husbands of a single wife each, rather than being, you will pardon my language, lovers of more than one whore . . . There are many in the priesthood who are moral but, I am sorry to have to say, more numerous are the sinful.51

While he criticized the celibate ideal as being too difficult for the majority of the clerics and suggested the expediency of clerical marriage, Lorenzo still considered holy celibacy a higher state. In Germany, the anonymous author of the Reformatio Sigismundi (ca. 1438) similarly argued against clerical celibacy on practical grounds, and Pope Pius II implied that celibacy was unattainable when he reportedly declared: “Marriage was taken away from priests for a great reason, it must be restored to them for a greater reason.”52 Seventy years later Erasmus quoted Pius in his defense of marriage, and Luther said that not one in a thousand could maintain holy celibacy.53 While these statements are critical of the religious for failing to live up to their proposed ideals, they do not directly attack the ideals themselves. Some humanists, however, attacked the ideal of celibacy (even chaste celibacy) as unnatural and anti-social. According to many humanists, the highest pleasures and most noble duties in life are social. Following Aristotle, they argued that marriage is superior to celibacy since it is more useful for the community and the city-state.54 Coluccio Salutati was the

124

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

first humanist to use the social and utility argument in favor of marriage. As discussed in chapter one, he was originally pro-celibacy but reversed his opinion after he himself married. In his letter defending his decision, he condemned those who choose chastity over procreation as selfish: Whoever shuns the duty to procreate out of zeal for sterility, hurts himself and his family, is malignant toward the human race, and is most ungrateful to nature. [The celibate] injures himself by not preparing a support and solace in offspring for [his] needy and weak old age . . . He should not desert himself and give himself over to infinite dangers, diseases, and old age . . . He also injures his relatives; in fact, he not only abandons his close relatives but also extinguishes the reputation and name of his entire bloodline. [The celibate] harms his homeland, since he does not supply defenders.55

Celibates not only neglect themselves and their own family but the city in which they live. Civic stability depends on the offspring of its citizens. In the context of Salutati’s life, such pronouncements also read as criticisms of the intellectual as cleric as opposed to the intellectual as citizen. As discussed in chapter one, Leonardo Bruni similarly followed Aristotle in asserting that marriage is the foundation of civic harmony.56 Celibacy damages both the welfare of the state and the individual. If marriage is the origin of society, and social interaction is what makes humanity human, then celibates can neither fully enjoy these social pleasures nor benefit from the solace of a mate. In 1436, when at the age of fifty-six Poggio Bracciolini married and thereby confirmed his lay status, he wrote in a letter: “A great change has happened in me. You know that I have been unsure about what kind of life to lead, as I was neither fleeing the world nor following the clergy. Nevertheless, since by nature I have always abhorred the priesthood and I was at such an age that I had to accept a certain way of life, I decided to marry.”57 After receiving much criticism for marrying, especially at his older age, he defended himself by writing the dialogue, On Whether an Old Man should Marry (1437).58 In the dialogue, Poggio’s main character criticizes the ideals of the solitary life and chaste celibacy: Nature herself has decreed the joining of male and female for the preservation of the world, not just between humans but in other animals as well. I therefore think it most fitting to prefer to live a communal and civic life and to bear offspring for the benefit of the city, rather

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

125

than to be alone, sterile, and remote from the concourse of others, deprived of the true and perfect friendship and daily kindness that marriage especially provides. Indeed, it is shameful and against our nature-given reason (since man is a social animal and is born to procreate) to deny our procreative instinct and to spurn the society that is the best and most pleasing of all.59

Poggio’s character most likely expresses Poggio’s own opinion of marriage since, like Salutati, he wrote this dialogue to defend his own decision to marry a much younger bride.60 The greatest joy in life is to participate in a society that is not open to the unmarried. The celibate life is anti-social, irrational, and unnatural. In his wedding orations Ludovico Carbone presented similar arguments against celibacy. Like Florentine lay humanists, most courtly wedding orators also married. Carbone married sometime between 1466 and 1471.61 In an epithalamium for a wedding in Ferrara, Carbone contrasted the joy of the groom with the woes of bachelorhood: Much greater inconveniences and troubles follow and plague the unmarried: loneliness, sterility, the end of their lineage, and uncertain heirs. For, although the groom is of noble birth and has great learning, his happiness would be lacking, weak, and diminished if he had not found a bedmate and faithful protector of his property with whom he could converse as if to himself and in whose lap he could put down all bitterness.62

Concern for heirs and lineage was especially emphasized among upper class families. Personal happiness, however, was still to be valued. The unmarried are lonely and unhappy, since they have no companion to share their thoughts and offer solace. The happiness of married life is often contrasted with the loneliness and ruin of bachelorhood. A bachelor, an anonymous orator claimed, “is like a ship without a helmsman, wrecking on the shoals of life.”63 Another popular humanist argument saw celibacy as unnatural. In his letter defending marriage, Salutati called chaste celibacy a defect of nature: Nature, or rather God, the author of nature, put genitalia in the human body so that humans might procreate and preserve the human race . . . Since Nature has bound all men to procreate, we call the sterile ‘defective’ or ‘half-men’ as they lack what is natural. Indeed this is one of the greatest defects in nature.64

126

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

The desire to procreate is natural, and since God or nature instilled this desire in us, we must obey it. In another letter, Salutati explained that sexual activity was essential for good health, since “if this superfluity of sperm is retained too much, it is converted to poison and generates pernicious passions.”65 In ancient and medieval medicine, ejaculation was seen as necessary to restore the body’s balance. The pagan doctor Galen, for example, criticized continence and even praised Diogenes the Cynic for his advocacy of masturbation.66 The celibate, according to Salutati, is: “ungrateful to nature, since he prevents her course by the chastity of virginity and continence; and he makes worthless the genitals that nature intended to be marvelous instruments for the carrying of semen to the place of conception.”67 It is a sin not to use the genitals that nature has fashioned for us. Here, Salutati condemned not lustful celibacy but chaste celibacy. The Florentine Chancellor, Bartolomeo Scala (1430–1497) also argued that celibacy was unnatural. He married in 1468 and fathered a daughter.68 Before this, however, he wrote the dialogue, On Whether a Wise Man should Marry (1457–1459).69 Scala’s main character defines wisdom not as religious asceticism but as an active philosophy based on the Stoic ideal of following nature as a guide to behavior. What kind of wisdom tells one to reject nature and to be an enemy and a deserter of the human race? For nature first put in us the desire to procreate and to take care of our offspring. He who attacks wives, therefore, rejects nature. If he who follows nature as the best guide to living never errs, as Cicero attests; he who rejects nature will surely err and not be wise since error must be very far from the wise man. He who cares not for the preservation of human society, in my opinion, is not only stupid and against nature but is lower than the wildest beasts.70

If, as Cicero and the Stoics assert, to be wise is to follow nature, then celibates cannot be wise. Paradoxically, it is the celibates, not the lustful, who are worse than the wildest beasts. Carbone similarly argued that celibates are below the level of wild animals in a wedding oration: Nature has written in you the law of being born and giving birth, and parents have obliged you to bring up and nourish grandchildren . . . But, if they [your parents] had complained about this, they would rightly have been punished, since they would seem to be neglecting

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

127

their own welfare . . . [and] to be spurning the laws of nature, which gave all animals the desire to copulate for procreation. This is obvious even in birds, which are held by such a strong desire to nest that they seem like married couples, who procreate and nourish so that their lineage may be perpetual.71

Here again is a slightly pagan reference to “nature” as the highest authority. Celibates are not human or even animals, since animals at least fulfill the need and duty that nature has given them. “The wiseman,” Poggio maintained, “cannot act contrary to the order and rule of nature, which is the source of living well.”72 Lorenzo Valla also criticized celibacy and virginity as unnatural and raised the specter of depopulation and social devastation. In his 1431 dialogue, On Pleasure, he has a Stoic and an Epicurean philosopher debate over the true nature of pleasure. Valla placed an argument against holy virginity in the mouth of the Epicurean.73 In a notorious passage, he declared that “prostitutes and whores deserve better of the human race than do sanctified and chaste virgins.”74 The Epicurean then says that the practice of virginity was thought up by men who did not want to pay dowries for their daughters.75 Thinking that women themselves should argue against this imposition, the Epicurean conjured up a Vestal virgin to deliver a lengthy attack against virginity.76 The Vestal sees virginity as the greatest torment for both body and soul. It is an unnatural state that was created by men and should be abolished. “Do you not see,” the virgin asserts, “O wisest of men, what a disaster humankind would suffer if all were as we are? Truly the race would be finished.”77 In the dialogue, the Epicurean character presents stronger arguments than the Stoic and wins the debate. The central argument of Valla’s dialogue is that the laws of nature cannot and should not be denied. He criticizes celibacy, and by implication specifically clerical celibacy, as the Vestal virgin is surely meant to be the ancient equivalent of the celibate religious. A few humanists explicitly attacked clerical celibacy. In his 1393 letter, Salutati denied any Biblical foundation for the celibate ideal: The divine laws do not prescribe continence and virginity; rather they command marriage without hesitation. Before nature was corrupted by the sin of the first parents . . . the divine precept was given to them: ‘Grow and multiply and fill the earth’ (Gen. I, 28). If we understand these words correctly, nothing but the joining of male and female is

128

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

commanded. Where will you find a command against marriage that praised chastity and abstinence? I think, nowhere.78

There is no reason then to malign marriage, since it is commanded by God and a sacrament of the church.79 Salutati criticized not only celibacy but also chastity. In doing so, he did not attack Christianity but rather advocated the socially active piety of married life. He continued: If everyone were to take on vows of virginity and continence, would not the entire human race and all religion perish? What would it be like to watch the devastation of the world, to see families fail, castles and fields deserted, cities disappear, kingdoms collapse, and everything fill with thorns and brambles?80

This is a vivid image of the effects of plagues and wars on the population of late fourteenth-century Tuscany. Salutati had seen devastated cities and families. Here, even chaste celibacy and holy virginity were threats to society. His reference to “vows” made it clear that Salutati was explicitly criticizing clerical celibacy, not just celibacy in general. For the wedding of Johannes Corvinus and Bianca Sforza in 1487, the Milanese court physician Giovanni Marliani composed an epithalamium in which he explicitly accused celibates and virgins of disobeying God’s law. I think that those who have chosen marriage over celibacy or virginity deserve the highest praise. For although the virginal state may help one to achieve a heavenly reward more easily, those who proclaim it do so only for their own salvation. But those who marry not only look after themselves, but their family, relatives, and friends, as well as the state and the entire human race. We are born not just for ourselves but for others as well. Those who care for themselves as well as others deserve greater praise than those who only care for themselves. For, if virginity can help grow a certain angelic order in heaven, marriage both fills heaven and multiplies the human race. Furthermore, since marriage, not virginity, was divinely ordained, those who fulfill God’s command to procreate and not to be celibate should be held in greater esteem.81

If Marliani still acknowledged that virginity could lead to an easier heavenly reward, he nevertheless declared that marriage deserves greater praise and esteem. In his political treatise, the De regno, Francesco Patrizi of Siena similarly argued for the superiority of the active life since, while the contemplative life affords only opportunities to practice virtues that

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

129

help the individual, the active life offers opportunities to practice acts of virtue that nurture the community.82 Chaste celibates, Marliani maintained, not only fail to contribute to social and civic welfare, but they are also disobedient to God’s command in Genesis to multiply.83 In another wedding oration Giovanni Mario Filelfo similarly proclaimed: “Long before the priesthood was ever instituted on earth, marriage was decreed in the Garden of Eden.”84 Other orators used this logic to argue that marriage was greater than all the other sacraments.85 “Marriage,” Giovanni Mario Filelfo continued, “is a wonderful exchange with which no state of life can compare.”86 The orator’s use of the phrase “status vitae” emphasized the missing part of the comparison, the clerical state. Such attacks were not limited to celibacy in general, but also referred specifically to the chaste celibacy and holy virginity of the religious. In his dialogue, The Profession of the Religious (1439–1442), Valla’s namesake found the clerical state problematic in its exclusiveness. Lorenzo declared: Yet, just because of his chastity, a priest will not be more meritorious than I am. Otherwise, women, since they cannot be priests, would be in an inferior position, whereas before God there is no distinction between Greeks and barbarians, masters and servants, men and women.87

Valla’s dialogue is remarkable in the use of the New Testament (Gal. 3:28) to assert equality between the sexes.88 God, his character asserts, does not care about the externals of a man, his status or his job, but his spiritual inner life. Basing his thought on Paul (e.g., Eph. iv.1–16), Valla’s character sees the Christian community not in terms of celestial and spiritual hierarchies but as a whole made up of individual souls, each capable of achieving equal merit by practicing charity.89 The clergy, therefore, are not better than married laymen on account of celibacy. The presence of Greek orthodox clerics before and after the Council of Florence in 1438 also influenced humanists on the question of clerical marriage.90 In the Latin west, clerical celibacy was made mandatory at the Council of Elvira in 300, and Pope Siricius at the Council of Rome in 386 enforced this by a binding canon.91 In the eleventh century, Peter Damian and Pope Gregory VII also formulated a consistent church doctrine against clerical marriage. Throughout the Middle Ages, however, canon lawyers frequently dealt with issues of clerical concubinage.92 Unlike Latins, Orthodox clerics were allowed to marry. Some of them even

130

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

wrote works in defense of the natural state of clerical marriage. Although he did not condemn virginity, an anonymous Orthodox Christian argued that the celibate and the married state are equal in merit, using arguments very similar to those of Italian humanists: It is obvious to any learned man that there can be no religion, no city, and no household without marriage. Some people have dared to place the marriage bond not only above chastity but above virginity. They argue that marriage is a universal good and that as such it should be preferred to a particular good like chastity and virginity. Merit is equal in the married and the celibate, as in Abram who produced sons and in John who had no experience of marriage . . . [F]rom this divinely joined relationship prophets have arisen, famous kings, martyrs, doctors, virgins, with whom heaven is decorated, and the best statesmen, to whom a certain heavenly favor is granted.93

Marriage is the source not only of secular leaders but also of prophets and virgins. Marriage and celibacy are spiritually equal. But, unlike celibacy, marriage is the foundation and bulwark of the community. Latin defenses of celibacy in the fifteenth century attacked Orthodox practice, and thus demonstrated how influential Orthodox ideas were in Italy. In his dedication to Pope Sixtus IV, Rodocatharus de Sancta Ella, a Spanish monk, justified his defense by acknowledging the popularity of works attacking clerical celibacy. He cited in particular a certain Leonardo Leti whom the author called a new Jovinian and Epicurus.94 Sancta Ella wrote his defense of celibacy as a dialogue between Libido (Lust) and Pudicitia (Modesty), using Jerome as a major source. Libido cited the Orthodox church as proof that the clergy should marry. Pudicitia responds, While the Western Church voted to accept celibacy, the Eastern Church, which has always been less cultured and steadfast in the faith than the Latin Church, did not accept the vow of celibacy. The one Church then advocates a joyous compulsion, while the other a sad, imperfect license.95

While Libido’s arguments for marriage are fairly brief, Pudicitia is patronizing, longwinded, and consistently ad hominem (if the term is applicable here). The dialogue reveals the popularity of arguments in favor of clerical marriage and confirms that clerics and humanists referred to Orthodox practice in their criticism of celibacy. Pro-marriage and anti-celibacy arguments in the Renaissance were in-

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

131

timately related. By criticizing clerical celibacy and advocating a politically active and family-centered ethic, Italian humanists sought to replace the ascetic and contemplative ideals of the desert fathers with a more classical civic and naturalistic conception of human behavior. But while they criticized the church and its failings, most Italian humanists were not rejecting Christianity in favor of some pagan ideal, but rather seeking to reform the Christian religion by looking back to its Apostolic and Old Testament origins. The married state, which entails all the responsibilities of attending to the common good, is the highest affirmation of this active piety. The marriage thought of fifteenth-century Italian humanists formed the prehistory of Reformation debates on clerical celibacy and the value of marriage. The most direct link is in the person of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), who himself composed at least one humanist marriage oration and cites Italian humanists in his works. Erasmus published extensively on marriage from the 1490s through the 1520s.96 In addition to using the same classical sources as earlier humanists, Erasmus cites Campano, Pius II, and other fifteenth-century writers on marriage.97 He first expressed his ideas about marriage in a wedding oration, the Encomium matrimonii, which he wrote in 1498 and later published in 1518 in a rhetorical manual.98 In the encomium Erasmus argued that chaste marriage is better than celibacy and that clerics should be allowed to marry: “In my view it would not be ill-advised for the interests and morals of mankind if the right of wedlock were also conceded to priests and monks, . . . especially in view of the fact that there is such a great throng of priests everywhere, so few of whom live a chaste life.”99 Unlike Valla, Erasmus did not criticize the ideal of holy celibacy, only those who fail to live up to their vows. He condemned the unchaste, not the chaste celibates. Nevertheless, like Carbone and other Italians, Erasmus thought that these celibates “should not be accounted as human,”100 that celibacy was equal to loneliness and sterility, and that life was meant to be lived within society. After its 1518 publication, Catholic critics condemned the encomium. One called Erasmus “a teacher of carnal knowledge” and said that he had gained this expertise since he was “in the category of adulterer, rapist, or fornicator.”101 The debate over his orthodoxy on this issue continued for more than a decade. Erasmus had to write three similar tracts to defend the Encomium.102 He claimed that his wedding oration was not

132

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

meant to be a theological treatise; it was an example of persuasive rhetoric, written to convince a specific bachelor that for him marriage should be preferred.103 But while he used rhetorical form to defend his work, Erasmus still continued to argue in favor of many of the ideas in the Encomium. This suggests that it was not empty rhetoric; indeed his critics did not interpret the Encomium as such. In his defense, Erasmus distinguished between celibacy and continence or chastity. Following the traditional theological definition, he defined celibacy to mean only the unmarried state. Bachelors and fornicators can be celibates. All Christians, however, are called to live a chaste life. “[T]he marriage I praise,” he wrote, “is very similar to virginity, a marriage in which one has a wife for the production of offspring, not the satisfaction of lust.”104 In this defense, Erasmus was more conservative than Italian humanists, who in a less politically charged atmosphere had the freedom to argue that sexual pleasure within marriage was not limited to the production of children but a good in itself.105 Erasmus answered the charges against him by claiming that chaste marriage is better and more holy than sinful celibacy. By the sixteenth century, however, even Erasmus’ less radical views were much criticized, and in 1559 Pope Paul III placed Erasmus’ Encomium and other works on the Index of Prohibited Books.106 Martin Luther (1483–1546) and his followers were explicitly critical of the celibate ideal.107 In his 1519 Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, Luther does not directly challenge holy celibacy, but he does assert that virginity and chastity are “without special grace from God quite impossible.”108 In To the Christian Nobility (1520), Luther claimed that the universality of vows of celibacy was a main cause of clerical corruption.109 He maintained that there is nothing in the Gospels that demands celibacy of priests: “Before God and the Holy Scriptures marriage of the clergy is no offense.”110 Unlike earlier critics, he attacked the papacy for enforcing clerical celibacy: “[T]he Roman See . . . out of its own wanton wickedness made a universal commandment forbidding priests to marry.”111 In On Monastic Vows (1521) and On the Married Life (1522), Luther extended his attack on the ideal of clerical celibacy. Vows of celibacy, Luther asserted, are contrary to Gospel, to nature, and to common sense.112 They needlessly torture body and soul. By 1525 Luther was unsparing in his criticism of celibacy. Like the Italian humanists, he declared: “Whoever is ashamed of marriage is also

Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation

133

ashamed of being and being called human, [and] tries to improve on what God has made.”113 The urgings of nature according to Luther should not be denied but rather embraced. While Luther was unlike the humanists in that he did not use classical sources, his arguments are similar to theirs in that he used both the Bible and his personal experience to come to the conclusion that nature and the body’s desires are essentially good. Like the Italian humanists and the ancient Stoics, he argued that celibates act against nature. As Salutati had argued 120 years before, Luther defended the necessity and goodness of sexual desire: A young woman, if the high and rare grace of virginity has not been bestowed upon her, can do without a man as little as without food, drink, sleep, and other natural needs. And on the other hand: a man too cannot be without a woman. The reason is the following: begetting children is as deeply rooted in nature as eating and drinking. That is why God provided the body with limbs, arteries, ejaculation, and everything that goes along with them. Now if someone wants to stop this and not permit what nature wants and must do, what is he doing but preventing nature from being nature, fire from burning, water from being wet, and man from drinking, eating, or sleeping?114

Man is both body and soul. God has given a purpose to nature. Marriage, Luther wrote, was the natural state for both lay and cleric. Celibacy is contrary to both God’s law and nature. Fifteenth-century Italian humanists raised questions that were to become major points of contention during the Reformation. Like earlier Italian humanists, in his numerous works on marriage, Erasmus attempted to join classical civic and community-centered values to an active Christian piety.115 He cited Italian humanists in his marriage works and (at least for his encomium of marriage) adopted their favorite rhetorical form, the wedding oration. Even if Luther may not have known the Italian humanist arguments in favor of marriage, he was familiar with Erasmus’ writings and aware of the controversy that followed their publication.116 Luther relied on the Bible and experience to justify marriage as natural and therefore good. While Erasmus based his conception of reform on historical continuity in the church, Luther stressed the importance of discontinuity, the need to break with recent church history and the accretions of the medieval church, especially the papacy.117 In calling for the abolition of the entire papal institution, Luther was much more radical than earlier and contemporary German and Italian critics who

134

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

wanted the papacy to be reformed.118 He differed from humanists in that he explicitly accused the papacy of being the root of clerical celibacy and corruption, and denied the sacramentality of marriage. Unlike Erasmus, Luther actually married (a nun, no less). The marriage thought of Italian humanists was pertinent to both reformers, if indirectly in Luther’s case. The opinions of humanists are often concealed by the formal dictates of genre, but biographies of authors can clarify their intentions. Poggio Bracciolini, for example, presents his dialogue as a defense of his own decision to marry, as does Salutati in his artifice-laden letter. Bartolomeo Scala married soon after composing his dialogue, as did the wedding orators Guarino and Carbone. The fact that humanists upheld the rules of genre and clothed ideas in the Latin language does not mean that their arguments are insincere. Coluccio Salutati, Poggio Bracciolini, Ludovico Carbone, Bartolomeo Scala, and other humanists presented a philosophical attack on celibacy (even chaste celibacy) based on Stoic and Aristotelian ideas, the Bible, and their own experience. Many criticized incontinent clerics and described the woes of bachelorhood, and a few attacked the celibate ideal as unnatural, selfish, and inferior to marriage. These fifteenth-century critics of celibacy provided the intellectual foundation for the sixteenth-century debate over religious celibacy and holy virginity.

Conclusion

Fifteenth-century Italian humanists challenged one of the central tenets of Christian culture by asserting that the married state is preferable to the celibate. When Florentine humanists and orators in Italian courts defended marriage, sensual pleasure, wealth, and power, compared princes to pagan gods and Christian martyrs, and criticized the clergy, they were espousing a coherent set of values diametrically opposed to the ideals of Christian asceticism. Following Stoic and Epicurean ideas, they emphasized the inherent good in human nature, corporeal pleasure, and the active life. However, by including Biblical quotations and Judeo-Christian examples in their arguments, humanists made it clear that they were not anti-Christian but were rather in favor of a new kind of reformed Christianity. In putting marriage on a higher level than spiritual celibacy, they asserted their belief in a more secular Christianity, rooted in the Incarnation and the community ideals of the Old Testament and Apostolic age. They supported this belief with classical arguments for the political and social value of marriage in the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, and the Stoics. Some tensions necessarily arose in the combination of Christian and pagan sources, but most humanists seem blithely to have disregarded these inconsistencies. In their fervor for antiquity, they often adopted overtly pagan arguments and vocabulary. Humanists and their audiences exhibited a wide tolerance for the fusion of pagan and Christian ideas and seemed not to have seen a tension between these paganizing elements and their classically inspired ideas for Christian reform. The doctrines of these humanists were not confined to scholarly treatises, lectures, and letters. Humanists proposed these ideas in orations 135

136

The Renaissance of Marriage in Fifteenth-Century Italy

before large audiences as part of magnificent ceremonies. These Latin orations were delivered for the elite, who for the most part would have received the humanistic education necessary to understand them. In addition to the accessibility of their rhetorical form, the content of wedding orations would have had a broad appeal. They are full of ancient and modern anecdotes and sometimes include witticisms. Ideas about marriage bridge the gap between the debates of intellectuals and the practical concerns of the upper class, and between theory and practice. Almost all orators themselves chose to marry rather than pursue a stable ecclesiastical career or practice philosophical bachelorhood. They related the teachings of classical philosophy and the lives of philosophers and emperors to their own lives, and compared the subjects of their panegyrics to illustrious ancient models to flatter but also to teach. Classical antiquity provided fifteenth-century humanists and elites with a practical framework to guide their lives. In their subjects and choice of examples, humanists proposed ideal ways to live, to behave, and to rule. In fifteenth-century Italy, elite weddings were a focal point of court culture and power politics. Ruling families formed alliances through marriage, and the weddings that joined them were an important opportunity for the display of power and wealth. Marriage, orators argued, was necessary for acquiring and maintaining political and economic power. In their use of panegyric, wedding orators revealed how rulers such as the Este, the Sforza, and the House of Aragon wished to be perceived both by their subjects and by foreign dignitaries. Using classical sources, orators fashioned genealogies and affirmed the rights of rulers with arguments in defense of monarchy and aristocratic privilege. By claiming divine lineages and comparing rulers to gods, orators favored a pagan form of deification over a Christian conception of humble sainthood. Instead of Christian humility and poverty, they praised the acquisition of riches and the virtue of magnificence as marks of nobility. Orators spoke explicitly of marriage as a tool for political and economic alliance but nonetheless affirmed an ideal of friendship between husband and wife. They also praised specific courtly women not only for their beauty, virtue, and domestic skills but also for their humanist learning and rhetorical ability, traditionally a masculine domain. Wedding orations portray marriage as the central value of the aristocracy. While panegyrics can reveal much about the terms of praise and ideals in fifteenth-century Italian courts, their propagandistic purpose can also

Conclusion

137

conceal an orator’s own opinions. Mario Filelfo and Ludovico Carbone’s reversal on the origins of the Ottoman Turks and the glory of Mehmed II is a reminder that the immediate rhetorical goal prevailed over sincerity. But Erasmus’ claim that his encomium was merely a rhetorical exercise did not dull its controversial bite. Words, whether empty or sincere, can still have revolutionary effects. If pro-marriage sentiments in epithalamia are to be expected, the elaborate philosophical defenses of marriage, women, and sexual pleasure are surprising. The contemporaneous popularity of pro-marriage dialogues and letters and the actual lives of married humanists also suggest a broad cultural trend in favor of marriage as an exalted ideal among fifteenth-century Italian elites. In contrast to traditional ascetic Christian ideas about the dangers of bodily pleasures, humanists asserted a more positive view of the human body. They presented corporeal beauty as a sign of inner character, as pleasing to viewers, and as leading to sexual congress. They also argued that sex was natural and should be enjoyed even beyond the purpose of procreation, since it was essential for happiness and, as Ludovico Carbone asserts, “no life can be complete without sex.” Such acceptance and praise for the human body and sensuality demonstrates a much more classical than Christian conception of nature. Against the ancient and Christian anti-marriage ascetic traditions, humanists offered biblical, philosophical, political, economic, and hedonistic arguments in defense of marriage. Orators conjured up images of despondent bachelors whose lives were in complete disarray. They labeled celibates wild beasts, without temperance and prone to sexual perversion. Citing Genesis, they insisted that marriage was instituted long before the priesthood, and that priests live in disobedience to God’s command to multiply. Some explicitly called for a married clergy. The humanist emphasis on marriage as natural and a community value forms the background for the Reformation debates. Far from being just one of many values in Renaissance humanism, marriage is preeminent. It is a civic and an ethical duty. Marriage is the force that binds nations, guarantees personal and civic welfare, reforms the corrupt, and provides the greatest pleasures in life. In defending and celebrating the ideal of marriage, fifteenth-century Italian humanists demonstrated their belief that one can attain both philosophical and holy wisdom while living in and of the world. This belief was to become essential to the sixteenth century call to Christian reform.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

The following preliminary catalogue does not claim to be exhaustive. In order to compile this list, I first reviewed the modern and early modern printed editions of the works of Italian humanists. In addition to these, a few wedding orations were printed in nineteenth-century pamphlets entitled, per nozze, but the overwhelming majority remain unpublished. To find manuscripts containing nuptial orations I used the Iter Italicum (Paul Oskar Kristeller, Iter Italicum, A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries, 6 vols. [London-Leiden: Brill, 1963–1992]), both the printed edition and the CD-ROM (1995). I found many orations by reading through this catalogue and searching by subject, title, and suspected authors. I also used a wide variety of key-word searches on the Iter CD-ROM, which proved especially helpful. In addition, I read through the particular catalogues available in each library (as referred to in the finding-list). I consulted most of these orations in the libraries containing them, but also consulted many manuscripts on microfilm supplied to me by the Centro per lo studio del manoscritto at the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele in Rome. Some wedding orations are listed only as “orations” in catalogues, others appear in rhetorical formularies. I have confined my list to only Italian humanists of the fifteenth century. Latin as well as some vernacular orations have been included. Whenever possible I have provided the place and date of the delivery of each oration. I have included orations that were never delivered nor meant to be delivered, such as rhetorical models or exercises. I have also included orations to mark engagements. Whenever possible I have eliminated sermons from the list, but I have included some humanistic orations that are entitled sermo rather than oratio. When the distinction is unclear I have included the work. All manuscripts are of the fifteenth century unless otherwise stated. I have used the following abbreviations and symbols: MS = manuscript * = I have consulted the MS in situ + = I have consulted the MS on microfilm Inc. = Incipit

139

140

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Agostinelli = L. Agostinelli and Giovanni Benadduci, Biografia e bibliografia di Giovan Mario Filelfo (Tolentino: Francesco Filelfo, 1899).

Antonelli = Giuseppe Antonelli, Indice dei manoscritti della Civica Biblioteca di Ferrara, parte prima (Ferrara: A. Taddei, 1884).

Bandini = Angelo M. Bandini, Catalogus Codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae (Florence, 1774–1778), 5 vols.

Cenci = C. Cenci, Manoscritti francescani della Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli, 2 vols. (Florence: Quaracchi, 1971).

Forshall = J. Forshall, Catalogue of Manuscripts in the British Museum. Vol I.: Arundel and Burney Manuscripts (London: Woodfall, 1834)

Frati = Ludovico Frati, Indice dei codici latini conservati nella R. Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna (Florence: Successori B. Seeber, 1909).

Kristeller = Paul Oskar Kristeller, Iter Italicum, A Finding List of Uncatalogued or Incompletely Catalogued Humanistic Manuscripts of the Renaissance in Italian and Other Libraries, 6 vols. (LondonLeiden: Brill, 1963–1992).

Mazzatinti = G. Mazzatinti, Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia (Forlì: Luigi Bordandini, 1890–1945).

Morelli = Jacobo Morelli, Codices Manuscripti Latini Bibliothecae Nanianae (Venice: Antonio Zatta 1776).

Morpurgo = S. Morpurgo, I Manoscritti della Reale Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze, manoscritti italiani (Rome: Giachetti, 1900).

Paoli = Cesare Paoli, I Codici Ashburnhamiani della R. Biblioteca MediceoLaurenziana di Firenze (Rome: Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 1887–1917).

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

141

Porro = Giulio Porro, Catalogo dei codici manoscritti della Trivulziana. Biblioteca Storica Italiana, vol. 2 (Turin: Fratelli Boca, 1884).

Stornaiolo = Cosimus Stornaiolo, Codices Urbinates Latini (Rome: Vatican City, 1902–1921), 3 vols.

Valentinelli = Joseph Valentinelli, Bibliotheca Manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum (Venice: Commercii 1868–1873), 6 vols.

Vandini = Raimondo Vandini, Appendice prima al catalogo dei codici e manoscritti posseduti dal Marchese Giuseppe Campori (Modena: Paolo Toschi 1886).

Zorzanello = Pietro Zorzanello, Catalogo dei codici latini della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana di Venezia (non compresi nel catalogo di G. Valentinelli) (Trezzano: Etimar S.p.A., 1980–1985), 3 vols.

Anonymous 1. Oratio pro sponsalibus. MS: Belluno, Seminario Gregoriano 49, fol. 77v. Inc. Neminem vestrum ignorare. Kristeller 2: 496. 2. Untitled. MS: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz Lat. qu. 433, fol. 112r. No inc. given. Kristeller 3: 488. 3. Oratio in nuptiis facienda. MS: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz Lat. fol. 486, fol. 98r–v. Inc. Qui morem hunc. Kristeller, 3: 482. 4. In matrimonii laudes. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2687, fols. 13v–15v. Inc. Maximum profecto. Frati, 520. 5. Oratio responsiva ad matrimonium. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2687, fols. 21r–22r. Inc. Cum saepe mecum. Frati, 520. 6. Oratio de matrimonii laude. MS: Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale II 1443 (Formerly Phillipps 8901), fol. 131r. Inc. Si recte intueor. Kristeller 3: 122–123. 7. Untitled. MS: Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Library) Clmae 228, fol. 76v. Fragment of a wedding speech given in Ferrara. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 292–293. 8. Oratio sponsalitia. MS: Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Library) Clmae 228, fols. 115v–117v. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 292–293.

142

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

9. Oratio de matrimonio. MS: Évora (Portugal), Biblioteca Pública C XXIX/1–1 (Formerly Gab. Est. F, C. 1, vol. H), fols. 462r–467r. Inc. Consuevisse legimus maiores nostros. Kristeller 4: 454–455. 10. Incipit oratio quedam ad nuptias. MS: Évora (Portugal), Biblioteca Pública C XXIX/1–1, fols. 477r–480r. Inc. E’ lglie ragionevole cosa che ciascheduno intenda. Kristeller 4: 454–455. 11.* Sermo nuptialis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Acquisti e Doni 405, fol. 3r–v. Inc. Magnifice pretor reverende vicarie vosque iustissimi iudices. Kristeller 1:104. 12.* Sermo ad matrimonium in nuptiis Francisci Maffei. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 171r–174r. Inc. Cum animadverterem rectores magnifici vosque cives spectissimi quod maximum et amplissimum onus. Dated at end—dixi 1 kalendas Julii 1495. Kristeller 1: 82–83. Paoli, 294. 13.* Sermo matrimonialis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 1r–5r. Inc. Viri magnifici et cives praestantissimi non nullos admirari scio et ego adolescens et ducendi artis gnarus ad rem uxorem laudandam accesserim. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 296. 14.* Matrimoniale. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 7v–11r. Inc. Maximum onus atque intolerabile. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 296. 15.* Oratio in nuptiis celebrandis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Magl. VIII 1435, fol. 53r–v. Inc. Laudatissimum quendam morem. Kristeller 5: 576. 16.* Untitled. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Nuovi Acquisti 227, fols. 115r–117v. Inc. Etsi ea in me esse non video illustres domini virique magnifici ac insignes. Kristeller 1:172–173. 17.* Oratio ad sponsalitium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Nuovi Acquisti 1103, fol. 6r. Inc. Si prestantissimi circumstante. One paragraph long, followed by Italian translation. Kristeller 5: 596–597. 18.* Sponsalitia. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Nuovi Acquisti 1103, fols. 64r–65v. Inc. (1) Spectabili et circumspecti cittadini, la natura la quale humana generatione (2) Grandem profecto rem viri clarissimi omnique ex parte mirabilem sapien. (3) Praestantissimi et excellentissimi padri et magiori considerando io di quanta (4) Quanti momenti sit matrimonium patres optimi et probissimi viri, quantaque Four model orations. Kristeller 5: 596–597.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

143

19.* Ad matrimonium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 421 (M III 19), fol. 27v. Inc. Cum multa sint magnifici viri ac cives egregii que de hominibus in vita. Kristeller 1: 192. 20.* Sermo nuptialis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 771, fol. 64r. Inc. Nobiles auditores—Consuevere antiqui Romani in sponsalibus Kristeller CD-ROM suggests Jo. Peregrinus Seraptus as the author. Late hand. Kristeller 1: 200. 21.* Pro matrimonio contrahendo. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 784 (M IV 32), fol. 130r. Inc. Gaudebit sponsus super sponsam. Kristeller 1: 201–202. 22.* Pro matrimonio contrahendo. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 784 (M IV 32), fol. 130v–131r. Inc. Nuptias affectus alternus facit. Kristeller 1: 201–202. 23.* Quando fiunt sponsalia per verba de futuro. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 784 (M IV 32), fol. 131r–v. Inc. Quoniam omnis actus virtutis et matrimonium ad ipsum est referendus a quo mundi totius processerunt. Kristeller 1: 201–202. 24. Quando fiunt sponsalia per verba de presenti. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 784 (M IV 32), fol. 132r. Kristeller 1: 201–202. 25.* Quando fiunt sponsalia per verba de presenti per parentem. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 784 (M IV 32), fol. 132r. Inc. Premissa invocatione. Kristeller 1: 201–202. 26.* Untitled. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 3595 (3849), fol. 121r. Inc. De coniugali coppula sacroque coniugio dicere volenti non paucis. Kristeller 5: 612. 27. De sponsalibus. MS: Genoa, Biblioteca Brignole Sale, 110 D 3. No inc. given. Kristeller 1: 238. 28. Oracio ad matrimonium. MS: Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellónska 42, fol. 5r–v. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 403. 29. Oratio ad matrimonium. MS: Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellónska 126, fol. 11v. Inc. Vereor patres optimi. Possibly by Guarino. Kristeller 4: 403–405 30. Untitled. MS: Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellónska 126, fols. 20v–21v. Inc. Neminem vestrum ignorare. Kristeller 4: 403–405. 31. Oratio nuptialis. MS: Kremsmünster (Austria), Stiftsbibliothek 10. Inc. Maiores nostri qui res cunctas. Kristeller 3: 22. 32.* Untitled. MS: London, British Library Burney 144, fols. 1r–2r. Inc. Nuptias pretores magni et cives peregregii et vos ceteri. Forshall, 51. Kristeller 4: 133. 33. Untitled. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 12 sup., fols. 154r–155r. Inc. Volendo in questo zorno nel nostro conspecto del matrimonio parlare. Kristeller 1: 329.

144

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

34.* Oratio Nuptialis. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fols. 109v–110v. Inc. Demosthenem illum cuius ingenium et divinam quandam eloquentiam. For a member of the Dauli family. Kristeller 1: 330. 35.+ Sermonis nuptialis semina. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A D XI 31, fols. 190v–191v. Inc. Inter omnia que a condito evo vel deus omnipotens nobis tradidit. Oration for Bona Sforza’s wedding. Kristeller 1: 355–356. 36. Oratio in sponsalibus Johanis Grasi. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A D XIV 27, fol. 49r. No inc. given. Kristeller 1: 356. 37. Pro nuptiis matrimonialibus. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 801, fol. 11r. Inc. Gravissimum mihi fore reputo. Porro, 347–348. Kristeller 6: 81. 38. Pro matrimonio Ducis Mediolanensis oratio. MS: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 8482, fols. 156–157v. Inc. Apud Ciceronem. Kristeller 3: 618–619. 39.+ Untitled. MS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale IV D 5, fol. 1r. Inc. illegible. Badly preserved. Wedding speech for Isotta, daughter of Franc. Sforza (Atri, 1439, according to Cenci 1: 180). Kristeller 6: 108. 40. Untitled. MS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale V H 16, fol. 65r–v. Inc. Quanta erga omnes uti solet. Oration on the wedding of Antonius Soranus. Kristeller 6: 111. 41. Oratio ad nuptias. MS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale V H 16, fols. 186v–187r. No inc. given. Includes verses. Kristeller 6: 111. 42. Sermo ad nuptias. MS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale V H 16, fol. 188r–v. No inc. given. Kristeller 6: 111. 43. Sermo in nuptiis domini. MS: Novara, Biblioteca Capitolare CXXIV. Inc. Dabitis michi veniam viri tersissimi. Fragmentary at end. Kristeller 1: 440. 44. Untitled. MS: Oxford, Bodleian Library Lat. Misc. c.93, fols. 18v–19r. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 254–255. 45.+ Oratio in sponsalibus nuptiis. MS: Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria 1553, fols. 26r–27r. Inc. Et si sciam plerosque viri iustissimi non mediocriter mirari. Kristeller 2: 17. 46.* Epithalamium. MS: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Nouv. Fonds Lat. 18611, fols. 73v–75v. Inc. Natura rerum omnium quae nos genuit magnifice. Kristeller 3: 270. No bride or groom mentioned. 47.* Epithalamium. MS: Paris Bibliothèque Nationale Nouv. Fonds Lat. 18611, fols. 75v–76v. Inc. Sublimem connubii gradum ac necessariam generandae prolis propagationem. Kristeller 3: 270. 48. De laude matrimonii. MS: Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana 1407. Folios not numbered. Inc. Decens est ut hoc loco. Kristeller 2: 67. 49.* Oratio nuptialis de matrimonio inter nobiles dominam de Sabellis et dominum de[lac.]. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 835 (D V 15), fol. 85r. Inc. Quamquam iustissimi presides nobilitate originis. Kristeller 2: 99.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

145

50.* Untitled. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 868 (D V 14), fols. 19v–20r. Inc. Video hodierna die intueri. Kristeller 2: 99–100. 51.* Untitled. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 868 (D V 14), fol. 86r. Inc. Grave onus amplissimi viri. Kristeller 2: 99–100. 52. Sermo in matrimonio. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana F 20, fols. 237v–238r. No inc. given. In volgare. Kristeller 2: 132–133. 53. De matrimonio. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana F 20, fols. 239r–240r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 132–133. 54. Oratio pro nuptiis. MS: Savona, Biblioteca Civica IX B 2–15, fols. 78r–79v. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 148–149. 55. Sermo ad matrimonium. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale B V 40, fols. 122r–125r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 159. 56. Brevis sermo ad matrimonium. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale B V 40, fols. 126r–127v. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 159. 57. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale C VI 23, fols. 59r–60r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 160. 58. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale C VI 23, fols. 106v–107r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 160. 59. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale C VI 23, fols. 108v–109r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 160. 60. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H IX 19, fol. 6r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 166. 61. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H IX 19, fol. 8r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 166. 62. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H IX 19, fol. 35r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 166. 63. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H IX 19, fol. 42r. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 166. 64. Untitled. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale J II 7, fol. 99v. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 167. 65. Sermo matrimonialis. MS: Toledo (Spain), Biblioteca de Cabildo (Archivo y Biblioteca Capitolares) cod. 9, 3. Inc. Subterfugere non possumus. Kristeller 4: 639. 66. Oratio nuptialis. MS: Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek Mc 104. Inc. Qui morem hunc instituere sapientissimi viri. Kristeller 3: 721. 67. Untitled. MS: Turin, Accademia delle Scienze N N V 4, fols. 214r–216r. No inc. given. Dated 1484. Kristeller 2: 175–176. 68. Per me Ludovicum. MS: Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale J III 13, fols. 383r–383v. No inc. given. Dated 1520. Kristeller 2: 181–182. 69. De nuptiis Kateline et Baptiste. MS: Udine, Biblioteca Arcivescovile 70 (lat. fol. 11), fols. 56r–57r. Inc. Nisi more veteri. Kristeller 2: 202.

146

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

70. De matrimonio. MS: Urbana (Illinois), University of Illinois Library x 875.8/M 681/1400, fols. 179v–181r. Inc. Humanum genus parvo fuisse. Partly in Italian. Kristeller 5: 404. 71. Ad idem. MS: Urbana (Illinois), University of Illinois Library x 875.8/M 681/1400, fol.181r. No inc. given. In Italian. Kristeller 5: 404. 72.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 284r–286r. Inc. Et si mihi iure letandum est magnifici domini. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 73.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 286r–288v. Inc. Qualem in presenti causa. Bride is Laura. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 74.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fol. 289r–v. Inc. Nulla mihi patres amplissimi civesque. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 75.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 289v–290v. Inc. Fuere non nulli magnifici optimique viri et cives amplissimi et hi quidem non ignobiles. Bride is Lucia and groom is Petrus. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 76.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 290v–292r. Inc. Etsi abunde aliquem dicendi modum qui rei magnitudini congruum esse queat. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 77.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 292r–293r. Inc. Videor videre ornatissimi viri et ceteri qui huius convivii decorandi. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 78.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 293r–294v. Inc. Non vererer viri clarissimi quicquid in minimis modo rebus sed ne in summis quidem. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 79.* Oratio nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 294v–296v. Inc. Censeo plerosque mirari reverendi patres et ego qui nec auctoritate nec copia ulla. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 80.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 296v–298r. Inc. Videre videor spectatissimi et egregii cives in tam frequenti doctissimorum. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 81.* Sermo vulgaris de matrimonio. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 298r–299v. Inc. Faciamo homini adiutorium site sibi. Macaronic. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 82.* Sermo nuptialis vulgaris. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 300r–303r. Inc. Non est bonum hominem esse solum. Quotations in Latin and Italian. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 83.* Sermo nuptialis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Borg. Lat. 214, fols. 303v–307r. Inc. Uxor tua sic vitis abundans et filii tui sic

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

147

novelle . . . questo parlare egregii cives sono di quello eximio et sapiente cantore et citaredo David propheta. In Latin and Italian. Kristeller 2: 439–440. 84.* Oratio habita in matrimonio a quodam. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. H IV 111, fol. 88r–v. Inc. Propositam mihi dicendi rationem paucis brevibusque vestrorum omnium. Kristeller 2: 481. 85.* Oratio in qua continentur non nullae matrimonii laudes. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. H IV 111, fols.137r–138v. Inc. Si mai ebbe de mio ingegnio diffidentia et altrache a me imposto. Followed by Latin version, fols. 138v–140v. Inc. Si me umquam a dicendo deterruit ingenii mei diffidentia sive impares imposito oneri vires umquam duxi. At end: Manu propria mei Petri de Sancto Angelo in Vado scripsi die 22 aprilis 1475. Kristeller 2: 481. 86.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 21r. Inc. Cum domini animadverterem superiori tempore magnifici viri et cives. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 87.* Sermo sponsalis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 26r–v. Inc. Grave onus amplissimi domini quodque sustineri meis humeris non posse. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 88.* Nuptialis sermo. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 53r–54r. Inc. Cogitanti mihi sacri foederis amplitudinem domini quo nunc in tanto conspectu nobilium virorum dicturi sumus. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 89.* Sermo sponsalis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 54r–v. Inc. Quam magna sis et inexausta iugalis federis amplitudo et santitas. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 90.* Oratio matrimonio (sic). MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 54v–55v. Inc. Maxima hac in re illustrissimi principes viri magnifici. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 91.* Oratio in matrimonio. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 55v–56v. Inc. Cum mihi saepius in mentem veniat princeps illustrissime vosque viri. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 92.* Oratio de matrimonio. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 56v–57v. Inc. Haud ambigam clarissimi viri complures esse quibus videar temerarius. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 93.* Oratio connubii sive de laudibus eius. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 67v. Inc. Demosthenes grecorum omnium oratorum princeps saepenumero rogatus. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 94.* Sermo erga sponsas. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 68r. Inc. Apud Romanos gravissima pena mulctabantur qui celibes ad senectutem usque. Kristeller 2: 486–487.

148

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

95.* Oratio in matrimonio ricitanda a discipulo. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 69r–v. Inc. Etsi scio viri prudentes et egregii eam in me non esse dicendi. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 96.* Oratio matrimonii. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 70r–v. Inc. Consideranti mihi celeberrimi doctores nobilissimique cives. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 97.* Oratio matrimonii. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 128r. Inc. Cum ego invalidus adolescens nondum hiis studiis asuetus patres. The groom is Romelius. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 98.* Oratio matrimonii. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 129r. Inc. Miraturos vos credo viri praestantissimi quam puerulus qualem me esse conspicitis. Kristeller 2: 486–487. 99.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fol. 18r. Inc. Cum multa sint princeps illustr. Kristeller 2: 430. 100.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fol. 18v. Inc. Habeo quod tota mente petivi Leonelle princeps. Kristeller 2: 430. 101.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fol. 102v. Inc. Totidem de matrimonio sum locutus. Kristeller 2: 430. 102.* In laudem matrimonii. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fols. 126r–127r. Inc. Video quantam pudicitiam in hodierno die. Kristeller 2: 430. 103.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1834, fol. 85r–v. Inc. Qui hunc morem restituere sapientissimi viri ut maris et feminae intima coniunctio. Bride is Lavinia and groom is Franciscus. Kristeller 2: 433. 104.* Oratio ad nuptias. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2915, fols. 67r–69r. Inc. Optimum et amplissimum mihi munus viri optimi hodierno die. Kristeller 2: 356. 105.* Oratio ad nuptias et excusandum convivium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2915, fols. 69r–70v. Inc. Vellem equidem patres humanissimi vosque cives praestantissimi hoc. Kristeller 2: 356. 106.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2915, fols. 70v–72r. Inc. Intelligo patres et cives amantissimi nimium honoris hoc esse quod vir optimus. Kristeller 2: 356. 107.* Sermo ad nuptias. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 23v–25r. Inc. Non parvum munus viri prestantissimi optimique cives ab immortalibus deo mihi concessum arbitrarer. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 108.* Oratio ad matrimonium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 26r–27r. Inc. In nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi patris et filii et spiritus sancti amen. Ut hoc sanctissimum matrimonii vinculum fe-

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

149

liciter valeat inchoari. Followed by volgare version. Inc. Magnifici signori et voi altri circumstanti le parole preposte in latino. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 109.* Ad matrimonium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 27r–28v. Inc. Sacrum coniugium castis nectit amoribus Boetius. In margin is “Eiusdem Ber[nardi] (Giustiniani?).” Followed by volgare version, fols. 28v–31r. Inc. Magnifici signori homini prestantissimi et voi honestissime donne nelo presente locho. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 110.* Oratio ad coniugium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 31r–32v. Inc. Expectavi diutius praestantissimi viri et pudicissime domine quo modo possem de virtutibus. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 111.* Ad convivium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 33v–34v. Inc. Non parva nos certe scio admiratione . . . coniugii laudes. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 112.* Ad coniugium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fol. 35r. Inc. Longe mihi alienum nobilissimi et spectatissimi viri cum in tanto clarissimorum hominum cetu. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 113.* Oratio ad coniugium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 38v–39v. Inc. Exigebat locus iste tam grandis certe et res quae impresentiarum. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 114.* Oratio ad matrimonium facta pro quodam amico. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 67v–68r. Inc. Si sine uxore possemus esse, omnes ea molestia careremus. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 115.* Oratio de re uxoria. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 68v-69r. Inc. Percuntanti mihi saepenumero clarissimi cives quid humano generi. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 116.* Oratio ad nuptias. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, fols. 75v–76v. Inc. Memoriae preditum est patres amplissimi Marcum Tullium Ciceronem. Kristeller 2: 385–386. 117.* Oratio pro matrimonio. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 80 (3057), fols. 283v–284r. Inc. Divina opera cogitanti mihi ornatissimi viri et memoria sepissime repetenti. Kristeller 2: 254; Zorzanello 1: 532; Morelli, no. 95, 114. 118.* Oratio pro matrimonio. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 80 (3057), fols. 284r–v. Inc. Humanum genus constat primo fuisse tempore duraturum viri illustres nisi maris ac feminae copula intercessisset. Kristeller 2: 254; Zorzanello 1: 532; Morelli, no. 95, 114. 119.* De laudibus matrimonii. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 83 (4360), fols. 136r–137v. Inc. Inter omnia eius vite . . . opera quam artium . . . nullum utilius nullum fructuosius matrimonio. Kristeller 2: 255. Valentinelli 3: 88. 120.* Oratio pro sponsalibus. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 101 (3939), fols. 19v–21v. Inc. Neminem vestrum ignorar arbitror

150

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

viri. Form speech delivered in Padua. No specific couple marrying, but general exhortation and praise of marriage. Refers to podestà of Padua and most serene dominion of Venice. Kristeller 2: 255–256. 121.* Oratio pro matrimonio contrahendo. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 123 (4086), fol. 13r–v. Inc. Cum prisci oratores magnifici domini. Kristeller 2: 240. 122.* Untitled. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 123 (4086), fols. 34v–36v. Inc. Apud Ciceronem romane eloquentiae. Kristeller 2: 240. 123.* Untitled. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 123 (4086), fols. 36v–37r. Inc. Perspicuum est quod uxor tua. Kristeller 2: 240. 124.* Untitled. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XIV 68 (4735), fols. 127r–129v. Inc. Menedemus philosophus is qui Athenis florente Achademia multa habundantique doctrina. Pro Iohanne Francisco et Catarina sponsis. Kristeller 2: 264. Zorzanello 3: 113. 125.* Untitled. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XIV 68 (4735), fols. 129v–130r. Inc. Inter omnes materias quas. Pro Iohanne Francisco et Catarina sponsis. Kristeller 2: 264. Zorzanello 3: 113. 126.* Untitled. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XIV 68 (4735), fols. 130v–131v. Inc. Si dicam non vereri quis credat Marchio magnanime. Pro Iacobo et Helena sponsis. Kristeller 2: 264. Zorzanello 3: 113.

Aegidius 127.+ Aegidii in sponsalibus nuptiis. MS: Padua, Biblioteca Universitaria 1553, fol. 30r. Inc. Magnum et singulare dicendi genus ad me delatum sentio. Bride is Francisca and groom is Nicholas. Kristeller 2: 17.

Andrea, Johannes (de Bussi?) 128. De sponsalibus. MS: Leiden, Bibliothek der Rijksuniversiteit, d’Ablaing 28, fols. 18r–22r. No inc. given. At the end: scripsi anno MCCCCLXXV. Kristeller 4: 360.

Antiquarius, Jacobus 129. Oratio de auspicatissimis nuptiis ad Ducem Mediolanensium sextum. MS: Holkham-Hall (Norfolk), Library of Earl of Leicester, 489, fol. 1r. No inc. given. Fols. not numbered. Kristeller 4: 46.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

151

Arientis, Joannes Sabadinus de 130.+ Joannis Sabadini de Arientis Bononensis colloquium ad Ferrariam urbem splendissimam pro Coniugio Inclitissimae Lucretiae Borgiae in Alfonsum primogenitum Ducalem Estensem Illustrissimum. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948, vol. 3 Cancellieri, fols. 707v–709r. Inc. Cita mia chara te dare in matrimonio la sorella de Cesar Borgia altisimo Duca de Flamia et de Valenza. Kristeller 1: 18. This is a sixteenth-century(?) copy of parts of the Italian oration now lost. On this see S. B. Chandler, “Il ‘Colloquium’ di Sabadino degli Arienti,” La Bibliofilia 63 (1961), 221–226, and Pasquale Stoppelli, “Due Manoscritti e un incunabolo sconosciuto di Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti,” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 25 (1982), 25–28. Also in: MS: London, Robinson Trust Phillips Collection 3708. Dated 1501. Kristeller 4: 230. MS: New York, H.ºP. Kraus Phillips Collection 3708. Kristeller 5: 359.

Ariosti, Malatesta 131. Epithalamium Iacobi de Pirundulis et filii Ioannis Romei compositum per Malatestam de Areostis. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Civica 240, fols. ?? (n. 2). Inc. Solvite pierides vestro de fonte liquores. Antonelli, 137. In verse?

Bargellina(?), Johannes 132. Untitled. MS: Oxford, Bodleian Library Lat. Misc. c.93, fols. 18v–19r. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 254–255.

Barzizza, Guiniforte 133.* Oratio habita in sponsalibus adolescentum patritiorum Johannis Augustini ex Cortecomitibus et Ottonis Mandelli. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Museo Civico Correr 225, fols. 86r–87r (?). Kristeller 6: 270. Inc. Si quando ulla in coniugali celebritate habenda fuit. Also in: MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana O 57 sup., fols. 1r–5r. Entitled : Oratio in nuptiis Joannis Augustini Vicecomitis et Raphaelis Mandelli. Same inc. Kristeller 1: 336. 134.* Ad sponsalitia. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Museo Civico Correr 225, fol. 87v (?). Inc. Etsi neque etate. Kristeller 6: 270. 135.* Ad sponsalitia. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Museo Civico Correr 225, fol. 88r (?). Inc. Etsi hodierno die. Kristeller 6: 270.

152

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

136.* Oratio in sponsalibus Philippi Bonromei. Printed in Gasparini Barzizii Bergomatis et Guiniforti Filii Opera: Guiniforti Barzizii Orationes, ed. J. A. Furietti (Rome: J. M. Salvioni, 1723), 1–6. Inc. Video magnifici Domini spectabiles Cives et egregii viri summa cum alacritate. Dated 1430. 137.* Oratio in sponsalibus Joannis de Federicis. Printed in Gasparini Barzizii Bergomatis et Guiniforti Filii Opera: Guiniforti Barzizii Orationes, ed. J. A. Furietti (Rome: J. M. Salvioni, 1723), 7–9. Inc. Quae duo commoda, Magnifici Domini, spectabiles viri, vosque o Cives clarissimi. Dated 22 May 1432 in Civitate Barchinone. MS. version in London, British Library Add. 15336, fols. 26v–27v. Kristeller 4: 98.

Beccaria, Antonius, Veronensis 138.* Epithalamium Antonii Bechariae veronensis [ad] Albertum Torcelle. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana Corsin. 583 (45 C 18), fol. 39r. Inc. Sunt nonnulli Illme princeps qui me fortasse admirabuntur quod eam provinciam. Kristeller 2: 110.

Beroaldus, Philippus 139.* Philippi Bononiensis nuptiae Bentivolorum. In Varia Philippi Beroaldi Opuscula (1520?), fols. 21r–26v. Inc. Gentem Bentivolorum multos iam annos Bononiae florentissimam. Not an oration but a description of the 1487 wedding of Lucrezia d’Este and Annibale Bentivoglio in Bologna. 140.* Philippi Beroaldi oratio nuptialis habita Mediolani. In Ibid., fols. 26v–28r. Inc. Inter multa viri praestantissimi ac matronae venustissimae quae iucunda et utilia mortalibus. Gabriel Pirovani, medical doctor, is groom.

Bertinus, Franciscus, Lucensis 141.* Oratio in nuptiis Alfonsi ducis Calabrie. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fols. 26r–29v. Inc. Agitur quartus annus clementissime ac invictissime rex cum ego primum in hac urbe. Kristeller 2: 430. Wedding speech for Alfonso, duke of Calabria and Ippolita Sforza in 1465. Title is written at the end of the Vatican oration. It has been published in Nuovi documenti per la storia del Rinascimento, ed. Tammaro De Marinis and Alessandro Perosa (Florence: Olschki, 1970), 118–128. Also in: MS: Turin, Biblioteca ex-Reale, Varia 107, fols. 1r–25r. Kristeller 2: 186.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

153

Bertalonus, Franciscus, de Arquata 142.* Oratio in laudem matrimonii. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Magl. VII 1087, fols. 130v–131v. Inc. [N]ullus vestrum mirari debet viri prestantissimi pudicissimaeque matronae. Kristeller 1: 130.

Betta, Antonius 143.* Ad matrimonium sermo. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 159r–160r. Inc. Viri egregii ac cives praestantissimi. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 293.

Bodolono, Jacobus de 144.* Oratio in magistrum Iohannem Danielem et Franciscam cives rei publicae Patavinae Jacobi de Bodolono. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 5119, fols. 50r–52v. Inc. Cum multa sint que digna laude in vita hominum contingere soleant. Kristeller 2: 369.

Bornada, Bernardinus 145.* Oratio pro connubio. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 62v–63v. Inc. Fuere non nulli viri magnifici . . . his quidem non ignobiles . . . En nobis adest Caterina virgo nobilis moribus. Perganorum domi illustret . . . [et] comes Jacopine. At end—Telos. Ego Bernardinus Bornada stirpe creatus his orationibus ad laudem dei omnipotentis extremam manum imposui sexto calendas Maias 1486. Kristeller 2: 486.

Bracciolini, Poggius 146. Oratio in Laudem Matrimonii. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale II IX 14, fols. 119r–127r. Kristeller 1: 115. Printed in Poggii Opera Omnia, ed. Riccardo Fubini (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1964–1966), vol. II Opera Miscellanea, 907–915. Inc. Si matrimonii singularibus erga genus humanum meritis dignam eloquentiam praestare possem. Dated 1458. Also in: MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana Trotti 348, fols. 65v–73r. Kristeller 1: 349–350. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele S. Onofrio 79 (442), fols. 28v–35v. Kristeller 2: 125–126. MS: Novara, Biblioteca Capitolare CXXIV. Kristeller 1: 440.

154

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Brancatus, Johannes 147. Oratio habita Neapoli in nuptiis Helionorae regis Ferdinandi filiae anno 1473 die 23 mense Mai. MS: Valencia, Biblioteca Universitaria cod. 808, fols. 25v–42v. Inc. [In eun?]dem saepenumero locum hunc celeberrimum, tuas dumtaxat virtutes gratia commendandi. Kristeller 4: 655–656. On Brancati and this oration, see Mauro de Nichilo, Retorica e magnificenza nella Napoli Aragonese (Bari: Palomar, 2000), 68–103. Also in: MS: Modena, Biblioteca Estense Est. Lat. 192 (Alpha S 6, 11), fols. 1r–20r. Kristeller 1: 379.

Caciis, Stephanus de 148.* Oratio habita per Stephanum de Caciis in sponsalibus domine Florabelline. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 97, fols. 84v–87r. Inc. Tantum apud me patres amplissimi quorundam auctoritas valuit. Groom is Antonius. Porro 450–451. Kristeller 6: 78. Also in: MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana M 40 sup., fols. 17v–20r. Kristeller 1: 334.

Campanus, Johannes Antonius 149. Ioannis Anthonii Campani Episcopi Crotoniatae ad Franciscum Maximum Civem Romanum De Dignitate Matrimonii. Printed in Opera Omnia (Rome: E. Silber 1495). Inc. Matrimonii dignitatem et vetustas originis probat iam inde. Delivered as an oration in Rome 1458 and expanded into the treatise (1468). Also in: MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 914 (N III 1), fols. 167–187v. Kristeller 1: 209. 3 MS: Lucca, Biblioteca Capitolare 544, fols. 409v–417r. Kristeller 1: 255– 256.

Carbone, Ludovicus 150.+ Ludovici Carbonis epithalamium in nuptiis Joannis Bunsae ac Polyxenae Estensis. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 197r–202v. Inc. Ordinem in rebus omnibus optimum esse intellegimus sapientissime. Kristeller 1: 25–26. 151.+ Dictus in nuptiis Roberti Strozzae et Leonae Patratae. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 202v–205r. Inc. Si umquam dubium fuit sapienti ne uxor ducenda esset. Kristeller 1: 25–26.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

155

152.+ Dictus in nuptiis Ludovici Carri philosophi et medici et Franciscae uxoris. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 205r–208r. Inc. Nulla profecto res est humanissime dux suavissimi principes. Kristeller 1: 25–26. 153.+ In nuptiis Galeacii Trotti Beatricisque Patratae. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 222v–226v. Inc. Cum omnibus locis Aristotelem. Kristeller 1: 25–26. 154.+ Idem pro Ludovico Sandeo et Iacoba Fontana. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 227r–231r. Inc. Plurimis et maximis argumentis signisque certissimis. Kristeller 1: 25–26. 155.+ Ludovici Carbonis epithalamium in Nicolaum Gillinum causidicum. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 377r–379r. Inc. Brevem orationem cupere vos omnis video benignissime dux. Kristeller 1: 25–26. 156.* Ludovici Carbonis Epithalamium Neapoli actum in divam Leonoram Aragonensem et divum Herculem Estensem. MS: London, British Library Add. 20,794, fols. 1r–30r. Inc. Quod plurimis maximisque votis ab optimo. 1473. Wedding is described in Corpus Chronicorum Bononiensium, Muratori (1924) 18,1.4: 437–38. Kristeller 4: 106. Also in: MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 294r–314r. Kristeller 1:25–26. 157. Ludovicus Carbo in nuptiis Federici Gonzaga et Hyppolitae Transgardae. MS: Modena, Biblioteca Estense Campori Appendice 92 (Gamma N 8, 6, 24), fols. 4r–10r. Inc. Come faremo noi illustrissimo duca et benignissimo signore. In volgare. Written above title—Contracto di M. Lud. Carbone nelle sposalitie del magnifico cavaliere nostro Federico da Gonzaga et della nobilissima madonna Hyppolita Torpatra(?) sua sponsa. Kristeller 1: 391. Published by Giulio Bertoni, “Anecdota e bibliotheca atestina eruta,” Atti della deputazione di storia patria per le provincie modenesi, series V, 5 (1906), 247–251. Also in: MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 470, fol. ?? (n.9). Entitled Epitalamio per le nozze d’Ippolita figlia di Nicolò Forzatello col conte Federico Gonzaga (Jan. 23, 1480). Antonelli, 227. MS: Modena, Biblioteca Estense Campori 92. Vandini, 43. 158. Eiusdem alia oratio nupcialis imperfecta. MS: Prague, Národní Muzeum, XII F 24, fols. 28r–29r. Inc. Magnum ac singulare munus hodierno die. Kristeller 3: 167. 159.* Ludovici Carbonis epithalamium pro Nicolo Speradeo. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 110v–113r. Inc. Statueram viri am[plissimi] diuturno quodam silentio uti. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in:

156

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

MS: Prague, Národní Muzeum, XII F 24, fols. 17r–21v. Entitled, Oratio altera de re uxoria habita Ferrariae in nuptiis Nicolai Speradei et Joannae Montecatinae Alberti. Kristeller 3: 167. 160.* Pro Philippo et Anna. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 113r–116v. Inc. Dum paratus essem ut ad hunc honestissimum locum accederem. Kristeller 2: 427. 161.* Epithalamium pro Ugone Troto iurisconsulto et Lucia Talono. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 124v–125r. Inc. Brevissimum quendam sermonem postulare videtur humanitas vestra. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS: Prague, Národní Muzeum, XII F 24, fols. 22r–24r. Entitled Oratio in nuptiis Ugonis Troti et Luciae Talanae. Kristeller 3: 167. 162.* Ludovici oratio de re uxoria in presentia ducis Ferrariae habita. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 132r–133r. Inc. Hesterno die ad me venere amicissimi homines . . . pro vetere consuetudine. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS: Prague, Národní Muzeum, XII F 24, fols. 14r–16v. Kristeller 3: 167. 163.* Epithalamium pro Bartholomeo et Sarra Assasini. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 156r–157v. Inc. Epicurum philosophum illum nobilissimum . . . qui summum bonum in voluptate dicitur posuisse. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS: Prague, Národní Muzeum, XII F 24, fols. 24v–27v. Entitled Oratio in nuptiis Bartholomaei . . . (sic) cum nepte Galeotti Assisini pretoris Ferrariensis. Kristeller 3: 167. 164.* Victorius Pavonius et Joanna Mazon. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 162r–166v. Inc. Si quando amicorum causa me impulit ut dictionem huiusmodi putarem. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS+: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 257r–262r. Kristeller 1: 25–26. MS+: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XII 137 (4451), fols. 67v–75v. Kristeller 2: 258. Zorzanello 2: 252–255. 165.* Significatio contracti matrimonii ad principem: epithalamium Troili Assassini et Isabellae Ariostae. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 167r–168r. Inc. Etsi orationibus meis iam finem videbar imposuisse. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS+: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XII 137 (4451), fols. 76r–78v. Kristeller 2: 258. Zorzanello 2: 252–255. 166.* Epithalamium pro Philippa et Malusello. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 174r–175v. Inc. Cum multa et varia sint ab eruditissimis hominibus collecta quae rei uxori dignitatem facile ostendunt. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in:

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

157

MS+: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XII 137 (4451), fols. 56r–59r. Kristeller 2: 258. Zorzanello 2: 252–255. 167.* Troilus Assissinus et Isabella Ariosta. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 182r–184r. Inc. Nonnulla fortasse mulieres admiratio tenebit. Mostly in verse. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS+: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XII 137 (4451), fols. 89v–93v. Kristeller 2: 258. Zorzanello 2: 252–255. 168.* Iacobo Zobolo et Lodovica Pirundula. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 185v–186v. Inc. Putabam ego Magnanime Dux . . . primum candidae huius et virgineae vestis. Kristeller 2: 427. 169.* Epithalamium pro Galassio Ariosto et Nicolasia. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 218v–220v. Inc. Albanenses agricolae sacellum quoddam extruxisse dicuntur. Kristeller 2: 427. Also in: MS+: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XII 137 (4451), fols. 96r–98v. Kristeller 2: 258. Zorzanello 2: 252–255. 170.* Paula Strozzi et Zarabinus Turchus. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1153, fols. 220v–225v. Inc. Cogitanti mihi saepenumero et cum animo meo reputanti uxoriae vitae dignitatem. Kristeller 2: 427.

Carrara, Joannes Michaelis 171.* Oratio nuptialis in occasione nuptiarum nobilium Johannis Petri de Vicomercato Cremensis et Helisabeth Comitis Nicolini de Calepio Bergomatis filiae. Printed as Oratio Nuptialis, ed. Jo. Antonio Suardo (Bergamo: Typis Francisci Locatelli, 1784). Inc. Si omnes ingenii nostri vires brevi aliquo tempore simul effundi debuissent et in summum eloquentiae experimentum venire. Dated 1490.

Casciotus, Bartolomeus 172.+ Bartholomei Cascioti in coniugio P. epithalamium. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol.36, fol. 24r–v. Inc. Sentio patres celeberrimi quod grave onus vobis imperantibus susceperim cum mihi de laude matrimonii. Kristeller 1: 25–26.

Cendrata, Bartolomeus 173.* Epithalamium Bartholomei Cendratae in Christoforum Monsilicensem et Margaritam Brenzonam. MS: Florence, Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols.165v–166v. Inc. Inclyta quis Breni patet urbs, Venetum Senatus. In verse. Kristeller 1: 82–83. Paoli, 294.

158

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

174. Carmen epithalamium in Bartheum Landum et Iocundam Piedemontiam editus per Bartholomeum Cendratam. MS: Florence Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 166v–168v. Inc. Dive celestis moderator aulae. In verse. Kristeller 1: 82–83. Paoli, 294.

Christophorus Leronensis 175.* Oratio ad nuptias. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fols. 68r–70r. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. These orations are all from Christophorus Leronensis’s formulary written in 1464, 1465, and 1479. James Hankins referred me to this MS. 176.* Oratio ad coniugium pulcherrima. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 69r. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 177.* Sermo sive Oratio nuptialis pulcherrima et utilis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fols. 73v–74(bis)v. Inc. Connubio iungam stabili properam. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 178.* Oratio ad matrimonium pulcherrima. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 75r. Inc. Nulla hos quidem teneat admiratio. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 179.* Oratio sive sermo ad matrimonium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 75r. Inc. Nulla mihi patres amplissimi res maior. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 180.* Ad sponsalitia. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 75v. Inc. Si viri spectabiles doctores egregii. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 181.* Ad nuptias post comestionem oratio. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 76r. Inc. Vid hic nobile. Quamquam non meum sit patres amplissimi. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123. 182.* Oratio in nuptiis ad respondendum. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 78r–v. Inc. Cum saepe mecum reputem patres meritissimi. Mazzatinti 10: 122–123.

Collenuccius, Pandolphus, Pisaurensis 183.* Untitled. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Urb. Lat. 899, fols. 15v–49r. Inc. Antequam de coniugio deque huius celebritatis praestantia ac dignitate verba faciam viri Pisaurenses. Stornaiolo 2: 624–626. The Ms. is entitled Apparati delle nozze di Costanzo Sforza e Camilla d’Aragona. It is primarily a description of the wedding. Only this MS includes Pandolphus’s oration. A version in Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Banco Rari 157 (B. R. A I 9.12) does not include the oration. Kristeller 1: 176. Italo Zicari has published and annotated the oration in Studia Oliveriana (1959), vol. 7, pp. 41–73.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

159

Comitibus, Petrus de 184.* Ad matrimonium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 421 (M III 19), fol. 38r–v. Inc. Si unquam ante alias fuit magnifici presides ceterique amplissimi patresque apud nos orare publice. Kristeller 1: 192.

Constantius, Antonius 185.* Oratio coniugalis habita Aesii MCCCCLVII cum esset annorum xxiii. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. (f ii ?) “1r–4r.” Inc. Postea quam superioribus mensibus ut desiderio meo facere possem satis. In the town of Aesii, near Ancona. 186.* Oratio in sponsalibus Antonii Lancei et Blancae Ranalduciae Fanensium. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. (g i ?) “4r–v.” Inc. Non temere atque adeo summa cum ratione sacrarum legum praeceptis. 187.* Oratio sponsionis futurarum nuptiarum Matthaei Martinotii et Io. Taurellae Fanensium MCCCCLXV. Xvi Cal. Mart. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. “4v–5r.” Inc. Quam presenti numine tandem omnipotens ille rerum omnium. 188.* Oratio in nuptiis Nannis Vincentii et Helenae Saracenae Fanensium. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. (g ii ?) “5r–6r.” Inc. Appollo ille delphicus, cuius tanta apud maiores nostros fuit autoritas. 189.* Oratio habita in nuptiis celeberrimi iurisconsulti Nicolai Lancei et Magdalenae Pylae Fanensium. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. “6r–7r.” Inc. Si quem caeteri in enuntiandis epithalamiis suis ordinem tenent. 190.* Oratio in nuptiis Iacobi Ranalducii Fanensis et Polyxenae Isaeae Caesenatis MCCCCLXVI. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. “7r–8r.” Inc. Decebat magnifici priores, spectatissimi atque integerrimi hospites. 191.* Oratio in sponsalibus Damiani Damianii et Corneliae Bartholellae Fanensium. In Antonii Constantii Epigrammatum Libellus (Fano: Soncino, 1502), n.p. (h i?) “8r–9r.” Inc. Optima ratione constitutum est, reverende pater, iustissimi magistratus.

Contarenus, Franciscus 192.* Epithalamium Francisci Contareni Patricii Veneti. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XIV 256 (4634), fols. 21r–24v. Inc. Instituenti mihi nullam illis in artibus quas prius didicissem. For Ludovicus

160

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Draco and ?? de Palazolis. 4 January 1440. On this, see Margaret L. King, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 350–351, 458.

Cortexiis, Jacobo de 193.* Sermo ad matrimonium dictus per me Jacobum de Cortexiis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols.157r–159r. Inc. Maximus honus magnifice pretor. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 293. 194.* Alter ad matrimonium sermo sequitur mei Antonii, In nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi. MS: Florence, Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 159r–160r. Inc. Viri egregii ac cives praestantissimi, cum vos fronte vultu ac intentioribus oculis me respicere. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 293.

Dati, Augustinus 195. Augustini Dati oratio ad nuptias feliciter incipit. MS: Évora (Portugal), Biblioteca Pública C XXIX/1–1, fols. 473r–477r. Inc. Quando fusseno in me quelle necessarie et convenienti laude. Ends with Latin verses. Kristeller 4: 454–455. 196.* Augustini Dathi oratio quam ipse habuit palatio Dominorum Senensium magnia (sic) civium & clarorum hominum astante corona in sponsalibus magnifici equitis & praetoris Senensis Laurentii Iustini. In Opera (Siena: S. Nicolai Nardi, 1503), fols. 101v–102r. Inc. Cupiebam si sine dedecore fieri potuisset magnifici ac potentes. 197.* Augustini Dathi oratio altera in sponsalibus. Ibid., fol. 102r. Inc. Non opinanti mihi atque imparato prorsus patres. 198.* Augustini Dathi oratio III in sponsalibus magnifici ac generosissimi Equitis & clarissimi civis Senensis Antonii Bichi. Ibid., fol. 102v. Inc. Sum per aetatem patres ornatissimi et per longam. 199.* Augustini Dathi oratio IV de sacro coniugio hanc orationem habuit filii nepos Hieronymus Dathus vix decennium in sponsalibus Angele Dathe praefati Augustini neptis magna equitum ac insignium virorum astante corona. Ibid., fol. 102v. Inc. Coniugii sacramentum patres charissimi vere sacrum iure laudandum. 200.* Augustini Dathi oratio V de laudibus sacri coniugii. Ibid., fols. 102v–103r. Inc. Censent omnes viri sapientes quam magnis de rebus. 201.* Augustini Dathi oratio VII de laudibus sacri coniugii. Ibid., fol. 103r–v. Inc. Par erat viri praestantes atque ornatissimi eum. 202.* Augustini Dathi oratio VII qua publico nomine gratulatur egregiae coniugi inclyti Ferrariensis ducis & serenissimi Ferdinandi regis filiae tanto dignae parente Sena transeunti & ad genialem thalamum properanti vinclaque multum laudat connubialia Dathus. Ibid., fols. 103v–104r. Inc. Sacri matrimonii foedera iura omnia divina et humana.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

161

203.* Oratione prima in laude del sacro coniugio. Ibid., fols. 105r–108r. Inc. Come per me e meglio per altri di maggiore. 204.* Oratione secunda al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 108r. Inc. Parlando con somma brevità & per non gravare. 205.* Oratione tertia al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 108r–v. Inc. Se tucte le nationi del mondo etiam de populi barbari. 206.* Oratione quarta al medesimo proposito laquale insieme con una prescritta latina elegantissimamente recito apena di anni dieci in li sponsalitii di Angela Datha sua nipote Hieronymo Datho circunstanti molti di somma auctorita. Ibid., fol. 108v. Inc. Cognosciamo electissimi cittadini venerabili donne. 207.* Oratione quinta al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 108v. Inc. Benchè appartenesse ad homo di doctrina. 208.* Oratione VI al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fols. 108v–109v. Inc. La divina clementia la quale ha non piccola cura. 209.* Oratione VII al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fols. 109v–110v. Inc. Chi per benivolentia per liberalità & per suo merito. 210.* Oratione VIII al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 110v. Inc. Quantunche fusse stato conveniente cosa che altri. 211.* Oratione VIIII al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 110v. Inc. Tutte le cose spectatissimi circunstanti si debbono fare. 212.* Oratione X al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fols. 110v–111r. Inc. Benchè fusse expediente al vostro dignissimo conspecto. 213.* Oratione XI al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 111r. Inc. Vorrei che la divina dementia. 214.* Oratione XII al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fol. 111r. Inc. La necessità dello obedire e auctorita di quelli. 215.* Oratione XIII al medesimo proposito. Ibid., fols. 111r–113r. Inc. Due cose patri amplissimi mi fanno con qualche molestia comportare.

Duodus, Andrea 216.+ Uxorius sermo per Andream Duodum Venetum feliciter. MS: Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare CCLXVI (242), fols. 118r–121r. Inc. Res est patres optimi divina matrimonium qua non solum constitute urbes. Dated 1437. Kristeller 2: 298.

Finis, Finus de 217. Fini Fini oratio pro sponso. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Civica 240, fol. ? (n.8). Inc. Laetissimum profecto suavissimi. Antonelli, 138. 218. Oratiuncula in nuptias Ioannis. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Civica 240, fol. ? (n.45, XI). Inc. Consuevere nonnulli principes. Antonelli, 141.

162

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Flischus, Stephanus 219. Oratio nuptialis Steffani Flixi (sic). MS: Schwaz (Austria), Franziskanerkloster Incun. S. IV/7.335. Inc. (Q)ui modum hunc instituere. Kristeller 3: 50–51.

Fontana, Gabriel Paverius 220.* Gabrielis Paverii Fontanae ad Antonium Guidobonum ducalem apud Venetos oratorem nuptialis celebratio. X Kal. Junias 1455. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 766, fols. 50v–62r. Inc. Vellem profecto his superioribus Antoni vir clarissime diebus apud nos fuisses. Porro: 275–276. Kristeller 6: 80.

Grasi, Johannes 221. In sponsalibus. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A D XIV 27, fols. 49v–50r. No inc. given. Kristeller 1: 356.

Griffolinus, Franciscus 222.+ Oratio habita per Katerinellam (Ursinam), filiam ducis Andriae, in suis sponsalibus. MS: Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale VIII G 41. Inc. Video hic reverendissimi parentes. Kristeller 6: 105.

Gryneus, Gilbertus(?) 223. Untitled. MS: Trieste, Biblioteca Civica Archivio 107 (Alpha B B 7), fols. 30v–32r. No inc. given. Wedding speech in prose for Julia (Sforza?). Kristeller 2: 200–201.

Guarinus, Baptista 224. Baptistae Guarini Epithalamium in Bartholomeum Pendalium et Margaretham Constabilem coram Serenissimo Imperatore Federico Tertio Incipit pridie Idus Maii MCCCCLXXII. MS: Zagabria, Nationalna i Sveucilisna Biblioteka MR 107 (71 b 28), fols. 156r–157v. Inc. Cum ingentes materias praeclara invicem poscere ingenia cogitarem. Oration is published in Battista Guarini, Opuscula ed. Luigi Piacente (Biblioteca di critica e letteratura XXX, Bari: Adriatica, 1995), 246–248. 225. Baptistae Guarini Epithalamium. MS: Zagabria, Nationalna i Sveucilisna Biblioteka MR 107 (71 b 28), fol. 212r–v. Inc. Cum de coniugii horumque sponsorum laudibus vestrum ad conspectum arcesserim. For Paolo Di Carpi and Bartolomea Della Scala. Oration is published in Battista Guarini, Opuscula ed. Luigi Piacente (Biblioteca di critica e letteratura XXX, Bari: Adriatica, 1995), 248–249.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

163

226. Eiusdem Epithalamium in Tadeum Cagnonum et Bartholomeam Canalem. MS: Zagabria, Nationalna i Sveucilisna Biblioteka MR 107 (71 b 28), fols. 212v–213r. Inc. Saepius ac saepius, Princeps illustrissime ac Viri praestantissimi, dubius animo volvere soleo. Oration is published in Battista Guarini, Opuscula ed. Luigi Piacente (Biblioteca di critica e letteratura XXX, Bari: Adriatica, 1995), 249–250.

Guarinus, Hieronymus 227. In sponsalibus Scipionis Ariosti . . . per Geronimum Guarinum. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A D XIV 27, fols. 50r–51v. No inc. given. Kristeller 1: 356.

Guarinus Veronensis 228. Matrimonii Guarini Veronensis oratio. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2687, fols. 12v–13v. Inc. Cum multa. Frati, 520. G. B. C. Giuliari, “Edizioni di opera veronesi quattrocentine.” in Il Propugnatore (Bologna 1874), vol. VII, pt. II, 261–263, lists eighteen epithalamia for Guarino. He provides libraries but no shelfmarks. 229. Clarissimi oratoris et laureati poetae singularis Guarini Veronensis oratio pro sponsalitiis celebrandis, et eiusdem commendatio Plebi unius Sacerdotis celebraturi suam missam novam. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 397, fol. ?? (n.6). No inc. given. Antonelli, 192. 230. Guarini Veronensis Epithalamium. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 62, fol. 42v. Mazzatinti 54: 90. 231. Clarissimi oratoris Guarini Veronensis epithalamium in clarissimas Francisci Landriani et Ludovicae a Sale nuptias. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. ?? (n.12). Inc. Consuevere majores nostri princeps. Antonelli, 139. 232. Clarissimi et eloquentissimi oratoris Guarini Veronensis in Magnificum dominum Tristanum Sfortiam et illustrem dominam Beatricem Estensem epithalamium. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. ?? (n.15). Inc. Animadverte magnanime princeps et Dux illustrissime. Antonelli, 139. 233.* Epithalamium eloquentissimi viri Guarini Veronensis in dominum Leonellum illustrem marchionem Estensem et dominam Mariam regis Aragonum filiam. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Ashburnham 270, fols. 160r–162r. Inc. Plurima sunt et varia illustrissime Marchio principes. At end—dixi Neapoli in Castello Novo Curiae Serenissimi Regis Aragonum 1444 . . . Nonas Aprilis. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 294. Also in: MS: Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F. V 27, fols. 127v–128v. Kristeller 5: 69. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. ?? (n.11). Antonelli, 139.

164

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

MS: Milan,* Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 145 inf., fols. 61r–62v. Kristeller 1: 320. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense A D XIV 27, fols. 48r–49v. Entitled Oratio habita in sponsalibus Marchionis Estensis dum duxit filiam regis Aragonum. Kristeller 1: 356. MS: Turin, Biblioteca ex-Reale, Varia 269, fols. 84r–85r (copied and dated February 1466). Kristeller 2: 186–187. MS: Venice,* Biblioteca Museo Civico Correr 225, fol. 81r–v (?). Folios not numbered. Kristeller 6: 270. 234.* Epithalamium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 162r–163v. Inc. Cogitavi mecum saepenumero ornatissimi cives, pudicissimae matronae cur. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 294. 235.* Epithalamium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fols. 164r–165r. Inc. Tametsi cives praestantissimi in huiusmodi genus dicturus accesserim. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 294. 236.* Untitled. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 270, fol. 165r–v. Inc. Quamquam mirificas matrimonii laudes dicere possem si mea facultas pateretur. Kristeller 1:82–83. Paoli, 294. 237.* In Federicum de Pietatis et Johannam sponsos epitalamium Guarinus dixit. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 53r–54v. Inc. Cum animadverterem superiori tempore magnifici viri ac cives spectatissimi singularem erga me philosophiae. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. Also in: MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 22v–24. Entitled De coniugio. Kristeller 5: 629–630. Mariano Messini published the Foligno version, “Guarino Veronese: tre orazioni nuziali” per Nozze Messini-Ercole 1939, 19–28. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fol. 78r. Entitled Guarini Veronensis in Phedericum Pistaniensem epithalamium. Kristeller 2: 486. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1510, fol. 19r. Kristeller 2: 430. MS*: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XI 123 (4086), fols. 38v–39r. Kristeller 2: 240. 238.* Contractus Guarini Veronensis pro Comite Jacopino. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 54v–57v. Inc. Fuere non nulli magnifici viri ac cives spectatissimi ac ii qui non ignobiles sane auctores. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. Also in: MS*: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 421 (M III 19), fol. 43r–v. Kristeller 1: 192. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 1200, fols. 129v–130r. Inc. Fuere nonnulli, magnifici viri et cives prestantissimi, et hi quidem non ignobiles. Marpurgo, 264.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

165

MS*: London, British Library Arundel 70, fol. 140r–v. Entitled, Oratio pro matrimonio nobilis Catherinae de Pelegrinis [et Jacopini Persici Cremonensis]. Forshall, 19. MS*: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana M 40 sup., fol. 16r–v. Kristeller 1: 334. MS: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 8482, fols. 158r–159r. Entitled Oratio pro matrimonio comitis Jacobini. Kristeller 3: 618–619. MS: Trier, Stadtbibliothek Incunabel 1219, fols. 35r–36r. Entitled Oracio commendatoria coniugii. Kristeller 3: 720. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1510, fol. 19r–v. Kristeller 2: 430. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2876, fols. 30r–31v, with title In Tarobum Persinum et Caterinam Peregrinam Epithalamium Guarini Veronensis. Kristeller 2: 314. MS*: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XI 123 (4086), fols. 37v–38r. Kristeller 2: 240. MS: Wurzburg, Universitätsbibliothek M. ch. q. 1., fols. 36v–37v. Entitled Sermo matrimonialis. Inc. Fuere non ulli. Kristeller 3: 745r–746r. 239.* Epithalamium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 57v–58v. Inc. Multa cum sint illustrissime princeps magnificique viri et matrone primarie quae laudabilia in vita contingere. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. 240.* Epithalamium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 59r–60v. Inc. Maximum me diu tenuit desiderium Sil. amantissime ut aliqua nobis praestaretur occasio. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. Also in: MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1510, fol. 18v. Kristeller 2: 430. 241.* Epithalamium. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 61r–62v. Inc. Scio K. tuque T. adolescentes nobilitate ac virtutibus insignis cum plurimos fore, qui. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297, lists Inc. Scio R. tuque T. adolescentibus nobilitate ac virtutibus. Also in : MS*: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana O 66 sup., fols. 43v–44r. Inc. Scio Chieriginus tuque Tobia adulescentes nobilitate. Kristeller 1: 337. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. J VII 266, fols. 57v–58r. Entitled De nuptiis sermo. Inc. Scio viri tuque to. adolescentes nobilitate ac virtutibus insignes. In oration bride and groom are Kirikinus and Tobia. Kristeller 2: 486. MS*: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. lat. 1510, fol. 18v. Kristeller 2: 430. MS*: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. Lat. XI 123 (4086), fol. 39r–v. Inc. Scio Leandre tuque polixena adolescentes nobilitate ac virtutibus insignes complurimos fore. Kristeller 2: 240. Same oration but with different couple.

166

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

242. Guarini Veronensis adloquutio in coniugio Hannibalis Mantuani IC. et Luciae Ioannis Branchini Ferrariensis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Gaddi Plut. LXXXIX Sup. Cod. II, fol. 17v. Inc. Cogitanti mihi, Princeps illustris et generosi cives, coniugale munus. Bandini 3:426. Also in : MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 1200, fol. 131r. Morpurgo, 264. 243. De coniugio. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 24r–26r. Inc. Quam plura sunt magnifici presides. Kristeller 5: 629–630. The oration was published by Mariano Messini “Guarino Veronese: tre orazioni nuziali” per Nozze Messini-Ercole 1939, 19–28. 244. Nuptialis. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 26r–30r. Inc. Etsi nullum in me. Kristeller 5: 629–630. The oration was published by Mariano Messini “Guarino Veronese : Tre orazioni nuziali” per Nozze Messini-Ercole 1939, 19–28. 245. In nuptiis Silvestri. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV10, fol. 170r. No inc. given. Introduction only. Kristeller 5: 629–630. 246. In matrimonio. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 170r–171r. Inc. Maximum me tenuit. Kristeller 5: 629–630. Also in: MS: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana F 20, fols. 195r–196r. Kristeller 2: 132–133. 247. De coniugio. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 181r–182v. Inc. Summum amplissimumque orandi genus. Kristeller 5: 629–630. 248. De matrimonio. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 184–185r. Inc. Maxima et amplissima gloria. Kristeller 5: 629–630. 249. De coniugio. MS: Foligno, Seminario Vescovile, Biblioteca Jacobilli, C IV 10, fols. 185v–186v. Inc. Quam plura sint. Kristeller 5: 629–630. 250. Epithalamium Guarini Veronensis in illustres sponsum et sponsam Carolum Gonzagam et Luciam Estensem feliciter incipit. MS: Pistoia, Biblioteca Forteguerriana, A. 1., fols. 87r–89r. Inc. Bene ac sapienter maiores nostri, quorum in omni negotio plurimum valet auctoritas, instruerunt, illustris princeps ac viri magnifici ut tam. Kristeller 2: 76. The oration is dated 1437. It was published by Agostino Zanelli, Due Epitalamii inediti di Guarino Veronese (Pistoia: Flori e Biagini, 1896), 13–16. Also in: MS: Perugia, Biblioteca Comunale Augusta (fondo Vecchio) N.ºF. 114, fols. 11v–13r. Entitled Oratio Guarini in sponsalitiis. Kristeller 2: 63. Zanelli (pp. 17–18) also publishes a shorter version from MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale II 151, fol. 64r–v. Kristeller 1: 58. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale I 62, fols. 76v–77r. Mazzatinti, 54: 91.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

167

251. Untitled. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana F 20, fols. 193r–195r. Inc. Non mediocri me. Kristeller 2: 132–133. 252. Untitled. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana F 20, fols. 196r–198v. Inc. Circumspicio princeps illustris. Kristeller 2: 132–133. 253. Untitled. MS: Turin, Biblioteca ex-Reale Varia 269, fol. 112r–v. No inc. given. Wedding speech for Franciscus Landrianus, copied tertio kal. Martias 1466. Kristeller 2: 186–187. 254.* Oratio Guarini ad matrimonium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2915, fols. 64v–66v. Inc. Vereor ne nulli M[agnifici] virique cives praestantissimi et hii quidem non ignobiles. Mentions “Nicolai principis” and “comes Jacobinus” in oration. Kristeller 2: 356.

Guido, Egidius 255.* Oratio epithalamia Egidii Guidonis acta Padue in nuptiis Nasimberie de Grompo et Bartholomeae de Brazolo feliciter. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 7179, fols. 28r–29v. Inc. In primis secundisque rebus quae ad foelicitatem attinent. Dated 1435. Kristeller 2: 383. 256.* Epithalamium Egidii Guidonis Lombardi de Carpo in nuptiis Nicolai de Angelo ac Francische Gesse (Conesse?) sponsis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 7179, fols. 30r–31r. Inc. Magnum ac singulare dicendi genus ad me delatum sentio. Kristeller 2: 383.

Iohannes Annius Viterbiensis 257. De matrimonio. MS: Göttweig (Austria), StiftsBibliothek 459 (Formerly 277). No inc. given. Dated 1437. Kristeller 3: 15.

Iohannes Papiensis 258.* Johannis Papiensis Epythalamium. MS: Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana Corsin. 583 (45 C 18), fol. 38r. Inc. Non nulli spectatissimi viri patresque reverendissimi. Kristeller 2: 110.

Iustis, Manfredus de,Veronensis 259.* Epithalamium Manfredi de Justis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 39r–42r. Inc. Quoniam cum ad huiusmodi nuptiarum munera pervenimus. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 296. 260.* Contractus matrimonialis compillatus per Manfredum de Iustis Veronensem. ad dei laudem. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271,

168

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

fols. 48r–52v. Inc. Quamquam nec aetas mea nec ingenium nec facundia patres mei amplissimi tanto sufficiant oneri. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 296. 261.* Epithalamium Manfredi de Iustis Veronensis in nuptiis Laurentii Parmensis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 67v–71v. Inc. Si voluissem, prudentes viri et homines gravissimi. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. 262.* Epithalamium Manfredi de Iustis Veronensis in nuptiis Laurentii Parmensis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 71v–72r. Inc. Ex omnibus optatis meis. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. 263.* Sermone per nozze di Manfredo Giusti notaro. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 74v–77v. Inc. Cum sepe mecum vires ingenii mei cogito. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297. 264.* Epithalamium in egregios et ornatissimos sponsos Omnibonum notarium de Brayda et Dalidea a Curte. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 271, fols. 78r–83r. Inc. Sepe mihi venit in mentem. Kristeller 1: 83. Paoli, 297.

Leonicenus, Omnibonus 265.* Oratio Omniboni Leonicensis. MS: London, British Library Add. 15336, fol. 1r–v. Inc. Grave onus illustre princeps. At end, fols. 1v–2r, is another paragraph entitled Finis orationis nuptialis clarissimi viri Omniboni Leonicensis feliciter explicit. Inc. Cum magna sit et inexhausta iugalis federis. Ludovicus de Gonzaga is groom. Kristeller 4: 98. 266.* Oratio nuptialis clarissimi viri Omniboni Leonicensis. MS: London, British Library Add. 15336, fols. 3r–4r. Inc. Cogitanti mihi sacri federis amplitudinem. Kristeller 4: 98. 267.* Oratio nuptialis Omniboni Leonicensis. MS: London, British Library Add. 15336, fols. 4r–5r. Inc. Mihi sepe munero cogitanti quantum suscipiam honus. Kristeller 4: 98.

Luschus, Nicolaus 268.* Epithalamium Nicolai Luschi in nuptiis Guizardi Ferariae. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 145 inf., fols. 69v–70v. Inc. Quod iam pridem immortalem deum omni mentis affectione precatus. Kristeller 1: 320.

Manettus, Iannotius 269.* Iannotii Manetti et Honophrii Parenti Florentinorum Legatorum oratio ad Alphonsum clarissimum Aragonum Regem in nuptiali uniti filii incliti Calabrie ducis celebritate. In De Regibus Siciliae et Apuliae in queis et nomina-

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

169

tim de Alfonso rege Aragonum, ed. Felinus Sandeus Ferrariensis (Hanover: Typis Wechelianis, 1611), 169–175. Inc. Demosthenes Graecorum et Latinorum omnium oratorum elegantissimus. Delivered in Naples. On this oration see Heinz Willi Wittschier, Giannozzo Manetti: das Corpus der Orationes, Studi Italiani, vol. 10 (Köln Graz: Böhlau 1968), 85–91. Also in: MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Magl. VI 180, fols. 14r–26r. Mazzatinti 12: 157. MS*: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 914 (N III 1), fols. 3r–12v. Printed numbers.Kristeller 1: 209. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 1074 (R III 12), fols. 98v–104r. Morpurgo, 64. MS*: London, British Library Arundel 70, fols. 171r–173v. Forshall, 20. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Urb. Lat. 387, fols. 180v–184r. Storniolo 1: 366–367. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 2920, fols. 29r–36v. Kristeller 2: 356–357. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 13679, fols. 126r–132r. Kristeller 2: 387.

Marcus Carpensis 270.* Marci Carpensis poetae epithalamium in eosdem sed non prolatum anno a Christi gratia Mcccclxvi. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 2948 (Miscellanea Tioli), vol. 36, fols. 231r–233r. Inc. Legimus Borsi heroum iustissime . . . M. Crassum artis oratoriae principem. Kristeller 1: 25–26.

Marlianus, Iohannes Franciscus 271.+ Johannis Francisci Marliani Epithalamium in nuptiis Blancae Mariae Sfortiae et ducis Johannis Corvini filii Mathiae Corvini Regis an 1488. MS: Volterra, Biblioteca Comunale Guarnaccia 5518, fols. 4v–26v. Inc. Inter mortalium res ardua quidem ac difficiles unum illud mihi se per difficillimum est visum. Second title—Johannis Francisci Marliani Mediolanensis magnifici Antonii filii iure consulti ducalisque senatoris, Epithalamium habitum in nuptiis illustrissimae virginis Blancae Mariae Sfortiae vicecomitis et illustrissimi ducis Johannis Corvini filii felicissimi et invictissimi Mathiae Pannoniae regis septimo kalendas decembres mcccclxxxvii. There is a preface (3 folios) to Matthias Corvinus, dated Mediolani Kal. Jan. 1488, entitled Ioannes Franciscus Marlianus Matthiae faelicissimo et invictissimo Pannoniae regi s.p.d. Inc. Dum sapientissime rex Matthias. Kristeller 2: 308.

170

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Marinonius, Bartholomeus 272.* In sponsalitiis. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 635, fols. 164r–165v. Inc. Quam faustum felix fortunatumque duci. Bride is Iohanina and groom is Franciscus. Porro: 233. Kristeller 6: 78.

Mascharellis, Montorius de 273. Oratio sponsalitia. MS: Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Library) Clmae 228, fols. 111r–115v. No inc. given. Kristeller 4: 292–293.

Maturantius, Franciscus, Perusinus 274.* Eiusdem epithalamium in nuptiis Andreae Marcelli Patritii Veneti et Margaritae Thieneae Vicentinae. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 5358, fols. 108r–113v. Inc. Dolebam ipse meum et non mediocriter angebat superioribus mensibus magnifice. Ms. volume is entitled, Orationes Francisci Maturantii Perusini. Kristeller 2: 375.

Maynus, Jason 275.* Jasonis Mayni iureconsulti . . . ad . . . Maximilianum . . . in . . . eius et . . . Blanchemariae (Sfortiae) nuptiis epithalamion. MS: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek S.ºN. 12594, fols. 2r–14v. Inc. Credimus serenissime rex et invictissime caesar. At the beginning (fol.1r–v, other hand) a preface by Joannes Petrus Vicecomes praepositus Ecclesiae Mediolanensis to Queen Blancha Maria, sending her a copy of the epithalamium, dated at the end: ex Mediolano octavo Calendas. Apriles MDVIIII. Delivered at wedding in 1494. Kristeller 3: 69.

Monte, Petrus de? 276.* Rodigii acta pro nuptiis dilecti sui compatris Rustichelli ser. Johannis Boneti de Molino de Capite Aggeris. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 675, fols. 115v–119v. Inc. Habundantissimo munere me a diis in mortalibus donatum arbitrares magnifice praeses ceterique viri lectissimi si eius. MS is of Petrus de Monte’s works. Some, including this oration, do not provide author’s name. Kristeller 2: 425.

Palazolis, Laurus de 277.* Epithalamium Domini Lauri utriusque iuris doctoris in nuptiis Domini Ioannis Iacobi Canis doctoris Patavi M IIII VV die XXII Ian. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 145 inf., fols. 75r–77v. Inc. Non eram nescius antequam hunc ornatissimum locum. Followed by volgare version, fol.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

171

77v. Inc. Nunc autem pro more vetusto materno sermone ad utrumque sponsum me convertam. Kristeller 1: 320. 278.* Oratio Lauri de Palazolis in publicatione sponsaliorum filie domini Johannis de Prato. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fol. 108v. Inc. Rem vobis hac ipsa die laetam frugiferamque. Oration is followed by marriage contract. Kristeller 1: 330.

Parleo, Petrus, Ariminensis 279.* Petri Parleonis epithalamium in nuptis illustrium Iulii Caesaris Varani et Iohanae Malatestae incipit foeliciter. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 80 (3057), fols. 343r–345r. Inc. In multis maximisque beneficiis quibus genus humanum deus immortalis affecit. Kristeller 2: 254; Zorzanello 1: 532; Morelli, no. 95, 114. 280.* Petri Parleonis epithalamium in nuptiis Antonii Atti incipit foeliciter. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 80 (3057), fols. 345v– 346v. Inc. Soleo ipse mecum Sigismunde princeps excellens summe rerum opificis ac maximi dei munera et beneficia in genus humanum admirari. Kristeller 2: 254; Zorzanello 1: 532; Morelli, no. 95, 114. Bride is Catharina. C. Tonini, La cultura letteraria e scientifica in Rimini dal secolo XIV ai primi del XIX (Rimini: Tipografia Danesi già Albertini 1884), vol. 1: 179–85, does not attribute these two epithalamia to Parleo. On this, see King (1986), 417.

Parrasius, Aulus Ianus 281. Untitled. MS: Naples, ex-Reale Bibl. Nat. Neapolitanae Codice V.ºD. 15 excerpta. Inc. Qui solemnia sponsalium verba dicturi, princeps illustris. Ca. 1504. Published by Francesco Lo Parco, Due Orazioni nuziali inedite di Aulo Giano Parrasio (Messina: Vincenzo Muglia, 1907), 37–40. 282. Untitled. MS: Naples, ex-Reale Biblioteca Nazionale Neapolitanae Codice V.ºD. 15 excerpta. Inc. Si quibus, illustrissime princeps optimique patres, orationis initio. Ca. 1504. Published by Francesco Lo Parco, Due Orazioni nuziali inedite di Aulo Giano Parrasio (Messina: Vincenzo Muglia, 1907), 41–44.

Patricius, Franciscus, Senensis 283.* Oratio habita per dominum Franciscum Patricium in matrimonio coniuncto inter inclitam filiam ducis Mediolani et filium regis Neapolis. Iunii 1465. MS: Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Marc. lat. XI 83 (4360), fols. 194v–198r. Inc. Quintus Caecilius Metellus gravis et disertus orator. For wedding of Hypolita Sforza in 1465. Kristeller 2: 255; Morelli, no. 98, 129. Also in:

172

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale B V 40, fols. 59r–63v. Kristeller 2: 155 MS: Évora (Portugal), Biblioteca Pública C XXIX/1–1, fols. 468r–472r. Entitled: Francisci Patricii episcopi Caietani oratio feliciter incipit (other hand: de matrimonio). Kristeller 4: 454–455. 284. De maritalis coniugii dignitate oratio. MS: Siena, Biblioteca Comunale H IX 21. No inc. given. Kristeller 2: 155.

Philelphus, Franciscus 285. Francisci Philelphi apud ducem Mediolani de matrimonio oratio incipit. MS: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria 662, fols. 165v–168r. Inc. Etsi ea de re que neminem habet. Frati, 219. 286.* Oratio Nuptialis I—Oratio de inita societate inter illustrissimos duces Bonam eiusque filium Ioannem Galeacium et Herculem Aestensem. In Francisci Philelphi Orationes cum aliis eiusdem operibus (Basel, 1496). Folios not numbered. Inc. Aristoteles ille peripateticus: qui ob singularem quandam ac prope divinam. Dated 1477. 287.* Oratio Nuptialis II—Epithalamion illustrium Beatricis Aestensis [et] Tristani Sphortiae nuptiis habitum. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Etsi laetandum mihi admodum sentio illustrissime dux Borsi. Dated 1455 in Ferrara. Also in: MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale 240, fol. ?? (n.17). Antonelli, 139. 288.* Oratio Nuptialis III—Oratio habita in sponsalitiis Theodori Plati clarissimi iureconsulti et Helisabet Vicecomitis. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Sive ipsum naturae ductum sive rationis atque honestatis vim. 289.* Oratio Nuptialis IIII—Oratio habita in sponsalitiis Petri Biragi et Helisabet Princivallis. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Qui sacratissimum coniugium vinculum non summopere laudant. Dated 1458 in Milan. 290.* Oratio Nuptialis V—Epithalamion in nuptiis nobilium coniugium Ioannis Antonii Simonetae et Margaretae Cottae. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Inter humanae societatis vincula quibus. 291.* Oratio Nuptialis VI—Oratio habita in desponsione magnificae puellae Iuliae Marutiae et magnifici equitis aurati Raymundi Attenduli. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Quanti fieri oporteat bene conveniens matrimonium. 292.* Oratio Nuptialis VII—Oratio habita in connubio magnificae puellae Margaretae Arcimboldae et magnifici equitis aurati Antonii Cribelli. Ibid. Folios not numbered. Inc. Cum inter vehementissimos ac maximos animi affectus tanta sit vis amoris. Dated 1458.

Philelphus, Marius 293.* Marii Philelfi epithalamion pro illustribus clarissimisque principibus Roberto Malatesta, Arimini domino, Elizabethaque Feretrana, illustris ducis Urbini

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

173

Friderici filia, ab auctore habitum. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Urb. Lat. 1183, fols. 1r–84v. Inc. Facturo mihi maximis amplissimisque de rebus in hoc tam celebri optimorum pontificum clarissimorumque principum consessu verba. Storniolo 3: 194. Agostinelli 61–62. Four paragraphs are published in Charles Emile Yriarte, Un Condottiere au XV siecle Rimini (Rothschild: Paris, 1882), 448–449. 294.* Marii Philelfi artium ac utriusque iuris doctoris equitis aurati et poetae Laureati Epithalamion pro iureconsulto Bartholomeo Brenzono ac nobilissima ac pudicissima virgine Margarita Fragastoria coniugali copulae dedicandis. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat 2874, fols. 53r–56r. Inc. Solet permagnum bonum ac perdifficile videri. Incomplete at end, printed folio numbers. Kristeller 2: 355–356. Also in: MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chig. I VII 241, fols. 116r–120v. Inc. Solet permagnum honus et perdifficile videri. Kristeller 2: 485. Agostinelli 61. 295.* Epithalamion pro domino Nicolao Tolentinate ac Lucia Castillionea. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chig. I VII 241, fols. 139r–140v. Inc. Non ab re dictum a philosophis arbitror. Kristeller 2: 485. Agostinelli, 61. Published as a wedding pamphlet for Maria di Armanni di Jesi by Giovanni Benadduci (Tolentino: Francesco Filelfo, 1893). 296.* Epithalamion pro domino Francisco Ferrario et Constantia Cinisella. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chig. I VII 241, fols. 140v–143r. Inc. Et si maioribus occupationibus meis fieri poterat ut praesenti negotio minime satisfecissem. Oration turns into verse on fol. 142r. Kristeller 2: 485. Agostinelli, 61.

Pilatus, Platinus 297.* Oracio habita per Platinum in sponsalibus Mag.corum comitis Francisci de Thienis et dominae Anne Rangone (Aragonae?). MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ross. 406 (IX 96), fols. 42r–44v. Inc. Si quis unquam viri magnifici spectatissimi praesentes et vos cives generosi. Delivered in Ferrara during reign of Ercole d’Este. Kristeller 2: 469–470. 298.* Oratio habita in sponsalibus. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ross. 406 (IX 96), fols. 44v–46r. Inc. Si vel in minus ut inquit Boetius. Poem begins on fol. 45v. Kristeller 2: 469–470. Both Pilatus orations also in: MS: Urbino, Biblioteca Universitaria, Fondo dell’Università, vol. 90, fols. 78r–81r. The first oration is ascribed to Joh. Petrus Arrivabenus and entitled Oratio in sponsalibus Francisci de Thienis et Anne Rangone. Second oration, inc. Si vel in minimis. Kristeller 6: 248.

174

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

MS: Vicenza, Biblioteca Comunale Bertoliana 531 (Gonzati 25.6.5; L 6.12), fols. 12r–17r. Kristeller 2: 304.

Pisaurigena, Jacobus 299.+ In Magdalenam sponsam. MS: Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana 1131, fols. 51v–52v. Inc. Etsi hoc ipsum onus non expectabam imponi mihi ut aliquid de re uxoria. Kristeller 2: 65–66.

Podocatharus, Philippus 300.* Philippi Podocatharii in Zinebram Estensem et dominum Baldassarem equitem clarum epithalamium feliciter incipit. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Regin. Lat. 1612, fols. 40r–42r. Inc. Quam si illustrissime marchio vosque principes equitesque ac doctores splendidissimi. Kristeller 2: 409.

Priscianus, Peregrinus 301. Peregrini Prisciani oratio in nuptiis Alphonsi I Estensis et Lucretiae Borgiae. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 205, fol. ?? (n.1). No inc. given. Antonelli, 118.

Quirinus, Tadeus 302.* Tadei Quirini in Galeatii Mussati nuptiis et Paulae de Leono oratio. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fols. 107r–108v. Inc. Caium Julium Caesarem imperatorem gloriosissimum et virum imprimis eloquentissimum. At end—Paduae 1441 die 24 Januarii. dixi. Kristeller 1: 330. Taddeo Quirini (1428–1508) was a Venetian humanist, see King (1986), 421–422.

Reate, Thomas de 303.* Oratio habita per dominum Thomam de Reate in desponsatione Ill. dominae DrusianeVicecomitum. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana O 57 sup., fol. 96r. Inc. Vereor ne qui me putet. Kristeller 1: 336.

Ricci, Antonius ? 304. Untitled. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana ms. 704. For the engagement of Filippo Visconti and Maria of Savoy in 1427. On this, see Jean-Louis Charlet, “L’épithalame de G. Altilio pour les noces de Jean Galéaz Sforza et Isabelle d”Aragon, dans ses rapports avec la tradition et la culture classiques,” Res Publica Litterarum 6 (1983), 91, 103 n.12.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

175

Rinuccinus, Alamannus 305. Oratio ab Alamanno Rinuccino composita rogatu Petriphilippi Pandolphini, cum orator missus fuit Neapolim ad Ferdinandum Regem in solemnibus eius nuptiis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Magliabechiano VI 94, fols. 40v–43r. Inc. Si quando licuit oratorum cuiquam de rebus grandioribus. Mazzatinti 12: 138. Published in Alamanno Rinuccini, Lettere ed orazioni, ed. Vito R. Giustiniani (Florence: Olschki, 1953), 68–72. Giustiniani provides the alternate title: Hanc orationem composuit Alamannus Rinuccinus nomine Petri Philippi Pandolphini, qui missus fuit orator Neapolim ad Ferdinandum regem in solemnibus eius nuptiis, una cum Bongianne Ianfiliatio equite; qui rex duxit uxorem filiam Iohannis regis Aragoniae. Composita autem die VII mensis augusti 1477.

Rizonius, Martinus, Veronensis 306.* Oratio Martini Veronensis nuptialis. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 278, fols. 123v–126v. Inc. Magnum ac singulare munus hodierno die suscepisse me. Kristeller 1: 83–84. Paoli, 332. Also in: MS*: London, British Library Arundel 70, fol. 123r–v. Forshall, 19. MS: Trent, Biblioteca Comunale 3887. Kristeller 2: 190. 307. Oratio nupcialis. MS: Munich, Universitätsbibliothek 4o 768, fols. 184v–186r. No inc. given. Kristeller 3: 650. 308. Martini Rizonii oratio. MS: Rovereto, Biblioteca Civica cod. 12, fols. 33r–33v. Inc. Antequam huius coniugii viri primarii. Kristeller 6: 205. 309. Untitled. MS: Rovereto, Biblioteca Civica cod. 12, fols. 36r–38r. Inc. Institueram quidem omnino presides amplissimi. Oration is for Franciscus Aleardus. At end: acta Verone 1435. Kristeller 6: 205. 310. Martini oratio in sponsalibus Sigismundi Se. MS: Rovereto, Biblioteca Civica cod. 12, fols. 38v–39v. Inc. Quidnam est clarissimi presides. Kristeller 6: 205.

Rosellus, Guidantonius 311.* Oratio sponsalitia per Guidantonium Rosellum in nuptiis eximii doctoris domini Bartholomei de Caputlista. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fols. 110v–112v. Inc. Vellem hodierno die pretores insignes vosque caeteri patres. Kristeller 1: 330.

Simonettus, Joannes Petrus 312.* Oratio in coniuges. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 103v–104v. Inc. Multum mirari vos arbitror spectatissimi cives vosque venustissimae matres atque puellae quum de re grandi. Bride is Lucia and groom is Phillipus. Kristeller 2: 437.

176

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

313.* In coniugium oratio. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 105v–106r. Inc. Cum multa sint magnifici viri . . . quae laudabilia hominibus in vita contingere. Bride is Cornelia and groom is Bernardinus. Kristeller 2: 437. 314.* Oratio responsiva in matrimonium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 112r–113r. Inc. Quam copiose lauteque vir iste non modo infimus aut mediocris verum summus. A shorter vernacular version of the oration follows: fol. 113r. Inc. Spectabili cittadini et dignissimi. Kristeller 2: 437. 315.* Oratio habita per Joannem Petrum Simonectum in coniugio Andreae de Comitibus. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 122r–124r. Inc. Optarem maxime venerandi patres optimi cives. Dated 27 February 1487. Shorter vernacular oration follows, fol. 124r–v. Kristeller 2: 437. 316.* Oratio recitata per me Joannem Petrum Simonectum in coniugio Joannis Baptistae Bartholomei. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 124v–126r. Inc. Bene ac sapienter maiores nostri (quorum in omni negocio plurimum valet auctoritas). Kristeller 2: 437. 317.* Oratio ad matrimonium. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 126v–127v. Inc. Seniores et patres nostri singularissimi prope sapientia. Bride is Lisia and groom is Franciscus. Kristeller 2: 437. 318.* Oratio ad convivium matrimoniale. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 2853, fols. 143v–147v. Inc. Video patres conscripti hodierno die tanta maximarum rerum excellentia me. Kristeller 2: 437.

Tegliaciius, Gabrielis(?) 319.* Epithalamium spectabilis militis Jacobi de Lavagnolis de Verona. MS: London, British Library Arundel 70, fol. 12v–13v. Inc. Scio quam plurimos viros, magnifici. Forshall, 15.

Tifernas, Phillippus 320. Eloquentissimi viri Philippi Tifernatis Epithalamium in nuptias clarissimi viri Hieronymi de Castello. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. 59r. Inc. Quam conveniebat gratiosissime Princeps. Kristeller 1: 55. Antonelli, 139. 321. Eloquentissimi viri Philippi Tifernatis epithalamium incipit feliciter in Poloniae nuptias. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. ?? (n.13). Inc. Admirari eos video excellentissime Princeps. Antonelli, 139.

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

177

Tobias Veronensis 322.* Tobiae Veronensis oratio nuptialis. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fols. 108v–109v. Inc. Non eram nescius viri magnifici. Groom is Franciscus. Kristeller 1: 330. Also in: *MS: London, British Library Arundel 70, fol. 92r–v. Entitled, Tobiae [de Borgo] Veronensis Oratio Nuptialis in Forshall, 17.

Triultius, Antonius, Comensis 323.* Desponsationem Antonius Triultius Comensis episcopus ex primoribus Mediolanensium tali oratione laudavit. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 3923, fols. 47r–50r. Inc. Prudentissime te semper rebus tuis consuluisse Ferdinande Rex atque prospexisse cognovimus. Kristeller 2: 366–367. Oration is reported by Tristanus Chalcus in his De nuptiis ducum Mediolanensium. (Ibid.) Dated 1489. Inc. Cum veterem affinitatem mutueque amicitia viva novis nectenda vinculis. Chalcus describes the wedding of Alfonso, duke of Calabria and Ippolita Sforza in 1489. Also in: MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 5622, fols. 55r–75r. Kristeller 2: 335.

Tuscanella, Johannes 324. De nuptiis . . . Leonelli . . . Estensis . . . et Mariae Aragonum regis filiae historia. MS: Turin, Biblioteca ex-Reale Varia 269, fols. 78v–84r. No inc. given. Includes a preface to Giovanni Aurispa, copied tertio nonas Februarias 1466. Kristeller 2: 186–187.

Ursinus, Jordanus 325.*Epithalamium eloquentissimi Iordani Ursini Romani in nuptiis Nicolai de Rido Patavini. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 145 inf., fols. 71r–73v. Inc. Ex his qui nedum vitam agere quod est omnibus animantibus. Bride’s family is De Brazolo. Kristeller 1: 320. 326.*Iordani Ursini oratio habita in nuptiis Francisci Contareni Veneti. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana D 93 sup., fols. 103r–107r. Inc. Praeclaram nobis inter ceteras ad gloriose vivendum consuetudinem. At end—Acta Paduae 1447. Praetore Magdalino Contareno et Ludovico Storlato. IIII Kal. Junii. Kristeller 1: 330. Also in: MS*: London, British Library Arundel 70, fol. 82v–86v. Forshall, 17. MS: Munich, Universitätsbibliothek 2o 607, fols. 122r–128r. Kristeller 3: 648.

178

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

Valvassor, Petrus 327.*Sermo matrimonialis per P[etrum] V[alvassorem] editus. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 97, fols. 65v–66r. Inc. Si iugalia federa quibus hunc in locum frequentes. Porro, 450–451. Kristeller 6: 78. 328.* Sermo matrimonialis per P[etrum] Valvassorem] editus. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 97, fols. 66v–67r. Inc. Ardua res nimium tanto mihi promere. Includes epithalamic poem to Magdalenae Cacie. Porro, 450–451. Kristeller 6: 78.

Villanis, Rizardus de 329. Untitled. MS: Casale-Monferrato, Seminario Vescovile II d 8, fols. 1r–7v. Inc. Quesivi eam michi sponsam asumere. Kristeller 1: 41. 330. Illustris domine Virginis adolescentulae Hippolitae Mariae Vicecomitis pro illustribus et magnificis domino Tristano Vicecomite et domina Beatrice estensi congratulatio. MS: Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale Ariostea I 240, fol. ?? (n.41). Inc. Cum legerim aliqu. et saepius audierim Antonium, Crassum, Ciceronem et multos oratores. Ends: Mediolani per eandem illustrem virginem recitata die 28 Aprilis 1455. Antonelli, 140.

Visso, Troilus Boncompagnus de 331.* Oratio seu epitalamium domini Troili Boncompagni de Visso equitis, comitis, ac doctoris in illustri domina domina Riccarda inclito domino domino Nicolao Marchioni Estensi disponsanda. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 278, fols. 95r–100v. Inc. Quam maximum quamve amplissimum munus hodierno die infirmis humeris desumpsisse intelligam. Kristeller 1: 83–84. Paoli, 330–331. Also in: MS: Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, F. V 27, fols. 130v–132r. Kristeller 5: 69. MS: Dillingen, Studienbibliothek 76. Fols. not numbered. Kristeller 3: 519–520. MS*: Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C 145 inf., fols. 65v–69v. Kristeller 1: 320. MS: Nuremberg, Stadtbibliothek Cent. V, App.º15, fol. 345v. Kristeller 3: 666–667.

Vitalis, Karotus, Piranensis 332.* Karoti Vitalis Piranensis nuptialis sermo. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 3194, fols. 77r–80v. Inc. Si qui de philosophia

A Finding-List for Wedding Orations in the Italian Renaissance

179

scripserunt venerandissime Antistes magnifice praetor patresque spectatissimi. Kristeller 2: 240–359.

Zabarella, Cardinal Franciscus 333.* De coniugio verba facturus. MS: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. lat. 5513, fol. 107r–v. Inc. Non est bonum. Kristeller 3: 64–66. 334.* Celebraturi coniugium. MS: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. lat. 5513, fols. 107v–108r. Inc. Jungamus vicissim. Kristeller 3: 64–66. 335.* Salutare nostre urbe (sic) coniugium. MS: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. lat. 5513, fols. 107v–108r, fol. 108r–v. Inc. Videbunt omnes. Kristeller 3: 64–66. 336.* In matrimonio et nupciis. MS: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. lat. 5513, fol. 210–210v. Inc. Salutare nostre urbe (sic) coniugium. Kristeller 3: 64–66.

Notes

Abbreviations CWE

Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–) DBI Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960–). Epithalamium # = wedding orations catalogued and numbered in the Finding List. PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, ed. J.–P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–1904).

Introduction 1. See, for example, David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) and Anthony Molho, Marriage Alliance in Late Medieval Florence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). 2. For bibliography, see Trevor Dean, “The Courts,” in The Origins of the State in Italy, ed. Julius Kirshner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 136–151. 3. For a preliminary finding list see Appendix. 4. On the popularity of epithalamia and works on marriage, see Epithalamium #277, fol. 76r. An anonymous satire of a wedding oration is also an indicator of the genre’s popularity, MS: Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Ashburnham 275, fols. 72r–78v. 5. On the reception of humanist oratory in general see Paul O. Kristeller, “The Scholar and His Public in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” in Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed. Edward Mahoney (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974), 11. On the revival and po-

181

182

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

Notes to Pages 3–4

litical uses of humanistic training in rhetoric, see Ronald G. Witt, “Civic Humanism and the Ciceronian Oration,” Modern Language Quarterly 51 (1990), 180–181, and especially Ronald G. Witt, In the Footsteps of the Ancients: The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 447–494. See, for example, Giannozzo Manetti’s wedding oration in Naples and Alamanno Rinuccini’s 1477 speech in Naples, epithalamia #269 and #305. Bracciolini, epithalamium #146, was never delivered. Some shorter anonymous pieces could also be Florentine, but these speeches are more notarial than humanistic. The practice was more popular in Siena, as Agostino Dati’s fourteen extant epithalamia in Latin and Italian attest, epithalamia #195–215. For Padua, see the 1447 orations by Giordano Orsini, epithalamia #325–326, and anonymous #120. For Contarini’s 1440 oration in Venice and Campano’s oration in Rome, see epithalamia #192 and #149. Francesco Brandileone, “Nuove ricerche sugli oratori matrimoniali in Italia,” Rivista Storica Italiana 12 (1895), 605–658, esp. 624–629 and 656–658; idem, “Oratori matrimoniali,” in Saggi sulla storia della celebrazione del matrimonio in Italia (Milan, 1906), 115–138, with further references. For Brandileone’s arguments see chapter two. Mauro de Nichilo, “Un carme inedito di Matteo Canale per le nozze di Ercole I d’Este con Eleonora d’Aragona,” in Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Bari 19–20 (1976–1977), 239–292; idem, Oratio Nuptialis: per una storia dell’oratoria nuziale umanistica (Bari, 1994). Idem, Retorica e Magnificenza nella Napoli Aragonese (Bari: Palomar, 2000), 90–103. Burckhardt condemned most humanist orations as “an enormous mass of antiquarian rubbish” and “an atrocious patchwork of classical and biblical quotations, tacked on to a string of commonplaces,” without any historical value; Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C. Middlemore (London, 1990), 157. Referring to this criticism of humanist oratory, in a 1942 conference Kristeller emphasized that humanist speeches were composed for specific occasions and served a vital social function, as published in John Monfasani, “Toward the Genesis of the Kristeller Thesis of Renaissance Humanism: Four Bibliographical Notes.” Renaissance Quarterly (2000) 53: 1173. For conversational Latin, see, for example, Alberti’s dinner pieces, Pontano’s six books on conversation, and Erasmus’s colloquies in addition to the huge corpus of humanist dialogues. For examples, see John Sparrow, “Latin Verse of the High Renaissance,” in Italian Renaissance Studies: A Tribute to the late Cecilia M. Ady, ed. E. F. Jacob (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960), 358–362.

Notes to Pages 4–7

183

14. See Witt (2000), 453. 15. For Carbone as a professor at the university, see Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 222. See his praise for Leona Patrata, epithalamium #151 discussed below, and for Victor Pavonius in epithalamium #164, fols. 162v–163r. The orator Giacobbe de Bodolono, epithalamium #144, fols. 51v–52r, praises an unknown groom for his humanistic studies under Guarino. 16. Quoted in Alfonso Lazzari, “Un’orazione di Lodovico Carbone a Firenze,” in Atti e Memorie della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Provincie Modenesi 12 (1919), 191. 17. Grendler (2002), 100–101, 103–104. 18. Ibid., 41–44. 19. Ibid., 82–87. During the short-lived Ambrosian Republic (1447–1450), leading citizens set up a university in Milan to compete with Pavia, which Francesco Sforza closed down after his victory. 20. Ibid., 151. 21. Witt (2000), 453. 22. Carbone’s letter to Ercole in which he described the visit to Florence is quoted in Lazzari, 197–198. 23. Letter of 17 May from Ercole’s ambassador Ugolotto Facino in Lazzari, 198–199. 24. From Carbone’s dialogue, De Neapolitana profectione (1473), as quoted in Giovanni Zannoni, “Un viaggio per l’Italia di Lodovico Carbone, umanista (1473),” in Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei 7 (1898), 192. 25. Epithalamium #287. 26. This story is in Carlo Rosmini, Vita e disciplina di Guarino (Milan: Mussi, 1805), 3: 79–82; and Carlo Rosmini, Vita di Filelfo (Milan: Mussi, 1808), 2: 97–99. 27. This list does not include anonymous orators and humanists whose epithalamia are cited only once. 28. The funeral oration for Guarino is his best known piece, “Oratio Habita in Funere Praestantissimi Oratoris et Poetae Guarini Veronensis,” in Prosatori latini del quattrocento, ed. Eugenio Garin (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1952), 382–417. On this and other funeral orations of Carbone see John M. McManamon, S. J., Funeral Oratory and the Cultural Ideals of Italian Humanism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 30–31, 32, 55–56, 58, 80, 137, 147, 160–161, 261–262. 29. See, for example, Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Roma: Bulzoni, 1990). 30. Most scholarship has centered on Florence and Venice. For recent work outside of Florence see the essays in Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650, ed.

184

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36. 37.

38.

Notes to Pages 7–8

Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). See, for example, Magdalena and Balthasar: An Intimate Portrait of Life in Sixteenth-Century Europe Revealed in the Letters of a Nuremberg Husband and Wife (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), and his important discussion in Ancestors: The Loving Family in Old Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 22–53. Guido Ruggiero, The Boundaries of Eros: Sex Crimes and Sexuality in Renaissance Venice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 64; Joanne M. Ferraro, Marriage Wars in Late Renaissance Venice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 9, 13, 158–160. See, for example, the following general accounts: David Herlihy, Medieval Households (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985); Christopher N. L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); Frances and Joseph Gies, Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages (New York: Harper and Row, 1987); Margaret L. King “Caldiera and the Barbaros on Marriage and the Family: Humanist Reflections of Venetian Realities,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976): 19–50. See, for example, Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Margaret L. King, Women of the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Constance Jordan, Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and Political Models (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). Joan Kelly, “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” in Feminism and Renaissance Studies, ed. Lorna Hutson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) (reprint of 1977 ed.), 21–47. See especially Klapisch-Zuber. Ozment (2001), 23–28. On female agency in the law courts see Gene Brucker, Giovanni and Lusanna: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); and Ferraro. In addition to the present study, see King (1991), 157–164, and Stephen Kolsky, “Bending the Rules: Marriage in Renaissance Collections of Biographies of Famous Women,” in Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650, ed. Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 227–248.

Notes to Pages 11–12

185

1. Marriage and Wisdom from Antiquity to the Renaissance 1. I follow my sources in using celibacy to mean the unmarried state. This does not necessarily imply sexual abstinence or any kind of religious vow. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. 2. Plato, Republic 5.460A, 461A-C; Aristotle, Politics 7.1334b 29–1336a 2. 3. Politics 1.1252a 17–1253a 39; Nicomachean Ethics 8.1162a 16–19. See as well R. G. Mulgan, Aristotle’s Political Theory: An Introduction for Students of Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 18–25, 30–38, 140–141. 4. My account of the marriage and philosophy debate in pagan antiquity draws extensively from Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 5. Theophrasti aureolus liber de nuptiis, in St. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, PL 23, 313–315. There is still debate as to which Theophrastus this is, the author of the Characters or the follower of Aristotle. Charles B. Schmitt, “Theophrastus in the Middle Ages,” Viator 2 (1971): 251–270, argues that he is Aristotle’s pupil. See also Deming, 51ff. and passim. 6. Diogenes Laertius X: 119. Jerome cites Seneca’s De Matrimonio on Epicurus, Adversus Jovinianum I.48. 7. On the debate between Theophrastus and Dicaearchus, see Cicero, Ad Atticum 2.16.3; De Finibus 5.4.11; Alberto Grilli, Il Problema della vita contemplativa nel mondo greco-romano (Milan and Rome: Fratelli Bocca, 1953), 125–133. 8. See Deming, 51–107. 9. Diogenes Laertius VII: 121. Diogenes used Zeno’s Politics as his source. 10. Politics 1.1252a 7–16; 2.1260b 36–1261a 29; Mulgan, 21. 11. Anthony A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, 2d ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 151–152; F. H. Sandbach, Aristotle and the Stoics (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1985), 38–40; Deming, 55–56. 12. Long, 179, 187, 189–205, 213–16. 13. See S. G. Pembroke, “Oikeiösis,” in Problems in Stoicism, ed. A. A. Long (London: University of London Athlone, 1971), 114–149; Troels EngbergPedersen, The Stoic Theory of Oikeiosis: Moral Development and Social Interaction in Early Stoic Philosophy (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1991); Deming, 56–57. 14. On this argument see the first-century C.E. Stoic Musonius Rufus, “Is Marriage an Impediment to the Pursuit of Philosophy?” and “On the Purpose of Marriage” in Musonius Rufus, Reliquiae, ed. O. Hense (Leipzig: Teub-

186

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

26.

Notes to Pages 12–14

ner, 1905). His marriage thought is discussed in Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 3, The Care of the Self (New York: Vintage, 1986), 151–152 and passim; Deming, 78–79. Cynic arguments against marriage were compiled in the first century B.C. collections known as the Cynic Epistles. On these see The Cynic Epistles, trans. and ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Sources for Biblical Study 12 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977), in particular the letters of Diogenes, 21, 35, 42, 44, 47 and of Heraclitus, 9. For a more extensive discussion see Deming, 71–73. Ragnar Höistad, “Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in the Cynic Conception of Man” (Inaugural dissertation, Uppsala, 1948), 15; quoted in Deming, 60–61. I. G. Kidd, “Cynics,” Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: MacMillan, 1967), 2: 284–285; Deming, 60–61. For Quintilian on the marriage thesis, see his Institutio Oratoria 2.4.24–25; 3.5.8, 12, 13, 16. On the compatibility of marriage and philosophy, see ibid. 12.1.5, 8; 11.1.35; 12.2.7; 1.6.36; Theon, Progymnasmata 123.6–10; 125.9–20; Deming, 79–80, discusses this. On the progymnasmata or exercises and the thesis ei gamhteon, see Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (Madison: Wisconsin University Press, 1982), 201, and George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 206, 225. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 27. Ibid., 94. See also Mark 12:18–25, and Luke 10.38–42. Ibid., 214. Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays, (San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1988), 972–973. Ramsay MacMullen, “What Difference did Christianity make?” in Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 154–155. See Margaret A. Schatkin, “Virgins,” in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2d ed., ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1997), 2: 1165–1167. Peter Brown, “The Notion of Virginity in the Early Church,” in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelth Century, ed. Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), 428–429. See also Peter Brown, “East and West: The New Marital Morality,” in A History of Private Life, ed. Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), I: 297–311. For similar countercultural arguments of the cynics against marriage, see Deming (1995), 51ff.

Notes to Pages 14–16

187

27. Peter Brown (1986), 429. Somewhat differently from Brown, Jack Goody interprets early Christian asceticism as an attempt to divest the Roman family of its property and to break down the powerful kinship alliances of the Roman gens; The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 28. Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 61ff. 29. For a concise account of their views, see Margaret A. Shatkin, “Marriage,” in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2d ed., ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1997), 2: 721–723. 30. De habitu virginum 23; Peter Brown (1988), 192–195. 31. Peter Brown (1988), 172–175. 32. De Virg. 50.I.3–4, p. 284; Peter Brown (1988), 308. 33. St. John Chrysostom, On Virginity; quoted and translated in Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (New York: Vintage, 1983), 51–52. 34. On this see Dyan Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). 35. PL 23; translated as Against Jovinian in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 6: 346ff. It is perhaps interesting to note that Jerome himself admitted to not being a virgin, Epistle 49.20. 36. Epistle 48. 37. 1 Corinthians 7:32–34. 38. Against Jovinian, eds. Schaff and Wace, I.13, p. 358. 39. Ibid., I. 15, p. 359. 40. Ibid., I. 16, p. 360; PL 23, 235, “Nuptiae terram replent, virginitas paradisum.” 41. For Jerome, however, differences between the sexes were intrinsic to the human person; rather than transcending sex, virginity defended the “integrity of a specifically male or female body,” Peter Brown (1988), 383. 42. Peter Brown (1988), 373, 375–376. 43. Clerical marriage was common in the West until the eleventh century, when Gregory VII drew up strict regulations against it. 44. “That married men are elected to the priesthood, I do not deny: the number of virgins is not so great as that of the priests required. Does it follow that because all the strongest men are chosen for the army, weaker men should not be taken as well? All cannot be strong. If an army were constituted of strength only, and numbers went for nothing, the feebler men might be rejected. As it is, men of second or third-rate strength are chosen, that the army may have its full numerical complement,” Against Jovinian, I. 34, p. 372.

188

Notes to Pages 16–17

45. “Laudo nuptias, laudo coniugium, sed quia mihi virgines generant,” quoted in David Herlihy, “Family and Religious Ideologies in Medieval Europe,” in Women, Family and Society in Medieval Europe: Historical Essays, 1978–1991, ed. A. Molho (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995), 156. 46. Jerome was spiritual adviser to a number of upperclass women, the most famous of whom was the wealthy Roman Paula who founded a monastery in Bethlehm and supported Jerome for over a decade, Peter Brown (1988), 367–373. See also Elizabeth A. Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom and Friends (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979). 47. Adversus Jovinianum, I. 47–48. 48. In addition to being politically active, Cicero was married twice, to Terentia and Publilia. 49. Philip Lyndon Reynolds, Marriage in the Western Church : The Christianization of Marriage during the Patristic and Early Medieval Periods (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 259ff. For Augustine see Peter Brown (1988), 387–427. 50. Genesis 1:28. 51. Peter Brown (1988), 402–403. 52. “If sin had not first been committed, a human being would be conceived without such concupiscence, and the sexual organs would calmly obey the will, just as the other members do,” De nuptiis et concupiscentia, bk II, 7, 17 translated as Marriage and Desire, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 24 in The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1998), 64. See City of God, bk. XIV, for Augustine’s meditations of what sex was like before the Fall. 53. Peter Brown interprets Augustine’s association of marriage with lust biographically. Commenting on Confessions, VI, xvi, 25, he emphasizes Augustine’s fear of becoming a slave to lust by marrying; Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 390. 54. De nuptiis et concupiscentia, bk I, 13, 12 trans. in Marriage and Desire, 37. 55. De bono conjugali 9. 56. Ibid., 9; trans. in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), III: 403. My italics. 57. Ibid., 8; Schaff ed. (1956), 28, 403, 411. On the superiority of virginity to marriage see Augustine’s De Virginitate, which he wrote after his marriage works, 16–20 and passim, in Schaff ed. (1956), 421–423. 58. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7. 59. St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman Press, 1982), II, bk. 9, ch. VII, 77–78.

Notes to Pages 18–19

189

60. De bono conjugali, 32, Schaff ed. (1956), 412; De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.17.19, trans. R. J. Teske (1998), 40–41; De Genesi ad litteram, bk 9, ch. 7, trans. J. H. Taylor (1982), 78. 61. In the thirteenth century, in addition to fidelity Fides was interpreted to mean the fulfilment of the marriage debt, as demonstrated in David D’Avray and M. Tausche, “Marriage Sermons in ad status Collections of the Central Middle Ages,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen age 47 (1980): 92ff. On the fifteenth-century uses of this, see Bernadette Paton, Preaching Friars and the Civic Ethos: Siena, 1380–1480 (Exeter, UK: Short Run Press, 1992), 210–264. 62. Christopher N. L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 73. 63. Peter Damian, Sermo 28, in J. Lucchesi, ed., Sancti Petri Damiani Sermones, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 57 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 1983), 162; quoted in Brooke, 73. 64. Jean Leclercq, Monks and Love in Twelfth-Century France: Psycho-historical Essays (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); idem, Monks on Marriage: a TwelfthCentury View (New York: Seabury Press, 1982). 65. See Brooke, 61–62; R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Katharina M. Wilson and Elizabeth M. Makowski, Wykked Wyves and the Woes of Marriage: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer (Albany: SUNY Press, 1990), esp. 44–58; James A. Brundage, “Carnal Delight: canonistic theories of sexuality,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1980), 361–385, 376–377; James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 324, n. 318, 425–428. 66. Ernest Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. W. R. Trask (New York: Pantheon Books, 1953), 155. 67. For the following, see R. W. Southern, Medieval Humanism (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 92–93, and in general 86–104; Brooke, 105ff. 68. Abelard wrote the autobiography to defend himself against slander and persistent gossip (even though it had been fifteen years since his castration). He also hoped to help Heloise, as discussed in M. T. Clanchy, Abelard: A Medieval Life (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 183–196. 69. The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, trans. Betty Radice (London: Penguin Books, 1974), 71–72. 70. Ibid., 73. These sentiments are in keeping with Abelard’s and Heloise’s general views on marriage, as Clanchy, 195, argues.

190

Notes to Pages 19–21

71. Heloise blamed herself for the castration, as noted in Clanchy, 162. Abelard’s position as master of the school of Notre Dame made an open marriage to Heloise impossible, as noted in ibid., 45–46, 192–194. 72. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, VIII 11 (ed. Webb, II, 294–306); Peter of Blois, Epistle 79 (PL 207, 243–247); Walter Map, De nugis curialium, IV, 3–5 (ed. M. R. James, pp. 143–159. Walter Map’s commentators followed him in this tradition, as catalogued in ibid., XXXI–XXXVIII. See also Southern, 92. 73. Curtius, 155. 74. Adversus Jovinianum, I. 47–48; Abelard, Opera, ed. Cousin, vol. I, 693; vol. 2, 621; Walter Map, op. cit., 150; John of Salisbury, op. cit., 298. See also Hans Baron, “The Memory of Cicero’s Roman Civic Spirit in the Medieval Centuries and in the Florentine Renaissance,” in In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 1: 107–108. 75. Sentences, bk. 4, dist. 26.3. This passage is quoted and translated in John Witte, Jr. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 24. 76. Summa Theologica, Part II, Q. 152, Art. IV; trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), II: 1808–1809. For Aquinas’s discussion of marriage, see Supplement, Questions 41–67, translated in III: 2709–2823. 77. Ibid., 1809. 78. Petrarch rails against scholastic philosophers in many of his works; see especially “On His Own Ignorance and that of Many Others,” trans. Charles Trinkaus, The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, ed. E. Cassirer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950). 79. Eugene F. Rice, Jr., The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 30–36. 80. Rice, 46; Baron (1988), 1: 118–119. 81. De vita solitaria, Bk I, sec. II, c. 2: “De misero occupato et felice solitario cum diei iam lux advenit” (dialogue between Occupatus and Solitarius) in Opere Latine di Francesco Petrarca, ed. L. M. Capelli and R. Bessone (Turin: G. B. Paravia, 1904). 82. Among other works see Rer. Mem., 4; De Vita Solitaria; Epistolae Seniles II, 5; De Otio Religioso, 20. On this see Baron (1988), 1: 119. 83. De remediis utriusque fortunae, bk I, ch. 65 “Uxorem duxi nobilem,” in Petrarch’s Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul, translated with a commentary by Conrad H. Rawski (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), I: 190–191.

Notes to Pages 21–25

191

84. Ibid., bk. I, ch. 66 “Formosa mihi uxor obvenit;” Rawski, I: 194. 85. Ibid., bk II, ch. 18 “Uxorem heu perdidi;” Rawski, III: 62, 63. 86. De Rebus Familiaribus, Liber XXII, Epistle 1, published as Le Familiari, ed. V. Rossi (Florence: Sansoni, 1942), vol. 4. 87. Ibid. 88. Carlo Dionisotti, “Chierici e laici,” in Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1967), 47–74, 51–52. 89. While Jean de Meung, William Durand, and others opposed mandatory clerical celibacy, they were a minority and in fact losing voice in the Church, as noted in Brundage (1987), 476–477. 90. David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and Their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 60–73. 91. David Herlihy, “Santa Caterina and San Bernardino: Their Teachings on the Family,” in Women, Family and Society in Medieval Europe: Historical Essays, 1978–1991, ed. A. Molho (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995), 177–179. 92. Milan in 1300 had 150,000 citizens, in 1463 under 90,000; Venice in 1338 had 120,000, in 1422 84,000; Verona in 1325 had 38,000, in 1425 14,225; figures are from Lauro Martines, Power and Imagination: City-States in Renaissance Italy (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 168; and Ruggiero Romano, “La storia economica,” in Storia d’Italia (Turin: Einaudi, 1974), II: 1818–1828. 93. Colucii Salutati De seculo et religione, ed. B. L. Ullman, Nuova collezione di testi umanistici inediti o rari XII (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1957), 163. Translation is from Charles Trinkaus, The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 1985), 212. For Trinkaus’ discussion of this work, see 203–213. 94. The Earthly Republic: Italian Humanists on Government and Society, ed. Benjamin G. Kohl and Ronald G. Witt (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1978), 86. 95. Kohl and Witt (1978), 86; Trinkaus, 212–213. For Ullman’s argument that the whole work is rhetorical and the subject matter relative, see Trinkaus, 203–204 and n. 51. 96. Baron (1988), 1: 116. 97. Epistolae Familiares XXIV 3, in Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. Vittorio Rossi (Florence: Sansoni, 1942), 4: 226ff. See Baron (1988), 1: 116. 98. Coluccio Salutati, Epistolario, ed. Francesco Novati (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1891), 2: 389, Epistle VIII 7 (1392); 3: 25, 50, Epistle IX 3 and 4. Baron (1988), 1: 119–120, discusses these letters as does Ronald G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: the Life, Works, and Thought of Coluccio Salutati (Durham: Duke University Press, 1983), 272–312, 331–355.

192

Notes to Pages 25–28

99. Epistle II, 453; translated by Witt (1983), 347–348. Witt cites another similar letter from this period, ibid. 100. Witt (1983), 344 and 425. See ibid., 331–354, for a discussion of Salutati’s ambiguities on this issue. See also Kohl and Witt (1978), 87. 101. Witt (1983), 343. Witt remarks that patriotism had been a secondary moral value for Aquinas. 102. Epistle III, 303; translated in Kohl and Witt (1978), 108–109. 103. Ibid.; translated in Kohl and Witt (1978), 110. 104. This is a Stoic idea found in Epictetus’s Enchiridion. 105. Epistle XXXII, vol. 1; Witt (1983), 40. 106. Epistle III, To Bartolomeo della Mella, Salutati (1891), 2: 365–374. Witt (1983) mentions this letter, 279–280, n. 28. 107. Salutati (1891), 2: 372. 108. In the following, Salutati is responding to Petrarch’s Remedia utriusque fortunae, bk I, dialogues lxv–lxviii, and bk II, dialogues xviii–xx. 109. Salutati (1891), 372–373. 110. Salutati’s arguments against celibacy are discussed more fully in chapter five. 111. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 5223, no. 30, fols. 51r–52r Cantio extensa vulgaris magistri Georgi de Parma ad magistrum Guillelmum Venetum [de Verona] physicum contra uxores. 112. Ibid., no. 31, fols. 52v–53r Epistula eiusdem ad eundem [magistrum Guielmum de Mercatonovo], revocatio eorum quae dixerat in cantione, de laudibus uxorum et notificatio coniugi sui [Parme 2 Maj]. The letter was published by Tommaso Casini, “Tre nuovi rimatori del Trecento : Appendice I, Il codice vaticano 5223,” Notizie e documenti per la storia della poesia Italiana nei secoli XIII e XIV, Il Propugnatore 21 (1888), II: 313–366; Appendice IV, 363–366; epistola di G. Anselmi, 363–366. It is not dated but seems to be ca. 1400 or earlier. 113. Casini, Ed. 363–364. 114. Ibid., 364–365. 115. Ibid., 365. 116. See Margaret L. King, “Caldiera and the Barbaros on Marriage and the Family,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6 (1976): 31–35; idem, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 92–98; Benjamin G. Kohl, Introduction to his partial translation, in Kohl and Witt (1978), 182–183. For the whole treatise, see Francesco Barbaro, “De Re Uxoria,” ed. A. Gnesotto, Atti e memorie della R. Accademia di scienze, lettere ed arti di Padova 32 (1915): 6–105. 117. Germano Gualdo DBI (1964), 6: 101–103.

Notes to Pages 28–30

193

118. See, for example, Epithalamium #144, fols. 50v–51r. 119. Hans Baron, “Civic Wealth and the New Values of the Renaissance: The Spirit of the Quattrocento,” in In Search of Civic Humanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 1: 212. 120. Ibid., 1: 181. 121. Ibid., 1: 226–227. See also Richard A. Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 81. 122. Baron (1988), 1: 229. Goldthwaite (1980), 79. 123. For the highly contractual nature of Renaissance marriages, see Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “Zacharias, or the Ousted Father: Nuptial Rites in Tuscany between Giotto and the Council of Trent,” in Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 181–196. 124. Anthony Molho, Marriage Alliance in Late Medieval Florence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 12; Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “The Griselda Complex: Dowry and Marriage Gifts in the Quattrocento,” in Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 213–246. 125. Molho (1994), 128–178; Lauro Martines, “Séduction, Espace Familial et Autorité dans la Renaissance Italienne,” Annales HSS 2 (March-April, 1998): 287; and, in general, Denys Hay and John Law, Italy in the Age of the Renaissance, 1380–1530 (London: Longman, 1993), 172–176. 126. Cesare Vasoli, DBI (1972), 14: 623. The dowry, however, was exceptionally high (1100 Florins), as noted by Lauro Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists, 1390–1460 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), 199. 127. Cicero Novus seu Ciceronis Vita, in Leonardo Bruni Aretino, Humanistischphilosophische Schriften, ed. Hans Baron (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928), 115; quoted in Baron (1988), 1: 122. 128. Cicero Novus, in Bruni (1928), 115; quoted in Baron (1988), 1: 122. 129. Isagogicon moralis disciplinae in Bruni (1928), 39; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, X, 7–8. Translated by James Hankins in The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: Selected Texts (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1987), 282. 130. Trattatello in laude di Dante in Opere in versi, Corbaccio, Trattatello in laude di Dante, [rose latine, epistole, ed. Pier Giorgio Ricci (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1965), 566–650, in particular 578–586. Boccaccio elaborates on the traditional list of female vices, such as gossiping and cosmetics. 131. Le Vite di Dante e di Petrarca, in Bruni (1928), 68; quoted in Baron (1988), 1: 19, where there is a brief discussion of this.

194

Notes in Pages 30–32

132. A follower of Bruni, Matteo Palmieri used a similar political justification for marriage, Della vita civile (1431–1438), ed. Gino Belloni, Studi e Testi VII (Florence: Sansoni, 1982), 156ff. 133. On Poggio in general, see E. Bigi and Armando Petrucci DBI (1971) 13: 640–646. 134. On Poggio’s marriage, see Martines (1963), 210–214, and Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Roma: Bulzoni, 1990), 291, n. 195. 135. Poggii Bracciolini Opera Omnia, ed. Riccardo Fubini (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1966), vol. 2: 673–705. For a fuller discussion of this treatise, see chapter five. 136. Ibid., 692. 137. Ibid., 693 and passim. 138. Leon Battista Alberti I Libri del buon governo della famiglia, in Opere volgari, ed. Cecil Grayson (Bari: Laterza 1960–1966), vol. 1: 3–341. There is a translation by Renée Neu Watkins, The Family in Renaissance Florence (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1969). Although Alberti was a cleric, like Petrarch and Boccaccio, he hardly mentions religion in his Della famiglia, as noted by Carlo Dionisotti, “Chierici e laici,” in Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1967), 54–55. On Alberti in general, see Cecil Grayson DBI (1960), 1: 702–709. 139. Opere (1960), 234. 140. Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, 135. 141. See in particular Alberti’s second and third books, De re uxoria and the Economicus. 142. See Renée Neu Watkins’ introduction to Leon Battista Alberti: The Family in Renaissance Florence, Book Three (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1994), 7 and passim. 143. Bartolomeo Scala “Ducendane sit uxor sapienti,” in Bartolomeo Scala: Humanistic and Political Writings, ed. Alison Brown (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997), 262–273, and Alison Brown, Bartolomeo Scala 1430–1497 Chancellor of Florence: The Humanist as Bureaucrat (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 267. 144. Alison Brown (1979), 58–59. His daughter, Alessandra Scala, was also an accomplished humanist, as discussed in Margaret King, Women of the Renaissance (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), 184. 145. Scala, 269–270. 146. See, for example, Fubini (1990) and George Holmes, The Florentine Enlightenment, 1400–1450 (New York: Pegasus, 1969). 147. Scala, 270. 148. Ibid., 270.

Notes to Pages 32–35

149. 150. 151. 152.

153.

154.

155. 156. 157. 158. 159.

160.

195

Ibid., 270–273. Ibid., 273. Ibid., 273. At the end of the fourteenth century, religious attitudes became more focused on the family. This change is most evident in the rise and popularity of the cult of St. Joseph. See David Herlihy, “Family and Religious Ideologies in Medieval Europe,” in Women, Family and Society in Medieval Europe: Historical Essays, 1978–1991, ed. A. Molho (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995), 154–173, esp. 171–173. “Guarino,” in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. P. G. Bietenholz and T. B. Deutscher (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1985–1987), ad vocem. In his funeral oration Ludovico Carbone says that Guarino had thirteen children, “Oratio Habita in Funere Praestantissimi Oratoris et Poetae Guarini Veronensis,” in Prosatori latini del quattrocento, ed. Eugenio Garin (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1952), 404. Guarino Guarini da Verona, “Guarinus Veronensis suo Antonio Corbinello,” Epistolario, ed. Remigio Sabbadini, Miscellanea di storia veneta 8 (Venice: C. Ferrari, 1915–1919), vol. 1: Epistle 125: 213–215. Guarino, 214. Ibid., 214. Ibid., 215. Ibid. For the marriage question and Florentine civic humanism, see Hans Baron, Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), I: 286–287, 295–296; II: 577, n. 82. See also Eugenio Garin, Italian Humanism: Philosophy and Civic Life in the Renaissance, trans. Peter Munz (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 39–41, and Herlihy and Klapisch-Zuber, (1985), 228–231. “De re uxoria” (1416), in Prosatori latini del quattrocento, ed. Eugenio Garin (Turin: Einaudi, 1976), 1: 136.

2. The Revival of the Ancient Epithalamium in Courtly Weddings 1. For humanist epideictic oratory in general, see John O’Malley, S. J., Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1979), 3, 39ff., 77ff., and John M. McManamon, S. J., Funeral Oratory and the Cultural Ideals of Italian Humanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 1–4, 153–161. On epideictic and panegyric, see introduction to Menander Rhetor, ed. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Ox-

196

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

Notes to Pages 35–36

ford: Clarendon, 1981), xi–xxxiv; M. L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome: a Historical Survey, 2d ed. (London: Cohen and West LTD, 1968), 131–132. According to this decree a parish priest must be witness for a valid marriage, as discussed in Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, Christianity and Sexuality in the Early Modern World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice (London: Routledge, 2000), 106–107. By defining the necessary elements of a valid marriage, the Tametsi decree also (perhaps unwittingly) provided a way to dissolve unhappy unions, as the numerous annulment trials studied by Joanne M. Ferraro indicate, Marriage Wars in Late Renaissance Venice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). See, for example, Gene Brucker, Giovanni and Lusanna: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence (Berkeley: California University Press, 1986), 73; Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “Zacharias, or the Ousted Father: Nuptial Rites in Tuscany between Giotto and the Council of Trent,” in Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 181–196. The question of Church approval of secular weddings, however, is problematic, as demonstrated by David d’Avray, “Marriage ceremonies and the church after 1215,” in Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650, ed. Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 107–115. On the ars dictaminis in general, see James Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 194–268; Paul O. Kristeller, “Rhetoric in Renassiance Culture,” in Renaissance Thought and the Arts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 234–236; and John Monfasani, “Humanism and Rhetoric,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. IV, Humanism and the Disciplines (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 174–177. As argued in Ronald G. Witt, In the Footsteps of the Ancients: the Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 352, 358. On the ars dictaminis as a precursor of humanist rhetoric, see also Kristeller, “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance,” in Renaissance Thought and its Sources, ed. Edward Mooney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 93–95; and Ronald G. Witt, “Medieval Italian Culture and the Origins of Humanism as a Stylistic Ideal,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. I, Humanism in Italy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 29–70. Witt (2000), 354, 359–361. Kristeller (1990), 241, mentions secular orators who delivered wedding speeches, referring specifically to the thirteenth-century Remigio de’ Girolami. As his source, Kristeller cites Alfredo Galletti, L’Eloquenza dalle

Notes to Pages 36–37

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

16. 17.

197

origini al XVI secolo (Milan: Francesco Vallardi, 1904–1938), 166–168, 503–506, who offers no source for his information. For his form speeches, see Matteo dei Libri Arringhe, ed. Eleonora Vincenti, Documenti di filologia, no. 19 (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1974). The subject titles in his manuals are published in P. O. Kristeller, “Matteo de’Libri, Bolognese Notary of the Thirteenth Century and his artes dictaminis,” Fontes Ambrosiani 26 (1951): 283–320. Two concern marriage: no. 214, where the author offers advice on marrying a foreign wife, and no. 275, in which the author advises a friend to marry the sister of his beloved, who is already married. On Libri see also Witt (2000), 355–356. MS: Florence, Laur. Ashburnham 1601 (1524), unpaginated, “Ego Guido peto B. in uxorem, quam iuravi ac desponsavi ac in facie ecclesiae cum coniunctis multis parentibus vestram iusticiam peto.” On Faba, see Murphy, 256–258; Charles B. Faulhaber, “The summa dictaminis of Guido Faba,” in Medieval Eloquence, ed. James Murphy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 85–111; and Witt (2000), 354–355. Notaries were especially important in Siena, where similar legalistic wedding formulae are extant, as in Epithalamia #57- #64. Johannis Burckardi Liber Notarum ab anno 1483 usque ad annum 1506 in Fabrizio Cruciani, Teatro nel Rinascimento: Roma 1450–1550 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1983), 260–261. Francesco Brandileone, “Nuove ricerche sugli oratori matrimoniali in Italia,” Rivista storica italiana 12 (1895): 624–629, 656–658; idem, “Oratori matrimoniali,” in Saggi sulla storia della celebrazione del matrimonio in Italia (Milan: U. Hoepli, 1906), 115–138. Orations that do include such legal formulae as verbum de presenti, me orante, and ad stipulationis verba accedere, are short and not humanistic. Patetta, 31, similarly criticized Brandileone’s emphasis on the legal role of wedding orators, Federico Patetta, “Contributi alla storia delle orazioni nuziali e della celebrazione del matrimonio,” Studi senesi 13 (1896): 3–71. Patetta has published a number of these short formulae. Witt (2000), 356, discusses manuals. On medieval marriage preaching, see Murphy, 269–355; and David D’Avray and M. Tausche, “Marriage Sermons in ad status collections of the central middle ages,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen Age 47 (1980): 71–119. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale II IV 108, fol. 79r–v. The formulary was writtten between 1464 and 1479. Jim Hankins referred me to this MS. Ibid. This paragraph is largely based on John O’Malley, “Erasmus and the History of Sacred Rhetoric: The Ecclesiastes of 1535,” Erasmus of Rotterdam

198

18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Notes to Pages 37–38

Society Yearbook 5 (1985): 4–6. Also useful on this topic is George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition: From Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 173–194. For a more detailed discussion of this work, see George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 268–270. PL 210:111: “Praedicatio est manifesta et publica instructio morum et fidei.” Quoted by O’Malley (1985), 5. O’Malley (1985), 11. See also, O’Malley (1979), 42–44 and passim, for the thematic sermon of the Middle Ages compared to epideictic orations of the Renaissance. For examples, see D’Avray and Tausche. O’Malley (1985), 11. See as well, John M. McManamon, Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder: The Humanist as Orator (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1996), 31–50 and idem (1989), 10–11; Eugene F. Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985). Pier Paolo Vergerio, Epistolario di Pier Paolo Vergerio, ed. Leonardo Smith (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1934), 176–179, as discussed in Iiro Kajanto, “Poggio Bracciolini’s oratory,” Studi umanistici piceni 14 (1994), 117–118. As noted in Ludovico Carbone, “Oratio Habita in Funere Praestantissimi Oratoris et Poetae Guarini Veronensis,” in Prosatori latini del quattrocento, ed. Eugenio Garin (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1952), 400; and Remigio Sabbadini, La Scuola e gli studi di Guarino Veronese (Catania: F. Galati, 1896), 140. Franco Mormando, The Preacher’s Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 7–12. See, for example, “De honestate coniugatorum,” in Opera Omnia, ed. St. Bonaventure College (Florence: Quaracchi, 1950), 2: Sermon 48, 107–108; and his vernacular marriage sermons, Le Prediche volgari di San Bernardino, ed. Ciro Cannarozzi (Pistoia: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1934), 1: Sermons 24 and 25; Le prediche volgari di San Bernardino da Siena dette nella Piazza del Campo l’anno 1427, ed. Luciano Banchi (Siena: Tipografia Editrice all’insegno di San Bernardino, 1880–1888), 2: Sermons 19–21. O’Malley (1979); McManamon (1989); John W. O’Malley, “Preaching for the Popes,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion,

Notes to Pages 38–40

28.

29.

30.

31. 32. 33.

34.

35.

36.

199

ed. Charles Trinkaus and Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 408–440; John M. McManamon, “The Ideal Renaissance Pope: Funerary Oratory from the Papal Court,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 14 (1976): 9–70. Valla grew up in Rome, taught rhetoric in Pavia (1430–1435), and then worked for Alfonso I of Naples until his death. See Salvatore Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla: umanesimo e teologia (Florence: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1972). Lorenzo Valla, De vero falsoque bono, ed. M. De Panizza Lorch (Bari: Adriatica, 1970), 45. This is also quoted by Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Roma: Bulzoni, 1990), 200. Salutati in the De seculo et religione, ed. B. L. Ullman (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1957), 45ff. and Poggio in “Oratio ad Reverendissimos Patres,” published in Fubini (1990), 179ff. See Fubini (1990), 200–201. MS: London, British Library Add. 26784, fol. 34r. Translation in D’Avray and Tausche, 71–119. Jean Leclercq, “L’elogio del matrimonio nella predicazione del medioevo,” in La figura della donna nel medioevo (Milan: Jaca Book SpA, 1994), 29–37; idem, Le mariage vu par les moines au XII siècle (Paris: Cerf, 1983), 20–25, 93–105; idem, Monks on Marriage: a Twelfth-Century View (New York: Seabury Press, 1982). Pseudo-Dionysius stresses the importance of praising specific brides and grooms, “Procedure for marriage speeches,” in Menander Rhetor, ed. Russell and Wilson (1981), 367–368. Fifteenth-century epithalamia often have elaborate descriptions of brides and grooms, as discussed in chapters three and four. The main purpose of a thematic sermon was to teach, whereas “[e]pideictic, even as it taught by ‘impressing ideas’ upon its listeners, was intensely concerned to move and to please, thereby more effectively fulfilling the prescriptions of the indivisible triad of classical [rhetorical] theory—docere, movere, delectare,” O’Malley (1979), 44. See McManamon (1996), 43–49, for a comparison of traditional funeral sermons with the classicizing oratory of Pier Paolo Vergerio’s funeral orations. See also McManamon (1989), 2–35, esp. 21; and Witt (2000), 357. Mauro de Nichilo, Oratio Nuptialis: per una storia dell’oratoria nuziale umanistica (Bari: Università di Bari, 1994), 26, has dated Guarino’s first epithalamium as early as 1422. This is five years earlier than the date given by Jean-Louis Charlet, “L’épithalame de G. Altilio pour les noces de Jean Galéaz Sforza et Isabelle d’Aragon, dans ses rapports avec la tradition et la culture classiques,” Res Publica Litterarum 6 (1983), 91, and idem, “La mythologie dans un poeme et un discours de mariage d’Antonio

200

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Notes to Pages 40–40

Costanzi,” in Il Mito nel Rinascimento, ed. Luisa Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (Milan: Nuovi Orizzonti, 1993), 31. Many Italian humanists went to Constantinople to learn Greek in the early quattrocento. On this phenomenon and the study of Greek in Italy, see James Hankins, “Lo Studio del greco nell’Occidente latino,” in I Greci: storia, cultura, arte, e società, vol. 3, ed. E. Settis (Turin: Einaudi, 2002), 1245–1262, esp. 1256. Carbone (1952); Remigio Sabbadini, Vita di Guarino Veronese (Genoa: Tipografia del R. Istituto Sordo-Muti, 1891), 29–33; Eugenio Garin, Ritratti di umanisti (Florence: Sansoni, 1967), 69–106; and Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Renaissance (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 99–106, 221–222. For Guarino’s teaching methods see the provocative discussion in Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and SixteenthCentury Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 1–28. See Appendix. Sabbadini (1896), 67, asserts that twenty-three of Guarino’s wedding orations survive, but cites no reference for his information. G. B. C. Giuliari lists the titles of eighteen orations referring only to the libraries that hold them without shelf marks in “Edizioni di opere veronesi quattrocentine,” Il Propugnatore 7 (1874): II: 250, 261–263. For a similar estimate, see Galletti, 562. The Ferrarese humanist Podocataro wrote a dedication for Epithalamium #300 in which he thanked his teacher and said that Guarino had ordered him to produce the oration. An anonymous Ferrarese orator similarly says in two nuptial orations that his teacher had ordered him to compose and possibly to deliver the pieces: Epithalamium #97; and, Epithalamium #98. Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C. Middlemore (London: Penguin, 1990), 155, mentions that Guarino trained pupils to deliver orations at the court. Francesco Filelfo, after seven years in Constantinople, returned to Italy to study with the Byzantine émigré Chrysoloras and Guarino. He eventually married Chrysoloras’ daughter, as noted in Vittorio Rossi in Enciclopedia italiana (Rome: Istituto Giovanni Treccani, 1932), 15: 281; Paolo Viti, DBI (1997), 47: 614. Filelfo wrote at least seven wedding orations. Rosmini reports that Filelfo went to Poland to deliver a wedding oration in 1424, Carlo de’ Rosmini, Vita di Francesco Filelfo (Milan: Mussi, 1808), 12–13. I have not found this oration. Filelfo spent most of his life working for the Visconti and later the Sforza in Milan. Francesco Tateo, “Guarino Veronese e l’umanesimo a Ferrara,” in Storia di Ferrara, vol. VII, Il Rinascimento: la letteratura, ed. Walter Moretti (Ferrara: Edizioni Librit srl, 1994), 22. Gasparino Barzizza used a similar

Notes to Pages 40–42

43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

51. 52.

53.

54.

201

scheme in his rhetorical treatise “De Compositione” (1423), in Gasparini Barzizii Bergomatis et Guiniforti Filii Opera, ed. J. A. Furietti (Rome: J. M. Salvioni, 1723), 1–14; Galletti, 557–558; Sabbadini (1896), 65–71. On Cicero’s and Quintilian’s rhetorical theories, see Clarke, 50–61, 109–119, and Kennedy (1994) 117–158, 173–185. For humanist commentaries on Cicero’s works, see Remigio Sabbadini, Storia e critica di testi latini, ed. Eugenio and Myriam Billanovich, 2d ed. (Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1971), 13–144. Before the fifteenth century only the Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herrenium was known, as noted in John O. Ward “Commentaries on Cicero’s Rhetorica from Antiquity to the Renaissance,” in Murphy (1978), 25–67. Ward, 40; Sabbadini (1896), 93–97. Tateo (1994), 22, calls his orations “scholastic,” and Galletti, 562, calls them “mummified,” 562. John Monfasani, George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 29–32; Galletti, 562. Paolo Cortesi, De hominibus doctis, ed. Giacomo Ferraù (Palermo: Il Vespro, 1979), 123. Tateo, 23. These three categories of praise are ubiquitous in fifteenth-century wedding orations. O’Malley (1979), 39. For the popularity of this genre in late Antiquity, see Sabine G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: California University Press, 1981), 1–17. See the early fifteenth-century rhetorical manual, MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13709, fols. 172r–263r, in particular fols. 222v–226v. de Nichilo (1994), 26–30, and idem, Retorica e magnificenza nella Napoli aragonese (Bari: Palomar, 2000), 52–56. Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956), 340–342. For the influence of Menander Rhetor on Byzantine epideictics, see Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich: Beck, 1978), I: 88–89 and passim. On the Byzantine connection, see Kristeller, “Italian Humanism and Byzantium,” (1979), 137–150; and John Monfasani, “The Byzantine Rhetorical Tradition and the Renaissance,” in Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric, ed. J. J. Murphy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 174–187. For the émigrés’ influence on epideictic in Italy, see McManamon (1989), 22. On the importance of Chrysoloras for Greek studies, see James Hankins, “Chrysoloras and the Greek Studies of Leonardo Bruni” in Manuele

202

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61. 62. 63. 64.

Notes to Pages 42–43

Crisolora e il ritorno del Greco in occidente, atti del convegno internazionale (Naples, 26–29 June 1997), ed. Riccardo Maisano and Antonio Rollo (Naples: Istituto universitario orientale, 2002), 175–203. On Chrysoloras and epideictic oratory, see Michael Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Composition, 1350–1450 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 62–96; O’Malley (1979), 79. John Monfasani, “L’insegnamento di Teodoro Gaza a Ferrara,” in Alla Corte degli Estensi: filosofia, arte e cultura a Ferrara nei secoli XV e XVI: atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Ferrara 5–7 Marzo 1992), ed. Marco Bertozzi (Ferrara: Università degli Studi, 1994), 5–17. Monfasani (1983), 179–180. On Guarino’s use of Dionysius and Gaza’s translation, see Brandileone (1895), 620; Sabbadini (1896), 67; and de Nichilo (2000), 45–56. MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Principale II VII 125, fols. 185r–188r. Gaza’s preface has been edited and published by de Nichilo (1994), 51–52. See E. Berti, “Traduzioni oratorie fedeli,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 2 (1988): 251. On the differences between medieval and humanist translations, see James Hankins, “Translation Practice in the Renaissance: the Case of Leonardo Bruni,” Études classiques: rencontres scientifiques de Luxembourg 4 (1994): 154–175. On Gaza’s translation method in general, see Giovanni Salanitro, “Teodoro Gaza traduttore,” in Dotti bizantini e libri greci nell’Italia del secolo XV: Atti del convegno internazionale (Trento 22–23 Ottobre 1990), ed. Mariarosa Cortesi e Enrico V. Maltese (Naples: M. D’Auria Editore, 1992), 219–225. Salanitro concentrates on Gaza’s Latin to Greek translation of Cicero’s De Senectute and outlines directions for future studies of his translation method. There are seven extant manuscripts of Menander dating from the early fifteenth century, Menander, xl–xlvii. Some of Menander was translated into Latin, as a copy dated September 13, 1423 in the Vatican and a later translation in Perugia attest. These translations are discussed in Pernille Harsting, “The Golden Method of Menander Rhetor. The Translations and the Reception of the περι′ ’επιδεικτικωυ in the Italian Renaissance,” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 20 (1992): 139–157. Marrou, 201; and Kennedy (1994), 225. In Menander Rhetor, ed. Russell and Wilson (1981), 370. Ibid., 135–147. On the importance of these authors for nuptial oratory, see Brandileone (1895), 612; Leonard Forster, The Icy Fire: Five Studies in European Petrarchism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 96–97; de Nichilo (1994) and (2000), 35–56.

Notes to Pages 43–44

203

65. For rhetoric in general, see Monfasani (1988), 171–235; Kristeller (1990), 232. 66. For Gasparino Barzizza, see G. Martellotti, DBI (1965): 7, 34–39; Albert Rabil, JR., “Humanism in Milan,” Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, vol. I, Humanism in Italy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 242–244; Grendler (2002), 207–208. For his teaching, see R. G. G. Mercer, The Teaching of Gasparino Barzizza: With Special Reference to his Place in Paduan Humanism (London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 1979). 67. Epithalamia #133–137. 68. G. Martellotti, DBI (1965), 7: 39–41. For his teaching in Milan and Pavia see Grendler (2002), 86. His two printed orations, however, predate his Ferrarese employment in the early 1430s. 69. Paolo Viti, DBI (1987), 33: 15–21. Grendler (2002), 227, says that Dati did not teach at the unversity. 70. Epithalamia #195–215. His wedding orations all appear to have been delivered in Siena. 71. Carbone wrote at least twenty-one wedding orations. On Carbone in general, see Lao Paoletti, DBI 19 (1976), 699–703. For updated bibliography, see Silvio Pasquazi “Ludovico Carbone,” in Storia di Ferrara, vol. VII, Il Rinascimento: La Letteratura, ed. Walter Moretti (Milan: Edizioni Librit srl, 1994), 104–107. 72. For Carbone as a professor at the university, see Grendler (2002), 222. 73. Alfonso Lazzari, “Un’orazione di Lodovico Carbone a Firenze” Atti e memorie della R. deputazione di storia patria per le provincie modenesi 12 (1919), 192. 74. Carbone (1952), 382–417. For Carbone’s image of Guarino’s teaching, see McManamon (1989), 55–56. Janus Pannonius, a Hungarian humanist, also immortalized his teacher Guarino in a panegyric of his literary talents. See Ian Thomson, “The Scholar as Hero in Ianus Pannonius’ Panegyric on Guarinus,” Renaissance Quarterly 44 (1991): 197–212. Carbone also studied with Theodore Gaza when the latter was in Ferrara, as noted in Monfasani (1994), 7. In his dialogue De Creandis Quibusdam Cardinalibus (before 1475), which he dedicated to Sixtus IV, Carbone asks the pope to create Theodore Gaza, his old teacher, Cardinal, L. Paoletti, DBI (1976), 19: 702. 75. On Carbone’s adaptation of Guarino’s rhetorical teachings, see Cesare Vasoli, La Dialettica e la retorica dell’umanesimo (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1968), 156–157. None of Carbone’s Latin wedding orations have been published. 76. Carbone admits to writing rather long orations even in wedding orations. See Epithalamium #161, fol. 124v, “Quamobrem etsi soleam ego in hisce

204

77. 78.

79.

80.

81.

82. 83.

84.

85.

Notes to Pages 44–45

rebus esse longiusculus, ita tamen hoc tempore orationi nostrae moderabor ut fateri possitis neminem vos unquam audivisse breviorem.” DBI (1976), 19: 701. “Ducenta prope orationes edidimus, versus ad decem millia, et omnia ore nostro pronunciavimus. Omnes claros viros qui patria mea obierunt funebri oratione decoravi, omnes fere paulo illustriores matronae, me orante, nupserunt,” quoted in Carlo De’ Rosmini, Vita e disciplina di Guarino Veronese e de’ suoi discepoli (Brescia: N. Bettoni, 1806), 3: 161. For festivals in general, see Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450–1650 (Suffolk: Boydell, 1984), 42–62. E. P. Rodocanacchi, La Femme italienne, avant, pendant et après la Renaissance (Paris: Hachette, 1922), 71–78, and Burckhardt, 262–263, mention and briefly describe some courtly wedding festivities. For earlier wedding celebrations, see Giovanni Toscanella’s description of Leonello d’Este and Bianca Maria of Aragon’s 1444 wedding in Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa ed. Remigio Sabbadini (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1931), 105, and a description in an early fifteenth-century Epithalamium #112. As noted by Charles M. Rosenberg, “The Uses of Celebrations in Public and Semi-Public Affairs in Fifteenth-Century Ferrara,” in Il Teatro italiano del Rinascimento, ed. Maristella de Panizza Lorch (Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1980), 521–535. Bruni, Epistolario, I: 93, quoted by Remo L. Guidi, “Maffeo Vegio, agiografo di S. Bernardino da Siena,” Aspetti religiosi nella letteratura del quattrocento, Studi e testi francescani, no. 54 (Rome and Vicenza: L. I. E. F., 1974), 2: 88. For Latin text, see Anthony F. D’Elia, “Marriage, Sexual Pleasure, and Learned Brides in the Wedding Orations of Fifteenth-Century Italy,” Renaissance Quarterly 55 (2002), 382. Palmieri, Della Vita civile, quoted by Guidi, 2: 88. For Italian text, see D’Elia (2002), 382. Bernardino (1880–1888), 3: 359–361, has a similar complaint against the excesses of the wedding procession in Siena in 1427. Schutte quotes this passage in Anne Jacobson Schutte, “‘Trionfo delle donne:’ tematiche di rovesciamento dei ruoli nella Firenze rinascimentale” Quaderni storici 44 (1980), 486. Francesco Barbaro, “De re uxoria,” ed. A. Gnesotto, Atti e memorie della R. Accademia di scienze, lettere ed arti di Padova 32 (1915), 38, “Sponsaliorum vero splendorem qui reprehenderit, neminem, qui laudaverint, multos invenio.” Giovanni Pontano, “De Magnificentia” (1498), in F. Tateo, I Trattati delle virtù sociali: De Liberalitate, De Benevolentia, De Magnificentia, De Splendore, De Conviventia (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1965), 112–113.

Notes to Pages 45–47

205

86. See the descriptions collected in Cruciani, 151–164, and the more extensive account in Costantino Corvisieri, “Il trionfo romano di Eleonora d’Aragona,” Archivio della società romana di storia patria 10 (1887), 629–654. 87. Emilio Boccabella’s Admirabile convivium . . . is 386 lines long and Porcellio dei Pandoni’s De convivio . . . is 316 lines long. Both are published in Corvisieri, 663–684. 88. Cruciani, 253, 260. 89. Ibid., 286–298. 90. Art and Life at the Court of Ercole I d’Este: the ‘De triumphis religionis” of Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti, ed. Werner L. Gundersheimer (Geneva: Droz, 1972), 77–78. 91. Epithalamium #139, fol. 21v and 23v; also quoted in Paolo Fazion, “‘Nuptiae Bentivolorum’ la città in festa nel commento di Filippo Beroaldo,” in Bentivolorum Magnificentia: principe e cultura a Bologna nel Rinascimento, ed. Bruno Basile (Rome: Bulzoni, 1984), 126. Sabadino degli Arienti also wrote a description of the wedding feasts, Hymneo Bentivoglio, as discussed in Carolyn James, Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti: a Literay Career (Florence: Olschki, 1996), 44–50. 92. Epithalamium #139, fols. 24r, 26r; discussed in Fazion, 129, 131–132, and James, 49. For other wedding celebrations in Bologna, see the catalogue with bibliography in Fulvio Pezzarossa, “‘Ad honore et laude del nome Bentivoglio.’ La letteratura della festa nel secondo quattrocento,” in ed. Basile, 110–111. 93. Pontano, 113–114. 94. In 1500 the population of Naples was ca. 200,000, Milan 100,000, and Ferrara 20,000–25,000, as noted in Lorenzo del Panta, “Demography,” Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, ed. Paul F. Grendler (New York: Charles Scribner’s sons, 1999), vol. 2: 144, and Grendler (2002), 103. 95. Corvisieri, 656–663, and Gundersheimer (1972), 77; Clelia Falletti, “Le feste per Eleonora d’Aragona da Napoli a Ferrara (1473),” in Teatro e culture della rappresentazione: lo spettacolo in Italia nel quattrocento, ed. R. Guarino (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1988), 135–138. 96. Ferdinand Gregorovius, Lucrezia Borgia secondo documenti e carteggi del tempo, trans. L. Quattrocchi and ed. Angelo Romano (Rome: Salerno, 1970; first ed. 1874) 233–242. While Nicolaus Marius Paniciatus, Celio Calcagnini, and Ariosto wrote verse, it is not known who delivered the prose epithalamium. Sabadino degli Arienti presented Ercole d’Este an oration before the wedding, Epithalamium #130, as discussed in James, 111. 97. Fontana, who was from Piacenza, taught Latin rhetoric in Milan for twenty years, as noted in Mario Emilio Cosenza, Biographical and Biblio-

206

98. 99. 100. 101. 102.

103.

104. 105.

106.

107. 108. 109.

110.

111. 112.

Notes to Pages 47–48

graphical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classical Scholarship in Italy, 1300–1800 (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1962), 2: 1444. Epithalamium #220, fols. 50v–52r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 383. Ibid., fols. 52r–61v. Ibid., fol. 61v; Epithalamium #287. Epithalamium #293. Charles Emile Yriarte, Un Condottiere au XV siècle Rimini (Paris: Rothschild, 1882), 335–336, 448–449, briefly discusses this. Tolentino’s description is reproduced in Cynthia M. Pyle, Milan and Lombardy in the Renaissance: Essays in Cultural History (Rome: La Fenice, 1997), 110–112. For the 1491 wedding of Ludovico Sforza and Beatrice d’Este, and Alfonso d’Este I and Anna Sforza in Milan, see Tristano Calco, de nuptiis Mediolanensium et Estensium Principum, in Festa di nozze per Ludovico il Moro, ed. Guido Lopez (Milan: De Carlo, 1976), 109–138. Brancati’s Epithalamium #147 is discussed in de Nichilo (2000), 90–103. The epithalamia of Matteo Canale and Battista Guarini are published in Mauro de Nichilo, “Un carme inedito di Matteo Canale per le nozze di Ercole I d’Este con Eleonora d’Aragona,” Annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’università di Bari 19–20 (1976–1977), 239–292. Burckhardt, 153–156; McManamon (1989), 25. Burckhardt, 149. His source, Vespasiano da Bisticci, does not include this anecdote, Le Vite, ed. Aulo Greco (Florence: Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, 1970), 1: 492. The oration is Epithalamium #269. The Sienese humanist Agostino Dati, for example, delivered wedding orations in churches and at banquets, as noted in Patetta, 29 and passim. Dati was a student of Francesco Filelfo from 1434 to 1438 and taught rhetoric in Siena. He was married and had three children, as noted in Paolo Viti, DBI 33 (1987), 16. Vespasiano da Bisticci (1970), 1:452–453. Galletti, 564, also refers to this. Galletti, 548. Galletti, 548. The English translaton by William George and Emily Waters, Renaissance Princes, Popes, and Prelates: The Vespasiano Memoirs Lives of Illustrious Men of the XVth Century (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), 382, does not include this passage nor does the Aulo Greco edition (1970). Epithalamia #85, #107, #108, #109. See also Epithalamium #277, fol. 77v, where the orator states at the end of his Latin oration: “Nunc autem pro more vetusto materno sermone ad utrumque sponsum me convertam.” As noted in Patetta, 26. Epithalamion habitum per me Veronicam Luciam de Leonibus quattuor annos natam, as noted in Patetta, 31.

Notes to Pages 48–51

207

113. Some epithalamia of Carbone, Collenuccio, and Marliani are as long as thirty manuscript folios. 114. Epithalamium #183, fols. 14v–15r. Collenuccio was active in the courts of Milan and Ferrara in the late fifteenth century. See E. Melfi, DBI (1982), 27: 1–5, and Claudio Varese, Storia e politica nella prosa del Quattrocento (Turin: Einaudi, 1961), 149–286. 115. Guido Arbizzoni, “La safica di Antonio Costanzi per le nozze di Costanzo Sforza e Camilla d’Aragona,” in Studi latini in ricordo di Rita Cappelletto, ed. Cesare Questa and Renato Raffaelli (Urbino: Quattro Venti, 1996), 258, lines 33–40. 116. Forster, 99–100. See, for example, James Saslow, The Medici Wedding of 1589: Florentine Festival as Theatrum Mundi (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996). 117. See, for example, the verse epithalamia of the following: Emilio Boccabella and Porcellio in Rome in B. Fontana, 663–684; Naldo Naldi in Bologna, discussed in Pezzarossa, 76–80; in Naples, Giovanni Pontano, in Poeti latini del quattrocento, ed. F. Arnaldi, L. G. Rosa, and L. Monti Sabia (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1964), 508–518, 518–527, and Altilio, partially transcribed in Achille Dina, Isabella d’Aragona, Duchessa di Milano e di Bari, 1471–1524 (Milan: S. Giuseppe, 1921), 15–18, and discussed in Charlet (1983), 91–112; in Ferrara, Matteo Canale and Battista Guarini, in de Nichilo (1976–1977), 241–242, 254–292. In general and for additional bibliography, see de Nichilo and Charlet. 118. Epithalamium #149.

3. Weddings as Propaganda: Rhetoric and Court Culture 1. On Italian courts in general, see Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C. Middlemore (London: Penguin, 1990), 27–53; Denys Hay and John Law, Italy and the Age of the Renaissance 1380–1530 (Essex and New York: Longman, 1989), 149–284; Lauro Martines, Power and Imagination: City-States in Renaissance Italy (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 221ff; John E. Law, The Lords of Renaissance Italy (London: The Historical Association, 1981), 7–12. See also the essays by John E. Law, “The Renaissance Prince,” and Peter Burke, “The Courtier,” in Renaissance Characters ed. Eugenio Garin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 1–21, 98–122. 2. Cecil H. Clough, “Chivalry and Magnificence in the Golden Age of the Italian Renaissance,” Chivalry in the Renaissance, ed. Sydney Anglo (Boydell: Suffolk, U.K., 1990), 25–47, esp. 32–35, 38–39; Burke, 108–112; Werner L. Gundersheimer, Ferrara: the Style of a Renaissance Despotism

208

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

Notes to Pages 52–53

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 95–97, 276–277; E. Celani, “La venuta di Borso d’Este in Roma, l’anno 1471,” Archivio della società Romana di storia patria 13 (1890), 379–383. In Confessions (6: 6: 9), Augustine recalls the following experience in Milan in 385, “How unhappy I felt . . . on that day, when I was preparing to declaim the emperor’s praises, and to lie about many matters; and for doing it, I would gain favour from persons of discrimination.” Quoted by Sabine G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 1. For Bruni, see John M. McManamon, S. J., Funeral Oratory and the Cultural Ideals of Italian Humanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 21. For this practice in Ferrara and Naples, see Gundersheimer, 130–131; Jerry H. Bentley, Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 221. Among others, see Epithalamium #141, fols. 26r, 27r (De Marinis and Perosa, 125, 127); and Epithalamium #11, fol. 3r–v. Rhetorica I.9.1368a; Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 3.1426a. “Letter to Jean Desmarez” (1504), in Collected Works of Erasmus, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 2: 81. Ibid., 82. Fubini compares Boccaccio’s De Casibus Illustrium Virorum, an anti– Speculum Principis, with Poggio’s De Infelicitate Principum, in Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990), 273. Aristotle ascribes this view to Socrates in the Eudemian Ethics, 1216b. See also Plato’s Protagoras, 347A–360E. For a fifteenth-century account of this, see MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 8761, fols. 107r–113r, Ioannis Lamolae Bononiensis ad clarum ac generosum virum Guidonem Antonium Lambertinum de pudicitiae sive castitatis laudibus epistola incipit, fol. 109v. Pontano, “On the Prince” (1468), dedicated to Alfonso II, trans. Nicholas Webb in Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, vol. 2, Political Philosophy, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 69–87; and Filelfo, MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13723, fol. 5v. As noted in Gundersheimer, 131, and Bentley, 227. For other Renaissance translations, see David Marsh, “Xenophon,” in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, Annotated Lists and Guides, ed. Virginia Brown (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), VII: 75–196.

Notes to Pages 53–54

209

13. Letter to Count of Celano, in ed. Tonelli, III: 39, quoted and discussed in Fubini, 262, n. 110. 14. On the relationship between epideictic oratory and the visual arts see McManamon, 30, with notes. 15. Epithalamium #163, fol. 157r, “Ego certe post libros et litteras quae meae deliciae sunt, nullam habeo artem aliam pictura cariorem. Plenum est studiolum meum mille picturis, signis, tabulis, imaginibus. Numquam illam Leonelli aspicio quam Antonius Pisanus effinxit quin mihi lacrymae ad oculos veniant, ita illius humanissimos gestus imitatur. Tuam vero, inclyte Dux, quam Lodovicus Castellanus expressit tanquam reginam in medio caeterarum teneo, quae me ad virtutem, ad sapientiam, ad eloquentiam, ad omne genus elegantiae, veneranda gravitate et augusta maiestate hortari videtur et mihi nescio quid grande polliceri si in incoepto perseverem.” 16. Ibid., fol. 157r-v, “In hac ergo arte ita Galeottus excellit ut si reviviscant omnes qui umquam in pictura claruerunt, eum veluti pictorum regem agnoscerent atque adorarent. Victum se fateretur Apelles cui soli licuit pingere Alexandrum regem, cedere non dubitaret Zeuxis ille qui cum Helenam pinxisset, adeo arti ac dexterae suae arrogavit ut tantum ea forma comprehensum crederet quantum Homerus divino carmine suo exprimere potuisset et Graecos versus protulit; superaretur Phidias qui, cum simulacrum Iovis Olympii perfecisset, interrogatus ab amico quonam manum direxisset ad pinguendum Iovis vultum propemodum a coelo petitum, illis Homeri versibus quasi magistro se usum respondit.” 17. MS: Vatican City, BAV Chis. J VII 266, fols. 22r–26r Oratio ad Marchionem Mantuae, fols. 25v–26r, “. . . summo studio ac vigilantia niti decet ut hunc excelsum principem nostris laudibus celebratum eternum immortalemque faciamus ut divinam virtutum suarum imaginem non statuis modo aut picturis sed imitatione quoque ac opere declaremus.” 18. Earlier works include Ferreto de’ Ferreti’s verse panegyric, De Scaligorum Origine for Cangrande della Scala (1328) and Pier Paolo Vergerio’s De Monarchia dedicated to the Carrara lords (1390s). See Quentin Skinner, “Political Philosophy,” in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. Charles B. Schmitt and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 409–412, 423–426; and idem, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1, The Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 116–118. 19. Funeral orations were also vehicles of political ideology, as noted in McManamon, 88–122. 20. On Bruni and panegyric, see James Hankins, “Rhetoric, History and Ideology: The Civic Panegyrics of Leonardo Bruni,” in Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge:

210

21.

22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

30.

Notes to Pages 54–55

Cambridge University Press, 2000), 143–178. I am following Hankins’ dating of the Laudatio in 1404, ibid., 144. “De Laudibus Mediolanensis Urbis Panegyricus” in Petri Candidi Decembrii Opuscula Historica, ed. Giuseppe Petraglione (Bologna, Zanichelli, 1958) Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, XX, pt. I, vol. 3: 1014–1025. See Hankins (2000), 149–151. Decembrio, 1016–1017; Hankins (2000), 150. I agree with Hankins in not seeing the two orations in complete opposition, Hankins (2000), 150–151. Politics III. 15; V.10, 1310b–1311a; Nicomachean Ethics VIII. 10. See Thomas Renna, “Aristotle and the French Monarchy, 1260–1303,” Viator 9 (1978): 309–324, and Cary J. Nederman, “Aristotle as authority: alternative Aristotelian sources of late mediaeval political theory,” in idem, Medieval Aristotelianism and its Limits: Classical Traditions in Moral and Political Philosophy, 12th–15th Centuries (Variorum: Hampshire, U.K. 1997), essay XV: 31–44, esp. 37–38 (originally published in History of European Ideas 8.1 (1987): 31–44). On Bertini, who was educated in Padua before going to Naples, see I. Walter, DBI (1967), 9: 540–542. Epithalamium #141, fol. 28v (De Marinis and Perosa, 126). Franco Catalano, “La Nuova Signoria: Franceso Sforza,” 3–17, in Storia di Milano, vol VII: L’Età sforzesca dal 1450 al 1500 (Milan: Treccani, 1956). On Sforza’s rise to power and his regime’s use of history for political propaganda, see Gary Ianziti, Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas: Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-Century Milan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 20–40 and passim. See also Baldassar Rasinus’ panegyric of Sforza in MS: Vatican City, BAV Ottob. Lat. 1834, fols. 1r–26v Baldasaris Rasini oratio de celeberrimis Francisci Sfortiae Ligurum ducis laudibus Ticinensem apud achademiam in sacro divi Francisci delubro feliciter habita incipit. Under the category of Sforza’s bona animi, Rasinus lists Monarchia and justifies this form of government (fols. 13r–17v). Epithalamium #271, fols. 19r–24r. Marliani taught astrologia and medicine in Pavia and Milan. In 1472 Galeazzo Maria Sforza appointed him court physician. On him see Charles B. Schmitt, Jill Kraye, et al., eds. The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 826. Epithalamium #271, fol. 23r, “Unus sit princeps, unus rex nec enim multorum principatus bonus est. Franciscum uno omnium consensu Mediolani principem salutarunt.” See, for example, Epithalamium #280, fol. 346r, and Platina, On the Prince (1470), in Kraye, 1997, 89.

Notes to Pages 55–56

211

31. Epithalamium #286, fol. 17r. Filelfo is referring to Politics I.2. On the use of Aristotle to defend monarchy see Nederman and Renna. 32. As noted in Diana Robin, Filelfo in Milan: writings 1447–1451 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 94–95. 33. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13723, fols. 2r–6v. Dated 1477. The beginning of the preface is missing. Although unsigned and written in a different hand, it follows a dedication by Filelfo (fol. 1v to the Venetian admiral Nicolò Canali) which is similar in style and content. This second preface is most probably Filelfo’s composition as well. Marsh, 121–122, mentions Filelfo’s defense of monarchy in the dedication to his translation, but does not transcribe or discuss it. 34. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13723, fols. 2v–3v, “Sic itidem ea civitas optime gubernetur in qua nulla fuerit dissensio, idemque consensus; hunc vero qui diligentissime sunt secuti et in optimatium et in populi dicione, regium tamen quoddamodo principatum repraesentare et iam pridem elaborarunt et hodie elaborant. Nam et Venetorum Senatus, qui ex optimatibus constat, ducem creat et Florentinus populus vexilliferum iusticiae. Apud Romanos quoque Senatus principem deligi solitum viri dissertissimi prodidere . . . Sed illum in primis quo neminem protulit natura omni virtutum omnium numero perfectiorem magisque absolutum G. Julium Caesarem qui primus quod adhuc perdurat regium Romanis post sedatas seditiones furoresque civilis et constituit et stabilivit imperium . . . Vidimus etiam atque cognovimus tempestate nostra et Philippum Mariam Mediolanensium ducem et . . . Alphonsum Regem, duos perfectos nobilissimos principes. Quid autem meminero maximos ecclesiae Romanae pontifices . . . Eugenio Quarto . . . Nicolao Quinto . . . Paulum Secundum . . .” 35. Pier Paolo Vergerio, De monarchia sive de optimo principatu, as noted in Skinner (1978), 124; Platina, “On the Prince” (1471, dedicated to Federico Gonzaga), trans. Nicholas Webb in Cambridge Translations . . . , 89–90, and Sabadino degli Arienti’s 1497 treatise in Art and Life at the Court of Ercole I d’Este: the ‘De triumphis religionis” of Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti, ed. Werner L. Gundersheimer (Geneva: Droz, 1972), 84. 36. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13723, fols. 3v–4r, “Praeterea mens humana cum dei ipsius mente ad cuius imaginem et similitudinem est creata, debeat convenire. . . . Sic omnis motus superior et inferior ab primo motore uno proficiscitur. Sic omnia corporis membra motum a corde tanquam a principe probatur accipere. Sic universo corpori praeest animus, si ipsa ratio partibus animi praesidet. Sic uni sapientiae tanquam reginae cuidam omnes caeterae virtutes et actionis et morum subiciuntur. Quodsi natura etiam fit ut et quae sunt omnia deus unus digerat certo ordine et

212

37.

38. 39.

40.

41.

Notes to Pages 56–58

totam hanc mundi machinam atque ornatum deus idem regat atque moderetur, cui dubium esse debet unius viri prudentis et optimi imperium industria arteque humana, quae naturae est et cognata et imitatrix, sapientissime simul saluberrimeque constitui atque propagari? . . . Quid quod grues etiam ipsae suspiciunt quae natura duce cum secant volatu aera veluti alio traiecturae, unam sibi pervices praeviam habent, cuius iter miro quodam ordine sequuntur reliquae? Nonne insuper videmus apis quodam quasi naturae persuasu unum sequi principem eidemque parere? Quid igitur homines ipsi faciant quorum mente nihil est post deum neque pulchrius nec melius?” Baldassare Castiglione, “Il libro del Cortegiano” (1528), in Opere di Baldassare Castiglione, Giovanni Della Casa, Benvenuto Cellini, ed. Carlo Cordié (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1960), 305–306. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13723, fol. 4r–v; Politics, II. 1252b. Ibid., fols. 4v–5v, “Sed quid aliis aut exemplis aut rationibus opus est? Quando quidem constat Christum optimum maximum et ipsum deum et summi dei illius filium, qui ea lege primum creavit hominem ut caeteris cunctis animantibus praeesse, illo se tempore humanitati coniungere voluisse quo princeps unus Caesar Augustus universo terrae orbi imperitabat, quique praeterea quanti ducendus esset unius principatus vel hoc declaravit argumento quod et ipse principem gessit dum fuit inter homines et rex ab hominibus revertit in caelum . . .” Epithalamium #156, fol. 14r–v, “An tuam singularem iustitiam commemorem cum enim in omni civitate et re publica laudatissima sit ea virtus, si servetur, tum vero in rege admirationem omnino et insignem gloriam habet qui cum praesit et dominetur ceteris habet in manu sua leges institutaque locorum suorum proque voluntate et arbitrio suo omnia simul iura aut sequi aut relinquere aut mutare aut pervertere etiam potest quod rei publicae non conceditur quae cum plurimorum hominum consensu non unius iudicio administretur non habet illam potestatem recedendi a iustissimis legibus et decreta sua contemnendi.” Ibid., fols. 14v–15r, “In tanta igitur potestate et quasi licentia rex si vel natura vel ratione ita sit animatus ut voluntatem suam cum legum voluntate coniungat in tantam ille admirationem et stuporem omnibus venit ut deus quidam in terris ipse esse et praesenti numine homines gubernare videatur. Qua in re talem te prebes, illustris princeps, ut propitiam hominibus divinitatem in te et praesentis numinis speciem habere opinione omnium existimeris, in qua enim civitate aut re publica ita iuris ratio, ita equitatis ordo servatur ut in regno et imperio tuo non iniuria cuiquam, non contumelia, non molestia aliqua non incommodique quicquam affertur suum quisque negotium habere, suas quisque copias et facultates

Notes to Pages 58–60

42. 43.

44. 45. 46.

47. 48.

49. 50.

51.

52.

213

retinere et amplificare arbitratu suo potest, non coguntur homines tui onera magna sustinere, non gravia tributa ferre in iudicio et controversia si versentur, quacunque sorte eorum aliquis aut magna aut parva conditione sit. Potest ius suum optinere id quod habet et eius adversarium vincere.” For similar arguments in favor of Visconti rule in Milan, see Andrea Biglia’s eulogy for Giangaleazzo Visconti, discussed in McManamon, 48. Epithalamium #170, fols. 223v–224r. For Latin text, see Anthony F. D’Elia, “Genealogy and the Limits of Panegyric: Turks and Huns in FifteenthCentury Epithalamia,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 34.4 (Winter 2003), 982. Ibid., fol. 223r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 982–983. Nicolai Rubinstein, The Government of Florence under the Medici, 1434–1494 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), 20. Epithalamium #156, fols. 21v–22r “. . . in Italia principes adeo civibus suis dilecti, adeo a populis amati ut Estenses qui saepius ab alienis et externis ut sibi imperarent vocati et arcessiti non crudeles tyranni, non iniusti domini sunt Estenses sed indulgentissimi patres civium et subditorum suorum, non aliena eripientes sed sua potius liberalissime impartientes, quos alios tam firma benivolentia, tam pio, tam dulci, tam paterno amore, tanto cordis affectu complexa est nobilitas . . .” Gundersheimer, 25; Skinner, 1978, 24. For examples, see Sergio Bertelli, “Le congiure,” in Sergio Bertelli, Franco Cardini, Elvira Garbero Zorzi, Le Corti italiane del Rinascimento (Milan: Mondadori, 1985), 243–256. Gundersheimer, 177–180. Epithalamium #156, fol. 26r, “. . . ob crudelem illam coniurationem qua in Borsium machinabantur exitiosi ingratissimi homines . . . quae quidem res mirifice adauxit civium in se amorem cum intelligerent non vi, non dolo, non perfidia Herculem principatum appetere, sed tantummodo quantum deus et natura concederet; habebat quidem prius corda nostra sed hoc suo illustrissimo et gloriosissimo facto omnium in se benivolentiam duplicavit.” Ibid., fol. 28r–v, “Nondum Borsius animam efflaverat cum senatus noster, immo vero universus populus inclamato suavissimo nomine Adamantis cum summo deorum et hominum favore in Herculem iuraverunt ut verissime credere possimus non tanto gaudio Romanos Scipionem devicta Carthagine redeuntem vidisse, non tanto applausu posteriorem Africanum excisa Numantia, non tanto concursu C N Pompeium excepisse cum Aristobolum Iudeorum Regem in triumphum duxit.” Rhetorica ad Herennium, III: 10–15. See Alfredo Galletti, L’Eloquenza dalle origini al XVI secolo (Milan: Francesco Vallardi, 1904–1938), 563.

214

Notes to Pages 60–61

53. “C. Plinii Caecili Secundi Panegyricus Traiano Imperatori Dictus,” in Panegyrici Latini, ed. A. Baehrens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911), XII: 1–89. On Aurispa, see Remigio Sabbadini, Le Scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV (1905–1914; reprint, Florence: Sansoni, 1967), vol 1: 116, and E. Bigi, DBI (1962), 4: 593–595. 54. For a description of this work, see Lester K. Born’s introduction to his translation, The Education of a Christian Prince by Desiderius Erasmus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), 85–87. See also idem, “The Perfect Prince according to the Latin Panegyrists,” American Journal of Philology 55 (1934): 20–35; Francois Burdeau “L’Empereur d’après les panégyriques latins” in Aspects de l’empire romain (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964), 1–60. 55. See MacCormack, 1–17. 56. For panegyrics in Italian courts, see, for example, Ianziti, 32–40, and Bentley, 208–215. 57. Epithalamium #156, fols. 12v, “Alphonsus instituit, Dive Ferdinande, in quo profecto videmus esse omnia, quae in summo et perfecto rege desiderari solent, tam praecipua et tam mirifica ut tu maxime unus obtinere nomen decusque regium videaris.” 58. Ibid., fols. 15r–16r, “. . . misericordiam tribuis delictis et erratis veniam das atque ut Caius Caesar remittere solebat iniurias, condonare ultiones, servare lenitatem in adversarios et inimicos suos victos, sic tu omnibus qui adversus te infenso animo fuerunt et arma contra tulerunt liberalissime ignovisti ac certissimam veniam dedisti . . . Nec enim in Cesare laudantur bella, rapinae, caedes, tanta sanguinis effusio sed quod victoria civili clementer est usus quod in ulciscendo lenissimus quod moderationem admirabilem exhibuit. Titus Vespasianus quem historiae delitias humani generis appellant dicere solebat se potius periturum quam puniturum . . . Hadriani et Antonini verbum esse consueverat: Malo unum civem servare quam decem millia hostium occidere. Magnus Alexander devictis in Asia principibus regna restituit. Matrem et uxorem Darii Persarum regis a se expugnati tanta reverentia et humanitate prosecutus est. Gaude igitur tuo tam excellenti bono, mansuetissime Rex Ferdinande, quod tibi cum summis imperatoribus vides esse commune vel potius Iesu Christi preceptis consentaneum qui et ipse pro persequentibus oravit . . .” 59. Ibid., fol. 16r–v, “. . . nihil melius placabilitate atque clementia quae sola hominem diis immortalibus parem facit. Nulla re propius ad deos accedimus quam salutem hominibus dando. Nihil habet regum et principum fortuna maius quam ut possint, nihil eorum natura melius quam ut velint, servare quam plurimos, animum vincere, iracundiam cohibere, victoriam temperare, adversarios nobilitate, ingenio, virtute praestantes non modo extollere

Notes to Pages 61–62

60.

61.

62. 63. 64.

65.

66. 67.

68.

215

iacentes sed etiam amplificare eorum pristinam dignitatem: haec qui faciant non solum summis viris comparandi sed simillimi deo iudicandi . . .” Epithalamium #169, fol. 220v, “Inter discordes solitus componere foedus atque hostes firma iungere amicitia, munificus, largus populo, dilectus a omni, civibus est pastor, civibus est anima, Borsius humanae demissus ab aethere genti, ut sit qu[i] veri numinis instar amet, Borsius a facie radios ceu sidera fundens, Borsius humani deliciae generis . . .” Epithalamium #162, fol. 133r, “Tu quoque, magnifice Dux, quem loco numinis iustissime adoramus, exporge nobis tuam istam laetissimam frontem qua coelum ipsum turbidum serenares.” Gundersheimer, 127. Borso receives lengthy praise in a number of epithalamia, including #300, fol. 41r–v, and #152, fols. 207v–208r. Michael Mallett, Mercenaries and their Masters: Warfare in Renaissance Italy (London: The Bodley Head, 1974) 160, 197; Willibald Block, Die Condottieri: Studien über die sogenannten “unblütigen Schlachten” (Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1913), 114–143. Epithalamium #156, fol. 24v, “Ad quod quidem bellum vocatus est Hercules noster ut unus ex primis Venetorum imperatoribus ubi eius praesentia tanti momenti fuit ut hostis qui prius tamquam victor exultabat fateretur se periculo propiorem fuisse. Adeo insigni providentia usus est in preoccupandis insidiis, instruendis aciebus, in exhortandis bonis, in increpandis timidis, in adiuvandis laborantibus, in supplendis integris pro sauciis ita ut strenui militis simul et prudentis imperatoris officium adimpleret non solum iubendo sed in se ipso exequendo quod ceteris commonstrabat.” Antonio Cornazzano, Vita di Bartolomeo Colleoni, ed. and trans. Giuliana Crevatin (Rome: Vecchiarelli, 1990), IV.44. Epithalamium #156, fols. 24v–25r, “Quod nisi glande contorta violentus ille ac sulfureus ignis pedem collisisset non impune tulisset hostis adeo insidiose in eum invasisse et nimio aestu et longo itinere defessum ac pene inermem quamquam sic etiam omnium uno ore asseritur nullum in Italia multis iam annis ferociorem congressum et conflictum accidisse quam illum apud Bononiensem Mulinellam. Quod etiam magnanimus insubrium Dux Galeatius affirmare non dubitavit in eo sermone quem Parmae cum Borsio fecerat neminem in eo proelio Hercule fortiorem adversarium habuisse adeoque suaviter de eo locutus est ut nihil magis cupere videretur quam Herculem amicum habere.” Gundersheimer, 192, mentions this episode. Ibid., fol. 25r–v, “Nescio equidem utra maior in animis civium suorum commotio fuerit aut immensa laetitia ob tantam gloriam comparatam aut

216

69.

70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Notes to Pages 63–64

incredibilis dolor cum ob recte facta eum sic affectum viderent. Hic manifestissime intelligi potuit quanto eum Ferrariensis populus amore prosequatur. Concurrebatur undique a magnis et parvis visendi et succurrendi aut consolandi studio nec vero minor erat humanitas et mansuetudo eius quae nulli quantumvis infimo aditum negabat. Libenter omnes excipiebat qui eum quam libentissime videbant. Praeter diligentissimam curam scientissimorum fidissimorumque medicorum qui amantissime officium suum praestabant, sacerdotes omnes, religiosi, sanctimoniales virgines immortali deo preces effundebant ut tam bonum et prudentem principem a tanto periculo liberaret.” Ibid., fols. 25v–26r, “Et quam mirabilis eius patientia et fortitudo fuit in tolerando constantissime dolore incidendi, secandi, adurendi carnem, ossa, nervos, nos circumstantes vix poteramus aspicere. At vero in Hercule tanta securitas et animi firmitudo regnabat quia res sua non ageretur. Supra ducentos ictus igniti ferri intrepido vultu sustinuit. Quis Marius, quis Mucius Scaevola, quis Martyr Christianus tanta tormenta perferre potuisset?” This was one of the reasons for sometimes lengthy descriptions of rulers’ exploits. Inter plures, see Podocatharus on Borso, Epithalamium #300, fols. 40r–44v; Manetti on Alfonso of Aragon, Epithalamium #269, 171–174; and Bertini on Francesco Sforza and Ferrante of Aragon, Epithalamium #141, fols. 26r–29v (De Marinis and Perosa, 123–127). Epithalamium #156, fols. 7v–8r, “Rerum natura hoc habet ut bonis mala semper admista sint atque gratiora sint bona cum malorum impedimenta superavimus: An tibi, mitissime rex, adeo carus esset principatus iste tuus si eum delitiis et negligentia ex fortuito quodam casu parauisses? Minime id quidem cum vero maximis eum laboribus summisque periculis adeptus sis, fieri non potest quin supra modum eum carissimum habeas quem sola virtute partum pretioso etiam sanguine tuo redemisti. Quamobrem is mihi omni prorsus ratione carere videtur qui obfugiendos labores, res arduas et utilissimas capessere non audeat. Labores et molestiae Herculem deum effecerunt. Laborum gradibus Romulus ascendit in coelum. Labores Cyrum, Philippum, Alexandrum, Numam Pompilium, Marium, Syllam, Caesarem in maxima imperia evexerunt.” Bentley, 24–25, 158. Epithalamium #141, fol. 28r (De Marinis and Perosa, 124). Ibid., (De Marinis and Perosa, 124–125). On the association of monarchy and the Golden Age in Italian courts, see Clough, 26–28. For an overview of the debate, see Claudio Donati, L’idea di nobiltà in Italia: secoli XIV–XVIII (Rome: Laterza, 1988), 3–28. The following section on genealogy is an abbreviated adaptation of D’Elia (2003).

Notes to Pages 64–66

217

77. Epithalamium #183, fol. 26v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 976. 78. Epithalamium #270, fol. 232r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 976. 79. See Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Dignity of Man,” in Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, ed. Michael Mooney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 169–180; Charles Trinkaus, “The Renaissance Idea of the Dignity of Man,” in The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 1983), 342–363. See as well Trinkaus’s essay in the same volume, “Themes for a Renaissance Anthropology,” 364–403. 80. Epithalamium #159, fol. 111r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 977. 81. Roberto Bizzocchi, Genealogie incredibili: scritti di storia nell’Europa moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1995), 130–136, 156–187; R. Howard Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies: a Literary Anthropology of the French Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 64–127; Franco Cardini, “. . . Un Bellissimo Ordine di Servire,” 120–125, in Le Corti italiane del Rinascimento, ed. Sergio Bertelli, Franco Cardini, Elvira Garbero Zorzi (Milan: Mondadori, 1985), 77–126. 82. Borsias VI, 237–550, and commentary in Walther Ludwig, Die Borsias des Tito Strozzi, ein lateinisches Epos der Renaissance (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1977), 316–335. 83. See, for example, Francesco Filelfo’s wedding orations for the Sforza and Este families, Epithalamia #285–292, Pandolfo Collenuccio for the Sforza and Aragonese, Epithalamium #183, Pietro Parleo for the Malatesta and the Sforza, Epithalamium #279, and Carbone for the Gonzaga, Epithalamium #157. Ancestry was also an important topic in humanist funeral oratory, as noted in McManamon, 46–49. 84. Epithalamium #153, fols. 223v–224r. 85. Epithalamium #280, fol. 346r. 86. Among many, see Epithalamium #297, fol. 44r. 87. Epithalamium #160, fol. 116r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 975. 88. Epithalamium #163, fol. 157v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 975. 89. Guiniforte worked in Ferrara as an orator for Borso d’Este from 1448–1455, as noted in G. Martellotti, DBI 7 (1965): 39–41. 90. Epithalamium #136, 4. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 975. A similar genealogy is found in the 1402 funeral oration for Gian Galeazzo Visconti, as noted in Bizzocchi, 177. 91. Epithalamium #269, 171. On this oration see also Bentley, 210–211. 92. Ibid., 172. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 976. 93. Epithalamium #271. The wedding never took place. Born in 1472 Bianca Maria Sforza was betrothed at the age of two to Filiberto, Duke of Savoy. After her father Duke Galeazzo Maria Sforza was assassinated in 1476, Ludovico Il Moro Sforza married her to Emperor Maximillian I in 1493. Her enormous dowry, 400,000 ducats, secured Ludovico Il Moro Sforza the

218

94. 95. 96.

97.

98. 99. 100.

101.

102.

103. 104.

105. 106.

Notes to Pages 66–67

imperial title, King of the Romans. See Gregory Lubkin, A Renaissance Court: Milan under Galeazzo Maria Sforza (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 117, 176–177, 243; Caterina Santoro, Gli Sforza (Milan: TEA Storica, 1994), 294–296. Neither of these authors mentions a possible Corvinus marriage. Epithalamium #271, fols. 14v–15r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 977. Ibid., fols. 19r and 23r–24v. Marliani’s praise of Francesco Sforza is discussed earlier in this chapter. Compare this with Carbone’s description of the toil that Ercole d’Este underwent to succeed to power in Ferrara, Epithalamium #156, fols. 7v–8r. On Ercole’s succession see Gundersheimer, 176–180. There is little information on Johannes, who lost his life battling Ottoman Turks in 1504. On his father, Matthias, see Marianna D. Birnbaum, The Orb and the Pen: Janus Pannonius, Matthias Corvinus, and the Buda Court (Budapest: Corvina Books, 1996), and eadem, “Corvinus, Matthias” in Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, ed. Paul Grendler (New York: Scribner, 1999), 2:91–93. Epithalamium #271, fols. 9v–11v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 979–980. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1967), 154–159. Platina, Liber de Vita Christi ac Omnium Ponitificum, ed. Giacinto Gaida, vol. 3.1, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1913–1932), 63–64. The association of Attila with Hungary dates from at least 1055. In the anonymous Gesta Hungarorum (pre-1241), Attila is said to have moved to Pannonia in 451. On this see Marianna D. Birnbaum, “Attila’s Renaissance in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Attila: The Man and His Image, ed. Franz H. Baüml and Marianna D. Birnbaum (Budapest: Corvina Books, 1993), 82. Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Cosmographiae vel de Mundo Universo Historiarum in Opera quae extant omnia (Basel: Henricus Petrus, 1551), 307. Shayne Mitchell notes this in “The Image of Hungary and of Hungarians in Italy, 1437–1526” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, Warburg Institute, 1994), 71. Epithalamium #271, fol. 11v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 980. Leonardo Bruni, History of the Florentine People, ed. and trans. James Hankins, vol. 3, I Tatti Renaissance Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), I: 55. Platina, 76, “nec ulli generi hominum parcit, ‘flagellum Dei’ se vocitans.” Piccolomini, 307. See also the fourteenth-century La guerra d’Attila, which recounts the heroic exploits of the Este princes against the “flagel-

Notes to Pages 67–69

107.

108.

109. 110. 111. 112.

113. 114.

115. 116.

117. 118.

219

lum Dei” and his ferocious hordes, as discussed in Thomas E. Vesce, “La Guerra d’Attila: Maker of Heroes in the Quattrocento,” in Attila: The Man and his Image, 75–81. The ferocity of Hungarians was proverbial, as noted in Mitchell, 152–165. Epithalamium #271, fol. 12r, “. . . tantum apud eum valuit auctoritas Leonis Pontificis viri quidem sanctissimi qui pro Italiae Christianique nominis salute eum adierat ut confestim solo ipsius Leonis congressu pace Italiae reddita una cum exercitu ad Hungaros suos redierit.” Compare with Platina, 77, who writes that Attila obeys Leo because of the vision: “Monitis pontificis optimi obtemperans Attila quod dum simul loquerentur cernere duos viros supra caput suum strictos tenentes gladios ac mortem minitantes nisi pareret visus est.” See also Raphael’s Repulse of Attila (1513) in the Stanza di Eliodoro, Vatican City. Leonardo Bruni, however, does not include the vision in his account, I: 58. As noted in Birnbaum (1993), 82. Ibid., 82. On the positive reworking of Attila in the Renaissance see Birnbaum (1993). Epithalamium #271, fols. 12v–13v. Piccolomini, for example, praises the Hungarian crusades against the Turks, Europa in qua sui temporis varias historias complectitur in Piccolomini, 390–391 and 396–400. On this theme see Mitchell, 118–168. Epithalamium #170, fol. 223r–224v. The bride’s genealogy is discussed in greater detail in D’Elia (2003), 983–985. Trevor Dean, Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 93, 143. Dean, 143, discusses the inheritance of another “Zarabino Turchi” in 1381 with archival evidence but makes no mention of an Ottoman connection. “Zarabino” was evidently a favorite family first name. For Carbone’s genealogy of the Turchi family, see below. Hay and Law, 1989, 162–163. In general, see R. W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962); Robert Schwoebel, The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turks (1453–1517) (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1967), 1–77 and passim. For fifteenth-century humanist rhetoric against the Turk, see James Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders: Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995): 111–207. Epithalamium #170, fols. 222v–223r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 986. See Hankins (1995), 136–144; Margaret Meserve, “Medieval Sources for Renaissance Theories on the Origins of the Ottoman Turks,” 399–436, in

220

119.

120.

121. 122. 123. 124.

125. 126.

127. 128.

129.

130. 131.

Notes to Pages 69–71

Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, ed. Bodo Guthmüller and Wilhelm Kühkmann (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2000); Agostino Pertusi, “I primi studi in Occidente sull’origine e la potenza dei Turchi,” Studi veneziani 12 (1970): 465–552; Terence Spencer, “Turks and Trojans in the Renaissance,” Modern Language Review 47 (1952): 330–333. Europa in Piccolomini, 387–471, 394. Pertusi, 482, refers to this passage. Aeneas’ sources, the eighth-century Aethicus and the German historian Otto of Freising, are discussed in Meserve, 419–434. See also Hankins (1995), 137–138. Critoboulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. C. T. Riggs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), 181–182, quoted and discussed in Hankins (1995), 139–140. In the sixteenth century, Julius Caesar Scaliger presented a similar argument, Poemata (Lyon 1546), 3, “Bis vetus eversum est Argivis Ilion armis: / Bis nova victores Graecia luget avos: / Maxima Troianos retulit cum Roma nepotes: / Atque iterum, imperium cum modo Turcus habet,” quoted by Spencer, 332. Filippo da Rimini, as noted in Hankins (1995), 139. G. M. Filelfo, Amyris, ed. Aldo Manetti (Bologna: Pàtron, 1978), 3: 566–576. I have been unable to find Carbone’s earlier oration on the Turks. Epithalamium #293. The above part and three other paragraphs are published in Charles Emile Yriarte, Un Condottiere au XV siecle Rimini (Rothschild: Paris, 1882), 448–449. Epithalamium #170, fol. 223r–v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 988. See Piccolomini’s description of Mehmed II in Oratio Aeneae de Constantinopolitana Clade et Bello Contra Turcos Congregando, in Piccolomini, 680, “Mahometus ipse terribili facie, tetris oculis, terribili voce, crudelibus verbis, nephandis nutibus homicidia mandat, nunc istum nunc illum ad caedem poscit, manus in sanguine Christianorum lavat. Omnia foedat, omnia polluit.” Epithalamium #156, fols. 16v–17r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 989. As noted in Bentley, 171, and documented in Franz Babinger, “Sechs unbekannte Aragonische Sendschrieben im Grossherrlichen Seraj zu Stambul,” in Studi in onore di Riccardo Filangieri (Naples: L’Arte, 1959), 2: 107–128. Aeneas Piccolomini, Oratio ad Calixtum Papam in Piccolomini, 926. See also Oratio Aeneae de Constantinopolitana Clade et Bello Contra Turcos Congregando, in Piccolomini, 680–683. In Poeti latini del quattrocento, ed. F. Arnaldi, L. G. Rosa, and L. Monti Sabia (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1964), 156–158. Epithalamium #147, fol. 33v, transcribed in Mauro de Nichilo, Retorica e magnificenza nella Napoli aragonese (Bari: Palomar, 2000), 101.

Notes to Pages 71–74

221

132. In general, see Hankins (1995), 119, 121–122, and Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: the Making of an Image (Edinburgh: University Press, 1960). 133. Anthony Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 15–16, 18–20, 24. 134. Epithalamium #170, fol. 223v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2003), 990. 135. Dante, for example, places Mohammed and his disciple Ali among the sowers of schism and discord in the eighth circle of Hell, Inferno XXVIII 28–63. 136. See, for example, the discussions on magnificence by Platina and Giuniano Maio, in Kraye, 1997, 100–101 and 110–112. 137. Ibid., 100. 138. De Neapolitana profectione in Giovanni Zannoni, “Un viaggio per l’Italia di Lodovico Carbone, umanista (1473)” Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei 7 (1898), 193, “privatam luxuriam improbo, sed publicam magnificentiam diligo.” 139. Epithalamium #153, fols. 224r–225r, “Jacobus noster in replendis constipandisque aggeribusque muniendis novis istis circa Padum agris ut plures possessiones habeas, magnanime dux, quas viris amicis juris donare possis commodiusque liberalitatem tuam exercere. Hic verum propria regum et principum virtus est quae si eis desit, non sunt illi quidem principatu digni quem sola beneficentia commendat. Neque deum ipsum amamus nisi ut nobis propitius sit et beneficus, haec multo utiliora sunt opera quam more gigantum bellando cum diis et naturae repugnando in vallibus et paludibus montes fabricari velle. Has et gigantes a Jove fulminati propterea dicuntur quia extruendis montibus deos lacessebant. Celum petunt stultia . . . Leonellum in re curia pontifici maximo et omnibus illis amplissimis patribus innata benignitas et affabilitas gratissimum reddidit et acceptissimum.” 140. Epithalamium #156, fol. 16r–v, “Liberalitas et munificentia tua cui tandem ignota est quicunque ad maiestatem tuam accederit, modo speciem aliquam viri et dignitatem secum ferant, non abs te indonati abeunt. Munera tua finem nullum habent. Nihil denegare novit benignitas tua quod dono dignum esse videatur non solum familiares tuos et eos homines quos in magnis rebus gerendis socios comitesque habuisti beneficiis tuis prosequeris, verum etiam alieni et externi quotidie beneficentiam tuam experiuntur; id tibi propositum est ut de universo genere hominum benemerearis et more Vespasiani Titi diem illum te perdidisse arbitraris quo nihil dono dederis. Alexandrino animo es qui magis quid te dare conveniat quam quid alii mereantur accipere cogitandum putas.” 141. On Rasinus see Grendler (2002), 211–212.

222

Notes to Pages 74–75

142. MS: Vatican City, BAV Ottob. Lat. 1834, fols. 1r–26v Baldasaris Rasini oratio de celeberrimis Francisci Sfortiae Ligurum ducis laudibus Ticinensem apud achademiam in sacro divi Francisci delubro feliciter habita incipit, fols. 2v–3r. 143. Ibid., fols. 17v–20r. 144. Epithalamium #155, fol. 377r–v, “In ea urbe Gillinus quidam extitit generis nobilitate ac divitiis pollens . . . cum uxore sua Bononiam porrexit, ibique aliquamdiu honestissime vixit generositate sua nihil indignum exercens; non enim est nobilitatis officium augere patrimonium et struendis opibus inherere sed iis tantummodo conservatis quae a maioribus parta sunt cetera omnia ad munificentiam liberalitatemque conferre.” 145. Epithalamium #159, fol. 112r. 146. Pietro Perleone (Parleo) studied under Filelfo, then worked in his native Rimini for Sigismund Malatesta and later taught rhetoric and classical literature at the San Marco school in Venice. On him, see Margaret L. King, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 416–417. 147. Parleo says this in his discussion of the economic purpose of marriage and the roles of wife and husband, Epithalamium #280, fol. 345v, “Privatae enim opes ac divitiae cum ad rei publicae dignitatem ac amplitudinem sint necessarie, vir quidem foris parat, acquerit, accumulat, uxor vero domi servat ac retinet.” 148. Epithalamium #150, fol. 199v, “At bene partas opes Joannes noster ad munificentiam liberalitatemque convertit, non minus amicorum quam suarum voluit. Quotiens rem publicam nostram in re frumentaria Joannes adiuvit, quotiens aerario . . . propria pecunia subvenit. Ego illos optimos amicos putarem qui mihi pecuniam discederent . . . dicit Demosthenes, opus est pecuniis, sine quibus fieri nihil potest, (Carbone substantially repeats this segment in Epithalamium #153, fol. 226v in a less convoluted manner.) dicere solebat Demosthenes qui pecuniam rei publicae nervos appellabat. Amplissimas aedes in urbe condidit, rura extruxit amoenissimas villas. Convivia lautissima et epipara saepenumero celebravit, principes, cardinales, diversarum gentium legatos et oratores magnificentissime accipiens, unde ob hanc animi sui magnitudinem meruit ut equestri dignitate donaretur a magnanimo illo . . . eloquentissimo pontifice maximo Pio secundo.” 149. Paul A. Rahe, Republics, Ancient and Modern: The Ancien Régime in Classical Greece (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1994), I: 24. 150. On magnificence and fame through building in Florence, see Richard A. Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore: Johns Hop-

Notes to Pages 75–77

151. 152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

223

kins University Press, 1980), 83–90, and in general, Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990), 1–31. Kraye, 1997, 111. Epithalamium #156, 28r–v, “Non, inquam, te pigebit relicta Neapoli venisse Ferrariam quam ego fere auream interpretari soleo. Videbis laetissimam Urbem fluviorum rege Pado cinctam, novis moenibus adornatam, tot publicis privatisque aedificiis atque palatiis instructam, tot magnificis villis per rura distinctam. Videbis populosissimam civitatem, benignissimum populum. Videbis florentissimam iuventutem nihil omnino a Neapolitana elegantia . . . dissidentem. Videbis clarissimum illud Chartusiense coenobium, videbis totam curiam instauratam penitusque renovatam, videbis novum septum et leporarium ab Hercule tuo peractum quem Graeci Paradison vocant ubi animalia tenentur inclusa.” Epithalamium #159, fol. 111r. Carbone also praises Ercole’s building projects in his dialogue De amoenitate, utilitate, magnificentia Herculei Barci (1474) and in his De Neapolitana profectione in Zannoni, 196. On urban planning in Ferrara, see Thomas Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara: Ercole d’Este, 1471–1505, and the Invention of a Ducal Capital (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996). Epithalamium #156, fol. 18r–v, “An Ferdinandi eloquentiam tacere debeamus cuius ab ore melle dulcior fluit oratio, ut de Nestore ait Homerus? Verba cum tanto sententiarum pondere ut vere facundus, vere disertus, vere eloquens, verus ipse sit habendus orator, vehemens simul atque suavis. Quis mitius consolari, quis rectius adhortari, quis argutius respondere, quis potentius persuadere ceterosque in suam deducere sententiam possit quam Ferdinandus cui praeter caeteras dotes mirabilis quoque gratia linguae accessit quae sine dubio summam prudentiam comitari solet? Nemo enim graviter dicit nisi prudenter intelligat: monet ut pater, suadet ut amicus, obiurgat ut princeps precibusque minas regaliter addit.” Ibid., fols. 18v–19r, “Quamquam enim sunt qui ornatum et copiam illam verborum in rege minus necessariam, minus requirendam esse putent, brevem precisumque sermonem principum debere esse existimantes, multorum tamen iudicio eloquentia principis et affluens eius luculentaque oratio dignitatem in se regiam et speciem admirabilem habet. Nam et permulti imperatores caesares commemorari possent qui plurimam operam in rhetorica dederunt compositasque per se ipsos elegantes et uberes orationes tum in senatu tum etiam in aliis locis pronuntiarunt.” Ibid., fol. 19r, “Unde mirum videri non debet si doctissimos et eloquentissimos viros secretarios suos apud se in honore praecipuo divus Ferdinandus habeat Franciscum Patritium Caietanum . . . et Joannem Pontanum,

224

157. 158.

159.

160.

161. 162.

163.

164.

165.

Notes to Pages 77–78

ingenio summoque dicendi lepore praestantissimum, tot tantaque ornamenta tua, illustrissime princeps, tibi auctoritatem et foelicitatem attulerunt ut iam totam Italiam in manibus tuis et arbitrio teneas, nihil magni momenti sine Ferdinandi nutu agatur, nulli de inimicis tuis supersint aut qui erant inimici facti sunt amicissimi.” Epithalamium #141, 127. On this theme in the court of Naples, see Bentley, 216–219. Epithalamium #331, fol. 96v, “Is (Nicholas) ut facilius sublimi speculatione sua ad omnium rerum notitiam penetraret varios mortalium mores, diversarum gentium multifarias naturas, situm diffusi orbis et mundi remotissimas regiones per ingentia maris ac terrae pericula late peregrinatus studuit oculorum inditio et cognitione callere, fortem illum imitatus Ulixem . . . regnum eius vere tranquilitatis reget et tute salutis portus dici . . .” Ruggiero Romano, “L’Intellettuale nella società italiana del XV e XVI secolo,” in Tra due crisi: l’Italia del Rinascimento (Turin: Einaudi, 1971), 135–136. Grendler (2002), 100. On Leonello and Ferrarese culture, see Gundersheimer, 92–126. See also Angelo Decembrio’s dialogue De Politia Litteraria (circa 1445) in which Leonello is praised as a literary and artistic patron. See, Michael Baxandall, “A Dialogue on Art from the Court of Leonello d’Este,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963): 304–325. Gundersheimer, 160. See, for example, Epithalamium #300. Although he was not an avid reader, Borso was fond of the physical beauty of books. He employed manuscript illuminators and miniaturists, and expanded the Este collection of such works, as noted in Gundersheimer, 240. Giannozzo Manetti, Panormita and other humanists similarly praised Alfonso of Aragon’s patronage of arts in orations, as discussed in Bentley, 217–219. Epithalamium #160, fol. 113r, “Dum paratus essem ut ad hunc honestissimum locum accederem susceptumque hoc munus absolverem, inclyte dux ac suavissime princeps, humanissimi patres virique doctissimi, factus est mihi obviam quidam ex eo genere hominum quos hypocritas vocant seque rem admodum necessariam mihi narrare velle dixit. Quod ubi audivi steti equidem gradum sistens. Perambulabam enim in via constitutam horam expectans, quaesivi ab eo mirabundus quidnam novi afferet.” Ibid., fol. 113r, “Tum ille: Video te, inquit, Lodovice, paulo post orationem habiturum et in conventu clarissimorum civium pro tuo more dicturum. Unum est igitur quod ego te pro mea summa in tuum iucundissimum ingenium benivolentia monitum volo ne longiori deinceps quodam ser-

Notes to Pages 78–78

225

mone utaris qui delicatas nostri ducis aures fastidio possit afficere. Non enim amplius ad Leonellum illum tuum verba facies qui tibi erit persaepe lugendus qui gustum habebat in litteris non mediocrem . . . Nunc vero imperium tenet Borsius qui magis armorum gloriam adamasse videtur atque ad res bellicas abstractus studia et litterulas nostras contempsisse. Itaque si consilium meum accipias brevissime omnia explicabis, citiusque quam soleas tuam istam collaudationem expedies ne aut Divo Borsio gravis fias aut novis auditoribus molestus.” 166. Ibid., fol. 113r–v, “Haec cum ineptus dixisset hypocrita, a me illum in malam rem abire iussi mecum ipse indignatus, praesertim quod mihi Leonelli mortis dolorem refricabat, praesertim quod germani eius honorem minuere videbatur. Non erubescis, inquam, obscena cloaca regi post hominum memoriam eximio tam confidenter detrahere? Qui, quamquam non in legendis libellis nostris tempus omne consumpserit, utpote qui more clarissimorum principum primam illam aetatem in militia traduxerit et grave Martis opus tollerare didicerit, studiosos tamen et eruditos homines summo amore complectitur et miro honore persequitur, cuius quidem rei testimonium illud certissimum sumere possumus. Nam cum Leonellus auctor studiorum nostrorum diem suum obiisset erat una omnium fere opinio periturum Ferrariense gymnasium nobisque ad alia loca disciplinarum gratia proficiendum. At Borsius . . . inquam, qui omnia quae optima Leonellus instituit servanda quae vero bona meliora facienda duxisset cum plurima et egregia in populum et cives suos contulisset, liberalium quoque artium impensam omnem ad se pro sua singulari largitate recepi, et litterarum studia a Leonello incohata non modo in urbe nostra conservanda, verum etiam consumptu et liberalitate sua exornanda et mirum in modum adaugenda in animum induxit, quod profecto nunquam fecisset si elegantem suorum civium doctrinam et dicendi copiam non ad sui nominis immortalem gloriam pertinere arbitraretur, si doctissimos viros non libenter et videret et audiret.” 167. Ibid., fol. 113v, “Non tamen idcirco id a me dictum existimetis velim quod longissimam nunc orationem expectare debeatis, quod neque temporis angustia sineret in quam compulsi sumus neque vestra pateretur humanitas quorum dignitati non parum certe consulendum, sed ut intelligatis me propterea perdidisse animum quia sit Leonellus extinctus, immo vero magis atque magis in dies excitari ad eloquentiae studium, nec dubitare ullo modo quin eum Borsius amet aliquando quem Leonellus tantopere dilexit.” 168. Paolo Viti, “L’umanesimo nell’Italia settentrionale e mediana,” in Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. III, Il Quattrocento, ed. Enrico Malato (Rome: Salerno S. R. L. Editrice, 1996), 581; Stephen J. Campbell, Cosmè Tura of

226

169. 170.

171.

172.

173.

174.

175.

Notes to Pages 78–79

Ferrara: Style, Politics and the Renaissance City, 1450–1495 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 60. Gundersheimer, 163–164. Epithalamium #165, fol. 167r–v, “Etsi orationibus meis iam finem videbar imposuisse, mitissime dux ac benignissime princeps, paucisque ante diebus cives meos tanquam extremum eram allocutus proposueramque apud animum meum non amplius in hoc laboriosissimo et legendi et orandi officio versari atque aliud potius vitae genus ingredi non quod laborem fugiam qui, ut inquit Plato,—id est gloriae pater esse consuevit sed ob eas difficultates et molestias intolerabiles quas quottidie a tuis hominibus indigne perferimus.” Ibid., fol. 168r, “Tantum hoc meum consilium fregerunt viri amplissimi, quorum et dignitas et auctoritas permaximi est apud me ponderis, persuaseruntque mihi non esse in tam brevi temporis spatio penitus eijciendam spem illam quam ego in te semper optimam habuissem. Itaque nulla te admiratio teneat si mutata sententia propositum illud meum flexerim et sanissimas aures tuas nobis ut soles patienter adhibeas dum te novae cuiusdam affinitatis certiorem facimus,” Ibid., fol. 168r, “dum ea tibi narramus quae animum tuum non mediocri laetitia perfundere debeant. Quippe quae ad incrementum civitatis, ad seminarium rei publicae, ad immortalem nominis tui gloriam pertineant. Quae cum ita sint, habes, ut arbitror, inclyte dux, causam nostri huius ad te adventus! . . . lepidissimoque ore tuo et nutu serenissimo placere tibi ostendas. Danda praeterea est opera ut nos crebras orationes edere possimus. Nam, ut verum scias, ego stipendiolum et sallariolum illud quod mihi constituisti etiam pro superiore anno adhuc habere non potui. Vide quo animo, quo stomacho esse debeam. Non est aliquis angulus in isto tuo aerario quorum ego sursum deorsumve cursitando non intraverim. Non est per deos iustum, aequissime princeps, nec honestum nec ullo modo conveniens aut celsitudini tuae aut etiam litterarum nostrarum dignitati . . . Mallem numquam legisse litteras.” Ibid., fol. 168r, “Inveni ego populum qui mihi nec viso nec audito unquam ducentos aureos in annum sine ullo fastidio pollicetur. Sed ego respondi faciem et oculos Borsinos mihi esse pro centum millibus et postea quae petam negare audebis.” Alfonso Lazzari, “Un’orazione di Lodovico Carbone a Firenze” Atti e memorie della r. deputazione di storia patria per le provincie modenesi 12 (1919), 189. Epithalamium #164, fols. 164v–165r, “Nam hic apud vos unam spem habemus esurituros nos satis ut ait Terentianus ille Syrus. Histrionibus et tibicinibus quottidie suppeditantur pecuniae in sumptus superfluos, nos

Notes to Pages 79–83

176.

177.

178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184.

185.

227

autem, si diis placet, fame perimus et sexcenta fastidia patimur quae stomachum moverent et ieiunis.” Ibid., fol. 165r, “Sed video quid quaeritis: Deest vobis episcopus, necesse est ut ego Romam proficiscar, deinde ad vos revertar pastor omnium Ferrariensium. Sine ulla tamen hypocrisi, tunc pingues orationes edemus.” Epithalamium #169, fol. 219r, “Eodem modo [as the artist] mihi accidisse intelligo. Nam, si antea vobis parum eloquens, parum disertus, parum facundus visus fuerim, id ipsum mercedi exiguae imputare debetis. Non enim a parvo stipendio excitari possunt magna ingenia. Nunc autem cum satis honorifice mecum agatis quamquam nondum ad debitam summam pervenistis sed tamen fiunt res nostrae in dies meliusculae, non erit mirandum si iam aliquid dignum nomine oratoris excudemus, si ex patefactis eloquentiae fontibus aliquid hauriemus dignum auribus elimatis, dignum expectatione vestra, ita ut ad hoc usque tempus languido et inerti sopore detenti fuisse, nunc primum a diuturno somno excitati esse videamur.” De Neapolitana profectione in Zannoni, 190. Ibid., 191. Ms: Vatican City, Vat. Lat. 8618, Dialogus pro domo impetranda. Ms: Vatican City, Vat. Lat. 8618, De foelicitate Ferrariae deque optimo Ducis Herculis principatu, as quoted in Lazzari, 189. Ibid., 191–192. L. Paoletti, DBI (1976), 19: 700; Grendler (2002), 222. Giulio Bertoni, Guarino da Verona fra letterati e cortigiani a Ferrara (1429–1460) (Geneva: Olschki, 1921), 110–114. Bertoni has published a number of creditors’ notices that authorize the requisition of Carbone’s salary due to debt. On the idea of creativity and originality, see Paul Oskar Kristeller “‘Creativity’ and ‘Tradition’,” in Renaissance Thought and the Arts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 247–258.

4. The Culture of Marriage and Sex in Italian Courts 1. Parts of this chapter appeared in Anthony F. D’Elia, “Marriage, Sexual Pleasure, and Learned Brides in the Wedding Orations of FifteenthCentury Italy,” Renaissance Quarterly 55 (2002), 390–423. 2. For Florentine humanists, see, for example, Coluccio Salutati’s letter in defense of his marriage and the dialogues of Poggio Bracciolini and Bartolomeo Scala discussed in chapters one and five. 3. In Epithalamium #274, fol. 110r, for example. 4. See, for example, Epithalamia #152, fol. 205v; #140, fol. 27v; and Epithalamium #147, fol. 35v.

228

Notes to Pages 84–86

5. The earliest reference to the wise man question in a wedding oration is in 1437 by the otherwise unknown orator Duodus, Epithalamium #216, fols. 118v–119r. See also Epithalamium #120, fol. 20r, and Epithalamium #164, fol. 164v. 6. The Sienese humanist Agostino Dati, Epithalamium #203, fol. 106v (numbering confused), refers to King Solomon as an example of wisdom and happiness in marriage, but he does not list ideal rulers or refer to living rulers as wise men who marry. 7. Epithalamium #183, 49–50. 8. Compare this with the extensive list of philosophers in Brancati, Epithalamium #147, fols. 34v–35r, transcribed in Mauro de Nichilo, Retorica e magnificenza nella Napoli aragonese (Bari: Palomar, 2000), 102. 9. Epithalamium #183, 49 and 52. 10. See, for example, Poggio Bracciolini, Epithalamium #146. 11. As noted by Werner L. Gundersheimer, “Women, Learning, and Power: Eleonora of Aragon and the Court of Ferrara,” in Beyond Their Sex: Learned Women of the European Past, ed. Patricia L. Labalme (New York: New York University Press, 1980), 44–45. 12. Patrizi was bishop of Gaeta (1460–1494). See Felice Battaglia, “Patrizi, Francesco,” Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere, ed arti (Rome: Istituto Giovanni Treccani, 1935), 26: 521–522, and Mario Emilio Cosenza, Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classical Scholarship in Italy, 1300–1800 (Boston: G. K. Hall 1962), 3: 2632–2634. 13. Epithalamium #283, fol. 196r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 393. 14. Epithalamium #183, 52–53. 15. See, for example, Epithalamium #100, fol. 18v. For antiquity, see pseudoDionysius of Halicarnassus in Menander Rhetor, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 367, who paraphrases Aristotle (Politics 1.1252a 17–1253a 39; Nicomachean Ethics 8.1162a 16–19). 16. Epithalamium #237, 23. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 394. 17. Epithalamium #142, fol. 131v. See also Carbone’s treatment of this theme in Epithalamium #164, fol. 165v. Livy (I.9–13), Ovid (Fasti 3.199–228), and Plutarch (Vita Romuli II.14–19) relate the Sabine rape. 18. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “An Ethnology of Marriage in the Age of Humanism,” in Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 254–255, 258; Baldassare Castiglione, “Il libro del Cortegiano” (1528) in Opere di Baldassare Castiglione, Giovanni Della Casa, Benvenuto Cellini, ed. Carlo Cordié (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1960), 235–236; Cristelle L. Baskins,

Notes to Pages 86–89

19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

229

Cassone Painting, Humanism, and Gender in Early Modern Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 103–127. Epithalamium #255, fol. 28v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 395. Lucan, De bello civili I: 111–120. Carbone ends his list of saving marriages with such an hypothetical statement, in Epithalamium #156, fol. 8v, and Epithalamium #164, fol. 165v. See also the anonymous Epithalamium #120, fol. 21r. Epithalamium #164, fol. 165v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 396. Giuseppe Pardi, Leonello D’Este: Marchese di Ferrara (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1904), 41–66, and Alessandro Luzio, “Isabella d’Este e Francesco Gonzaga promessi sposi,” Archivio storico lombardo, s.4, 35 (1908), 34–69. For Aragonese marriage alliances, see Ernesto Pontieri, Per la storia del regno di Ferrante I d’Aragona re di Napoli (Naples: Morano, 1958), 57–96. Epithalamium #286, fol. 17r. Epithalamium #271, fols. 25v–26r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 397. Giovanni Brancati, Epithalamium #147, fol. 41r–v, similarly praises Ferrante for finding a suitable husband for his daughter and thereby maintaining peace in Italy, transcribed in de Nichilo (2000), 92. Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince, trans. Lester K. Born (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), 243. Epithalamium #283, fol. 197r. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 7703, Vicecomitum Estensisque Familiae Veteris Affinitatis Diuturnae Amicitiae ac Mutui Presidii Memoria; MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 13506, Mario Equicola, Genealogia d’Este (1516). On Equicola’s Genealogia see Stephen Kolsky, Mario Equicola: The Real Courtier (Geneva: Olschki, 1991), 238, 318–319. De Nuptiis Mediolanensium et Estensium Principum, in Festa di nozze per Ludovico il Moro, ed. Guido Lopez (Milan: De Carlo, 1976), 110–113; Epithalamium #323, fols. 47r–50r. Epithalamium #323, fol. 47r–v. Epithalamium #323, fols. 47v–48r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 398. For praise of wealth in Florence, see Hans Baron, “Civic Wealth and the New Values of the Renaissance,” in In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 1: 226–257; Christopher S. Celenza, Renaissance Humanism and the Papal Curia: Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger’s De curiae commodis (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 1999), 71–80; and chapter one. As noted in Lauro Martines, Power and Imagination: City-State in Renaissance Italy (New York: The Historical Association, 1981), 222–225. In 1469, for example, the Comune of Ferrara withheld officials’ salaries, as noted in Lao Paoletti, “Carbone, Ludovico,” DBI 19 (1976), 700; and

230

35. 36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42. 43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48. 49. 50.

Notes to Pages 89–92

Giulio Bertoni, Guarino da Verona fra letterati e cortigiani a Ferrara (1429–1460) (Geneva: Olschki, 1921), 110–114. Anonymous, De mulieribus accipiendis in uxorem MS: Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II IV 108, fol. 80r; and Epithalamium #140, fol. 28r. Latin text in Eugenio Garin, “La Cultura milanese nella seconda metà del XV secolo,” in Storia di Milano, L’Età sforzesca dal 1450 al 1500 (Milan: 1956), VII: 548. Epithalamium #144, fol. 52r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 399. Epithalamium #45, fol. 26v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 400. Epithalamium #162, fols. 132v–133r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 400. “Basinius ad Puellam Nubentem Seni” in Poeti latini del quattrocento, ed. F. Arnaldi, L. G. Rosa, and L. Monti Sabia (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1964), 218–220. The Florentine poet Ugolino Verino (1438–1516) wrote a similar poem against his girlfriend for marrying an old man, “Ad Flamettam quae Bruno Nupsit,”in ibid., 858–860. Epithalamium #323, fol. 48v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 400. Epithalamium #286, fol. 17v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 401. Menander, 143–147. Leonard Forster, The Icy Fire: Five Studies in European Petrarchism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 98, 106–115, argues that epithalamia became increasingly erotic in the sixteenth century. Although Giustiniani was famous for his love poetry in the Venetian vernacular, he turned to devotional and spiritual writing in his later years. He was married. See Cosenza, 2: 1874–1877; Manlio Torquato Dazzi, Enciclopedia italiana (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1951), 17:385; Margaret L. King, Venetian Humanism in an Age of Patrician Dominance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 383–385. Lionardo Giustiniani, Oratio ad Inducendum Stomachum de Mulieribus. MS: British Library, Add. 26784, fol. 29r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 402. As discussed in R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 37–63. For the possible Near Eastern and Late Antique origins of the story, see A. Collingwood Lee, The Decameron: Its Sources and Analogues (London, 1909), 110–116. Epithalamium #166, fols. 174r–175r. Epithalamium #166, fol. 175r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 403. Lorenzo Valla, On Pleasure: De Voluptate, ed. and trans. A. Kent Hieatt and Maristella Lorch (New York: Abaris Books, 1977), 96–98. My translation

Notes to Pages 92–94

51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62.

63.

64.

231

of Valla is adapted from Lorch’s translation and the Latin text she provides. Valla, 362. Valla edited this passage out of later editions, as noted in Maristella de Panizza Lorch, A Defense of Life: Lorenzo Valla’s Theory of Pleasure, Humanistiche Bibliotek: Texte und Abhandlungen, no. 36 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1985), 303, n. 27. She uses the deletion as proof of the seriousness of Valla’s intention for the work as a whole. Valla, 98. Lorch (1985), 87, 102–103. Epithalamium #259, fols. 40v–41r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 405. Epithalamium #141, 122. Epithalamium #166, fol. 175v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 405. Epithalamium #153, fol. 223v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 405. Epithalamium #170, fol. 223v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 405. Epithalamium #159, fol. 112r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 406. In Plato’s Symposium (201d-207a), Socrates relates what he heard from the wise woman Diotima about beauty and love. Plato’s Charmides (154–159a) is also a source for defenses of physical beauty. In the dialogue Socrates is enthralled by the beauty of a young boy. On the reception of these works in the fifteenth century, see James Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), I: 80–81, 313, and passim. Marsilio Ficino, Commentary on Plato’s Symposium on Love, trans. Sears Jayne (Woodstock, CT: Spring Publications, 1985), 58, 84, 126, 132. Baldesar Castiglione, Il Libro del cortegiano, IV: 57; translation from The Book of the Courtier, trans. Charles S. Singleton (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1959), 342. This is loosely adapted from Ficino, 47–49. Epithalamium #323, fol. 48v, “Nam et forma, qualis in regibus esse debet, honestissima maiestate auctoritateque sua non caret, et ad virtutis institutionem, tales uterque vestrum auctores sortiti estis, ut nec meliores nec magis necessarios dare ne immortales quidem dii potuissent.” MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottob. Lat. 1834, Baldasaris Rasini Oratio de Celeberrimis Francisci Sfortiae Ligurum Ducis Laudibus Ticinensem apud Achademiam in Sacro Divi Francisci Delubro Feliciter Habita Incipit, fol. 2r–v, “Quis nam est . . . qui herois potentissimi faciem atque eximiam corporis magnitudinem incredibili forma ac excellenti pulchritudine roseoque colore insignitam non demiretur ac magnopere collaudet ubi omnes ita inter se exactissima compositione ab unguiculis inferioribus ad caput conveniunt artus ut quicquid ipsa assequi natura potuit in eum ipsum haud dubie congessisse censeatur? Advertite queso mirabile ac refulgentissimum in suo vultu decus, oculos vivaces, frontem iocundissimam, humanitatem, quae pre se fert, facilitatem, comitatem et inauditam

232

65. 66. 67.

68.

69.

70. 71. 72.

73. 74. 75. 76.

77.

Notes to Pages 94–97

ubi res postulat severitudinem quae addicta clementiae omne septrum atque imperium contutari ac perpetuo confoveri consuevit.” Ibid., fol. 2v; Virgil, Aeneid 5.344. Ibid., fols. 2v–3r. Ibid., Rasinus describes Francesco’s relatives on the following folios: Blanca Maria (4v–7r), Hipolita Maria (7r–8r), Galeazzo Maria (8r–9r), Agnes Vicecomes (9r–10r). Epithalamium #150, fol. 200v, “Vultis, formae dignitates, quam principi adesse oportere, et Homer et Virgilius fatentur, quorum alter Achillem et Agamemnonem, alter Eneam suum formosissimum semper facit. Sed quam venustiorem aut digniorem faciem potuit aut natura producere aut ars hominis imitari quam eam quam Borsio dextra numina concesserunt? Et Jovem et Mercurium elaborasse puta ad Borsinum corpus esse iugendum. Quis enim est qui semel eius flavam rutilantemque cesariem, serenissimam frontem, laetos oculos, honores ardentium lumine glauco, teretem vultum, herculeum pectus, imperatorios gestus, tonumque illius cygnicae vocis adnotaverit, non ei se totum tradat, totumque devoveat non eum dignissimum arbitretur qui universo mundo imperaret?” Epithalamium #152, fol. 207v, “. . . etiam veneranda corporis maiestas, tanta formosissima oris et specisissimi vultus hilaritatem quae omnes turbidissimam tempestatem serenaret.” Werner L. Gundersheimer, Ferrara: The Style of a Renaissance Despotism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 160. Valla, 96. Epithalamium #183, fol. 25v, “Proceritate etenim corporis excellens Cammilla et gratia membrorum proportione spectanda dignitatem maiestatemque vere regiam prae se ferre dignoscitur, cuius marmoream effigiem ad te delatam cum vidissem, sculptorem ego semper iudicavi materia imaginis quam arte feliciorem, quod nequiquam fefelisse iam cernimus. Adde modestiam ac virginalem decorem splendoremque oculorum ut non iam mortalem sed divinius quoddam videre videamur.” Epithalamium #141, 122. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 406. Epithalamium #166, fol. 175r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 407. Epithalamium #157, 248. Tutte le opere di Giovanni Boccaccio, ed. Vittore Branca (Milan: Mondadori, 1976), 4: 442–443; Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron, trans. G. H. McWilliam (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 406. De Neapolitana Profectione in Giovanni Zannoni, “Un viaggio per l’Italia di Lodovico Carbone, umanista (1473)” Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei 7 (1898), 197, “. . . Coepi ab initio stomachari cum viderem tam licentiosam libertatem in muliere deformi.—Si formosa esset, non sine

Notes to Pages 97–98

78.

79. 80.

81. 82.

83.

233

turpitudine aut suspicione aliqua id fieret.—Veritus sum et maxime timui ne petulantia sua nos etiam ad saltandum raperet, qui aliorum spectatores cum gravitate sedebamus. At postea mecum in animo meo diligentius reputanti visum est huiusmodi mimorum et histrionum ingenia et audaciam principibus necessariam ad deterrendos interdum et repellendos importunos quosdam homines, qui assidue regibus molesti esse non erubescunt.” Edward Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London: Athlone Press, 1980), 252ff. On Jerome’s use of Juvenal, see ibid., 259–262; D. Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist: A Study in Christian Latin and Letters (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1964), 152–158. In addition to Juvenal, Carbone cites Virgil, Livy, and Seneca as authorities against marriage, Epithalamium #162, fol. 132v. Domenico Sabino also quotes Juvenal in his dialogue (discussed below), fol. 110r. Malleus maleficarum, trans. Montague Summers (London: Arrow, 1971), 41–47 and passim. Giovanni Boccaccio, Opere in versi, Corbaccio, Trattatello in laude di Dante, prose latine, epistole, ed. Pier Giorgio Ricci (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1965), 496. Translation taken from The Corbaccio, ed. and trans. Anthony K. Cassell (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975), 24. Ibid., in ed. Ricci, 560, and trans. Cassell, 77. Giustiniani, fol. 29r, “Avarissimum quippe animal est femina, iracundum, ineffabile, infidele, libidinosum, truculentum, vanis potius quam certis avidum.” Such conclusions abound in similar literature. See, for example, Ambrosius de Vignate, full reference below, fol. 69r, “. . . femina animal stultum, inconstans, perfidum, intemperans et pene irrationabile cui omne malum adiectivum accomodari potest in quo paululum est rationis ac plurimum appetitus. Ac in quo nihil est boni preter quod in cauda defert.” MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Regin. Lat. 1557, Ambrosius de Vignate, Dialogus de Rationibus Matrimonii Contrahendi, fols. 66v–67r, “Quotque et quanta incommoda homini accidunt tu ipse pulchre intelligis. Meministi, scio, invictum Hannibalem annis victum et effeminatum libidinosis lasciviis Capuanorum a milite Romano superatum . . . si non libidine atque luxu virtus extitisset rem publicam Romanorum Africanus subegisset . . . partam gloriam vel minimo momento non modo perdidit frangitque verum in summam infamiam convertit infelix ac pernitiosa cupido. Corporis animique vires rumpit summos et illustres triumphos obscurat dignitati auctoritatique . . . Et si quid tibi umquam aut dignitatis . . . virtus tua dederit efficit libido ut fortuna potius virtute adeptus existimeris ac ad extremum non numquam summos et prestantes viros in maximam redegit servitutem.”

234

Notes to Pages 99–100

84. Ibid., fol. 67r, “Scriptum enim memini quia urbs Atheniensium voluptati nimium tribuit imperium maximum amisit, Roma autem, quae labore delectata est, maximum imperium occupavit.” 85. See also MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8761, fols. 107r–113r, Ioannis Lamolae Bononiensis ad Clarum ac Generosum Virum Guido Antonium Lambertinum de Pudicitiae sive Castitatis Laudibus Epistola Incipit. The author blames the problems of the city (Bologna?) on lewdness and lust, on fol. 112r–v. 86. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Chis. H IV 111, fols. 108v–117v, Dominici Sabini de Uxorum Commodis et Incommodis, fol. 110v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 407. 87. Ibid., fol. 110v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 407. 88. The poem, De Conjuge non Ducenda, is published in Latin Poems Commonly Attributed to Walter Map, ed. Thomas Wright (London: J. B. Nichols and Son, 1841), 77–85. It is discussed in Katherina Wilson and Elizabeth Makowski, Wykked Wyves and the Woes of Marriage (Albany: SUNY University Press, 1990), 124–132. Fifteenth-century copies exist in Florence, Seville, and Uppsala. In Florence, it is preserved in the same volume as many wedding orations. Alberti, who never married, translated into Italian a similar medieval misogynistic piece by Walter Map, “Dissuasio Valerii ad Ruffinum philosophum ne uxorem ducat,” in Opere volgari, ed. Cecil Grayson (Bari: Laterza, 1966), 2: 369–380. For medieval misogynistic works, see also Jean Leclercq, “Un Témoin de l’Antiféminisme au moyen age,” Revue Bénédictine 80, nos. 3–4, (1970): 304–309. 89. Map?, 83. 90. Sabino, fols. 114r–115r. See fol. 113v, for a similar tirade. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 408. 91. For Augustine, see chapter one. Medieval and Renaissance preachers also subscribed to this view, as noted in David D’Avray and M. Tausche, “Marriage Sermons in ad status collections of the central middle ages,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen Age 47 (1980): 71–119; and Bernadette Paton, Preaching Friars and the Civic Ethos: Siena, 1380–1480 (Exeter: Short Run Press, 1992), 210–264. 92. This is a commonplace in wedding orations. See, for example, Epithalamia #13, fol. 4r; #331, fol. 100r; and, #17, fol. 6r. 93. Epithalamium #279, fol. 344r, “Quod per se antea turpissimum fuit, in matrimonio statim fiat honestum . . .” 94. Epithalamium #238, fols. 55v–56r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 410. 95. See, for example, anonymous Epithalamium #72, fols. 285r–v. 96. First born of Francesco Filelfo and Teodora Chrysoloras, the daughter of Francesco’s teacher. See Franco Pignatti, DBI (1997) 47:626–31.

Notes to Pages 100–102

235

97. Epithalamium #296, fol.141v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 411. 98. “Intesi ch’a così fatto tormento / enno dannati i peccator carnali, / che la ragion sommettono al talento,” Dante, Inferno, V: 37–39. 99. Anonymous, De Nuptiis, MS: Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana 1131, fol. 10v. 100. MS: Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana 97, Sermo Matrimonialis per Petrum Valvasorem Editus, fol. 65r, “Gratias habiturus, ornatissimi patres, in crastinum differo cursum. Diverto ne Spiritinum nostrum mi potissime tamen hac nocte totis viribus enitendum est ut ingenue sponsae tuae posse tuum ostendas. Stimulos acue. Et si hoc tempore noctes breviusculae sint quam bellum istud appeteret, ceradanum tamen usque proparandum est, bel Trecate, nec patiaris aliquid huius noctis spacium iners abire, quod hercle facies si Leandri tui verbis memineris (Ovid)—‘Nam magis illius numerati gaudia noctis / Hellespontiati quam maris alga potest.’” 101. Ibid., fol. 65r, “Hoc tibi tantopere persuasum velim, ne aliquando inter conscias(?) nocturnum certamen expertus crebraque virorum suorum recitantes, paupercula, tam formoso, tamque apparenti viro se deceptam atque infelicem vel intelligat vel enarret. Hec spes imbecillitatem nec probitatem metuas ocultari posse. Profecto quales fueritis crastina facierum vestrarum indicia vero non mihi saltem hic materculis quae probe mondum noverunt optime declarabunt.” 102. Ibid., fol. 65r, “Quare viribus congrediendum censeo. Hoc si feceris, rem et te dignam et egregie sponse tue novarum, ni fallor, rerum ignare adeo gratam efficies ut nihil magis. At si vires defuerunt non saltem virilia verba deficiant. Postremo, Spiritine mi, quam maxime opto res ipsas manu tua scriptas habere ut quanti sis novarie consciis meis ostendere possim. Quod ut facias et precor etiam obsecro. Bene valete.” 103. Epistle III.17, in Epistolario, ed. L. Mehus (Florence: Tipografia B. Pauperini, 1741), I: 92–94; translated in James Hankins, “The Latin Poetry of Leonardo Bruni,” Humanistica Lovaniensia: Journal of Neo-Latin Studies 39 (1990): 14. 104. See Joanne M. Ferraro, Marriage Wars in Late Renaissance Venice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Female impotence resulted from a too narrow vaginal passage, as discussed in Ferraro, 91–97. 105. Achille Dina, Isabella d’Aragona, Duchessa di Milano e di Bari, 1471–1524 (Milan: S. Giuseppe, 1921), 15. 106. Partially transcribed in Dina, 15–18, esp. 16. The epithalamium was modelled on Theocritus and Catullus, as discussed in Jean-Louis Charlet, “L’épithalame de G. Altilio pour les noces de Jean Galéaz Sforza et Isabelle d”Aragon, dans ses rapports avec la tradition et la culture classiques,” Res Publica Litterarum 6 (1983), 91–112. 107. Dina, 22–23.

236

108. 109. 110. 111. 112.

113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

120. 121.

122. 123. 124.

125.

126. 127.

Notes to Pages 102–106

Ibid., 34–36. Ibid., 44. Epithalamium #164, fol. 164v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 412. Epithalamium #72, fols. 285v–286r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 412. This is, however, followed by a reference to the wife’s good morals. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, ed. Rudolf Wolkan, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, vol. 61 (Vienna: A. Holder, 1909), 214, Epistle 94, to Gaspari Sligk, imperiali cancellario, November 1443. I wish to thank Emily O’Brien for giving me the reference for this and the following Piccolomini letter. Ibid., 190, Epistle 78, genitori suo Silvio, September 1443, “. . . vicit cupido, incalui, mulierem arsi multisque blandimentis adorsus sum.” Ibid., 191, Epistle 78. Paul F. Grendler pointed this out to me. “De Amore Coniugali,” in Poeti latini del quattrocento, ed. F. Arnaldi, L. G. Rosa, and L. Monti Sabia (Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1964), 448–527. “Uxorem Alloquitur,” ibid., 452. “Epithalamium in Nuptiis Aureliae Filiae,” ibid., 514, 516. Epithalamium #312, fols. 103v–104r, “I foelix, alacris et corde iocundo, ingredere thalamum elegantissimi doctoris quam plurimum te iuvabit Joannis Philippi dulcis sponsi tui, luces etiam in tanta luce Lucia.” Epithalamium #280, fol. 346r–v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 413. The earliest poem is dated in P. J. Jones, The Malatesta of Rimini and the Papal State: A Political History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 213. The poetry about Isotta is discussed and some of the poems published in Charles Emile Yriarte, Un Condottiere au XV siècle Rimini (Rothschild: Paris, 1882), 137–164, 388–397. For the Latin poetry, see Basinio Parmense, Liber Isottaeus, and selections of De Amore Iovis in Isottam, in Ugo Frittelli, Giannantonio de’ Pandoni, detto il “Porcellio,” (Florence: Paravia, 1900), 111–123. On Isotta, see Augusto Campana, DBI (1962), 4:547–546. Yriarte, 144; Jones, 213. For Amazons in literature and on cassoni, see Baskins, 26–49. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 8750, Oratio ad Convivium, fol. 38r. Two other similar orationes ad convivium are in the same manuscript, fols. 35r and 117r. See Jerome’s argument in favor of fasting, Ad Eustochium. Gibbon quotes this in his account of asceticism, Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Modern Library, 1932), II: 356. Valla, 104. Valla, 102.

Notes to Pages 106–107

237

128. On this issue in general, see Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 142ff; Eugenio Garin, “Ricerche sull’epicureismo del quattrocento,” in La Cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence: Bompiani-Sansoni, 1994), 72–92. 129. See, for example, Augustine, De Utilitate Credendi, X; translation in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), III: 352. 130. Sabino, fols. 112v–113r. See also MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 5144, fols. 128v–130v, Opinio Epicureorum Quorum Epicurus Princeps Fuit, in which the author of the 1430 treatise counters Epicurus’s idea that pleasure follows natural law by referring to divine law and supporting his position with an abundance of biblical authorities. Rodericus de Sancta Ella calls Epicureanism a heresy in MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 3639, Dialogus Contra Impugnatorem Celibatu ac Castitatis Presbytorum ad Xixtum Pontificem Maximum, fol. 2v. 131. Epithalamium #318, fol. 144v, “Ni Epicureos qui voluptatem summum bonum esse retulerunt velimus imitari quod fieri non licet probatissimis argumentis. Immo potius acerrima poena ac maximo suplicio multandi sunt qui eos tueri et benedicere audent. Erant profecto satis, mihi credite, omnis qui voluptate solum inquiunt coniugium expetendum.” See also epithalamium #332, fol. 77v. 132. Fam. I, 8, 3; Fam. X, 3, 48–49 and Rer. mem., III, 77. For a brief discussion, see Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990), 173. 133. Leonardo Bruni, Isagogicon Moralis Disciplinae (1421–1424) in Baron, ed. (1928), 25. Bruni also discusses Epicurean and Stoic ideas on the Summum Bonum in the preface to his translation of Aristotle’s Ethics, Ibid., 79–81. 134. Ibid., 25. 135. Ibid., 28. 136. Ibid., 28. 137. See Fubini, 173; Jones (1989), 149. 138. His letter in defense of Epicurus has been translated and published in Jill Kraye, ed. Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts, vol. I, Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 234–237. 139. Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany: SUNY University Press, 1977), 73. 140. Diogenes Laertius, Bk X. Cicero discusses Epicurus in De Natura Deorum, De Finibus, In Pisonem, and in other philosophical works, as discussed in

238

141.

142. 143.

144.

145. 146. 147.

148. 149.

Notes to Pages 107–108

G. Radetti, “L’Epicureismo nel pensiero umanistico del quattrocento,” in Grande antologia filosofica (Milan: C. Marzorati, 1964), VI: 839. Cicero despised “Epicurean agnosticism and political quietism,” and was equally attracted to the pleasure principle, as noted in Paul MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (London: Duckworth, 1989), 12 and passim. The other main source for Epicureanism was Lucretius’s poem, De Rerum Natura, which was available in its enitirety only after Poggio Bracciolini discovered a manuscript of it in 1417, as noted by Jill Kraye, “Moral Philosophy,” in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. Charles Schmitt and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 376–377; Jill Kraye “Philologists and Philosophers,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 153–154. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers, X.119; Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I.48. See Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 67. See, for example, Epithalamium #183, fol. 24r. De Voluptate. See also Franco Cardini and Cesare Vasoli, “Rinascimento e umanesimo,” in Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. III, Il Quattrocento, ed. Enrico Malato (Rome: Salerno S. R. L., 1996), 55; Lorch, preface to Valla (1977), 33–40. For similar ideas in Bruni, see David Marsh, “Mamma Roma, City of Women: Leonardo Bruni’s Oration to the Prostitutes,” Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Abulensis (Tempe, Arizona, 2000), 420. Valla was inconsistent on the utility of pagan philosophy. In his De Vero Falsoque Bono, he claims that the Christian faith is far superior to Ancient morality, ed. M. Lorch (Bari: Adriatica, 1970), 2. Kraye (1988) cites this, 322. De Voluptate bk II, xxviii, 5; translated in Panizza (1985), 189. On Valla’s criticism of the active-contemplative distinction, see Panizza (1985). Kraye (1988), 381–382; Jones (1989), 150–152. Eugenio Garin published the letter in “Ricerche sull’epicureismo del Quattrocento,” in La Cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence: Bompiani-Sansoni, 1994), 87–92. A translation is available in Kraye (1997): I. Epithalamium #163, fol. 156r. C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936), 16–17. Lewis focuses on Andreas Capellanus, De Arte Honeste Amandi. For criticism of Lewis’ views on courtly romance, see Bloch and Robert P. Miller, “The wounded heart: Courtly love and the medieval antifeminist tradition,” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2 (1974): 35–50.

Notes to Pages 108–109

239

150. On this subject, see Paul F. Grendler, “Chivalric Romances in the Italian Renaissance,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 10 (1988): 59–102, and, for chivalric romances as part of school curricula, Paul F. Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300–1600 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 289–299. 151. See the interesting debate on this point between Guiniforte Barzizza and Giovanni Pontano, discussed in Giovanni Pirrelli, “Un’Epistola ‘de amore’ di Giovanni Pontano,” Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Abulensis (Tempe, AZ., 2000), 519–526, and Sebastiano Valerio, “L’epistola ‘de amore’ di Guiniforte Barzizza,” ibid., 623–630. On the new humanist conception of love, see Olga Pugliese, “La Nouvelle conception de l’amour,” in L’Époque de la Renaissance 1400–1600, ed. T. Klaniczay, E. Kushner, A. Stegmann (Budapest: Akademiai, 1988), 215–224. 152. Inferno, V: 100–105. 153. Stephen Kolsky sees a similar tendency, “Bending the Rules: Marriage in Renaissance Collections of Biographies of Famous Women,” in Marriage in Italy, 1300–1650, ed. Trevor Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 227–248. For republican discussion of wives, see Leon Battista Alberti I Libri del buon governo della famiglia, in Opere volgari, ed. Cecil Grayson (Bari: Laterza 1960–1966), vol. 1: 241 and passim; and Francesco Barbaro, “De Re Uxoria,” ed. A. Gnesotto, Atti e memorie della R. Accademia di scienze, lettere ed arti di Padova 32(1915): 6–105. 154. See, for example, Epithalamia #147, fol. 30r; #183, 46–47; #283, fol. 195r. For the Renaissance interpretation of Aristotle on women, see Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 47–67. In addition to drawing directly from Xenophon’s Oikounomia, humanists may have read Alberti I Libri del buon governo della famiglia, 216ff, who draws on Xenophon to discuss the ideal wife. On the inferior role of the wife in the Renaissance, see Margaret King, Women of the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 35–42. 155. Epithalamium #162, fol. 132r–v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 415. 156. Paoletti, 701. Three of his love poems are published in Silvio Pasquazi, Poeti estensi del rinascimento con due appendici, introduzioni e testi (Florence, 1966), 164–169. On self-reference as a trope, see Menander, 151. 157. For example, see Epithalamia #165, fol. 167v, and #183, 47. 158. See, for example, Epithalamia #147, fols. 29r–31v; #183, 47–49; #283, fol. 195v–r. 159. Epithalamium #183, 49; Nicomachean Ethics 8.1162a. 160. Epithalamium #164, fols. 164v–165r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 415–416.

240

Notes to Pages 110–111

161. See Werner L. Gundersheimer, “Bartolommeo Goggio: A Feminist in Renaissance Ferrara,” Renaissance Quarterly 23 (1980): 180, and King (1991), 182–184. Carolyn James sees the treatise as satire, Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti: A Literary Career (Florence: Olschki, 1996), 75–76, 69–92. For other courtly defenses of women, see Stephen Kolsky, Mario Equicola: The Real Courtier (Geneva: Olschki, 1991), 70–77. See also Castiglione, 239–245. 162. Kolsky (1998); King (1991), 160–164, 181–185; Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 68–75; Maclean, 5, 20–23, 56. 163. Castiglione, 205–286; Joan Kelly, “Did Women have a Renaissance?” in Feminism and Renaissance Studies, ed. Lorna Hutson (Oxford, 1999) (reprint of 1977 ed.), 33. 164. Epithalamium #271, fol. 23v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 416. 165. Epithalamium #160, fol. 116r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 417. 166. Epithalamium #164, fol.165r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 417. 167. Most women who knew Latin were in convents, as noted in King (1991), 172–175. 168. Epithalamium #157, 247–248. 169. For Nogarola, see Lisa Jardine, “Women Humanists: Education for What?” in Feminism and Renaissance Studies, ed. Lorna Hutson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)(repr. 1986), 56–58; King (1991), 195–197; and for Cereta, see Laura Cereta: Collected Letters of a Renaissance Feminist, ed. Diana Robin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 80–82; Laura Cereta: Quattrocento Humanist, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr. (Binghamton, 1981), 95–96. 170. Leonardo Bruni, “On the Study of Literature (De studiis et litteris),” in The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: Selected Texts, ed. Gordon Griffiths, James Hankins, and David Thompson (Binghamton, NY: Renaissance Society of America, 1987), 244. This is also quoted in King (1991), 194. 171. Vives is discussed in Wiesner, 127. Aristotle, Politics, I. I.3 (1260a 20) and III.4 (1227b 20), and Plutarch, Mulierum virtutes, are discussed in Maclean, 54. For other criticisms of public and politically active women see Baskins, 126–127. 172. See, for example, Epithalamium #153, fol. 223r–v, for a lengthy digression on Eleanor’s devotion to Ercole. Luciano Chiappini has published numerous letters that demonstrate Eleanor’s devotion to her family and leadership on behalf of her kingdom, Luciano Chiappini, Eleonora D’Aragona: Prima duchessa di Ferrara (Rovigo: STER, 1956). On Eleanor’s religious and secular activities, see Werner L. Gundersheimer, “Eleonora of Aragon and the Court . . .” (1980), 51–53.

Notes to Pages 111–114

241

173. Epithalamium #153, fol. 223v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 418. 174. De Neapolitana Profectione in Zannoni, 195–196, “. . . non egebit interprete, non facundia tua opus erit, cum in magnorum virorum conspectum veniet; ipsa legatis, ipsa principibus, ipsa civitatum rectoribus, ipsa cardinalibus, ipsa Pontifici Maximo respondebit.” 175. This contradicts Gundersheimer (1980), “Women, Learning, and Power . . . ,” 54, who insists on “the relatively minor impact of humanist learning in her intellectual formation.” 176. See Evelyn S. Welch “Between Milan and Naples: Ippolita Maria Sforza, duchess of Calabria” in The French Descent into Renaissance Italy 1494–95: Antecedents and Effects, ed. David Abulafia (Hamphsire, U.K.: Variorum, 1995), 123–136. 177. Epithalamium #141, 122–123. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 419. 178. Ippolita’s short oration has been translated and published in Her Immaculate Hand: Selected Works By and About The Women Humanists of Quattrocento Italy, ed. Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil, Jr., Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, vol. 20 (Binghamton, NY: Renaissance Society of America, 1983), 47–48. Pius II mentions her oration in his memorabilia, Memoirs of a Renaissance Pope: The Commentaries of Pius II, trans. F. A. Gragg, ed. L. C. Gabel (New York: Capricorn Books, 1962), 116–117. 179. Epithalamium #283, fol. 197r. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 416. 180. Epithalamium #164, fol. 165r–v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 420. 181. On Boccaccio, see King (1991), 182–183. For Christine de Pizan and Laura Cereta, see ed. Rabil, 68–69, 101–102; and ed. Robin, Letters XVII–XVIII, 65–80 and Introduction, 10–11. 182. Epithalamium #151, fol. 204v. For Latin text, see D’Elia (2002), 420–421. 183. Jardine (1985), 816, writes: “Within the humanist confraternity [sic] the accomplishment of the educated women (the ‘learned lady’) is an end in itself, like fine needlepoint or the ability to perform ably on lute or virginals. It is not viewed as a training for anything, perhaps not even for virtue . . .” 184. Kelly, 31–36 and passim; Natalie Z. Davis, “Women in Politics,” in Renaissance and Enlightenment Paradoxes, A History of Women in the West, ed. Natalie Z. Davis and Arlette Farge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 169–171, argues that women in courts tended to have more political influence than women in oligarchical republics. In response to Kelly, David Herlihy concluded that women did have a Renaissance at least in one respect, the quantity and characteristics of female saints, David Herlihy, “Did Women have a Renaissance? A Reconsideration” Medievalia et Humanistica 13 (1985):1–12.

242

Notes to Pages 117–118

5. Humanist Criticisms of Celibacy and the Reformation 1. Epistle 59, to Giovanni da Bologna (1495), in Pier Paolo Vergerio, Epistolario di Pier Paolo Vergerio, ed. Leonardo Smith (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1934), 131–137. 2. John M. McManamon, S. J., Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder: The Humanist as Orator (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1996), 178. 3. Ermolao Barbaro, De Coelibatu. De Officio Legati, ed. Vittorio Branca (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1969). On the De Coelibatu and Ermolao Barbaro, see Remo Guidi, Aspetti religiosi nella letteratura del quattrocento (Rome: L.I.E.F., 1974), 2: 165–197; Margaret L. King “Caldiera and the Barbaros on Marriage and the Family: Humanist Reflections of Venetian Realities,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 6 (1976), 35–44. On Barbaro, see Emilio Bigi DBI 6 (1964), 96–99. 4. King, 40, n. 88. 5. Epistle 1, 96. Quoted and discussed in Guidi, 2: 184. 6. Epithalamium #263, fol. 77v, “Non itaque fugiendum matrimonium ut nos iugo, curis, solicitudinibus, subtrahamus, debilia enim est haec ac viro forti minus congruentia, sed ut nos integros continentesve conservemus.” 7. See, for example, Filelfo’s preface to his translation of St. Basil’s letter to Gregory of Naziazanus, in which he argues for the superiority of the solitary life, in MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 5144, fol. 121r–v. On the possible authorship of Traversari, see Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany: SUNY Press, 1977), 125. For fifteenthcentury editions of the fathers, see Umanesimo e padri della chiesa. Manoscritti e incunaboli di testi patristici da Francesco Petrarca al primo cinquecento, ed. S. Gentile (Rome, 1997). 8. Stinger (1977), 126–127; Eugene F. Rice, Jr. “The Renaissance Idea of Christian Antiquity,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil Jr. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 1: 24–25. 9. Stinger (1977), 173. For other letters in which Traversari complains about the immorality of monks, see ibid., 178–179. 10. See Rodericus de Sancta Ella, discussed below. An anonymous satire of a wedding oration also demonstrates a reaction to the popularity of works in favor of marriage, MS: Florence, Laur. Ashburnham 275, fols. 72r–78v. 11. Epithalamium #149, n.p., “Nihil fere habet qui caret uxore quod dicere possit suum. Servi expilant, sussurantur famuli, sodales et vicini carpunt. Non stipatoria, non capsae, non scrinia tuta sunt ab insidiis. Omnia iacent

Notes to Pages 118–119

12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

18. 19. 20.

243

exposita fraudi atque neglectui. Situ omnia squalent, domus insordida est tota, nihil reconditum, nihil distinctum, sine modo, sine ordine, sine nitore dissipata et proiecta sunt omnia. Tum qui uxorem non habet, domi non est. Etiam cum est domi alio cogitat, alio suspirat, habitat tanquam externus in diversorio. Non animum, non domicilium figit, non cubiculum penatesque recognoscit, invitus reperit lares plenos solitudinis et consortii vacuos. Denique non lumen lucet, non cibus sapit, non potus, non quicquam gratum est sine uxore.” Sermon 48, “De honestate coniugatorum,” in Bernardino of Siena, Opera omnia, ed. St. Bonaventure College (Florence: Quaracchi, 1950), 2: 107–108. See Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 40–42. For Bernardino’s attack on sodomy, see ibid., 36–44; David Herlihy, “Santa Caterina and San Bernardino: Their Teachings on the Faimly,” in Women, Family and Society in Medieval Europe: Historical Essays 1978–1991, ed. Anthony Molho (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995), 183, 187; Roberto Rusconi, “St. Bernardino of Siena, the Wife, and Possessions,” in Women and Religion in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, ed. Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi, trans. Margery J. Schneider, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 183–184; and Franco Mormando, The Preacher’s Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 130–142. As noted in Rocke, 11. For the Stoic and Platonic origins of the Christian conception of nature, see John Boswell, Christianity, Social Intolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 145–156. This is a commonplace in many orations. See, for example, epithalamia #94, fol. 68r; #115, fol. 69r; #140, fol. 27r; #147, fol. 32r–v. pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, “Procedure for marriage speeches,” in Menander Rhetor, ed. and trans. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 366. See Flavio di Bernardo, Un Vescovo umanista alla corte pontificia: Giannantonio Campano (1429–1477) (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1975); and F. R. Hausman, DBI 17 (1974), 424–429. See his “De laudibus virginitatis, et de duodecim mysticis domicellis Virgini Matris Dei,” in Opera omnia (1956), 4, Sermon 48. Herlihy (1995), 177–179. See also the discussion in chapter one. For Bernardino’s ideas on marriage, see Guidi, 2: 87–93; Bernadette Paton, Preaching Friars and the Civic Ethos: siena (1380–1480 (Exeter, UK: short Run Press, 1992), 210–264; Iris Origo, The World of San Bernardino (New

244

21.

22.

23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32. 33. 34.

35.

Notes to Pages 119–121

York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962), 43–76; Herlihy (1995), 189–192; and Rusconi, 182–196. Epithalamium #203, fol. 107v, “Sono vituperati finalmente et molto biasimati quelli li quali vivono senza donna et fuora del consortio coniugale, ne manchano di reprehensione et calumnia et universale odio per modo che quodammodo sono notati di infamia.” Ibid., “excepti pero quelli, li quali fussero dediti alla vera contemplatione et allo sacro misterio del divino culto emancipati. La quale è vita piu prestante et di piu maggiore perfectione.” “An seni sit uxor ducenda dialogus,” in Poggii Bracciolini opera omnia, ed. Riccardo Fubini (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1966), 2: 673–705. Bracciolini, 2: 692. Ibid., 692. July 10, 1432, Opera omnia, ed. Tonelli, 4: 492; Latin quoted in Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Rome: Bulzoni, 1990), 165, “. . . ex hac enim magna capitis sacerdotum rasura conspicio non solum pilos abradi, sed etiam conscientiam et virtutem.” Fubini (1990), 160–164, 170. Fubini supports his analysis with Poggio’s letters and his dialogue De Avaritia. Fubini (1990), 251; Epistle I: 17, “Cupio enim liber esse, non publicus servus.” Poggio, however, admitted that he was not suited to higher orders by nature. See Fubini (1990), 253; Epistle III:21, “Ego homo sum ad lenitatem et familiaritatem propensus.” As noted in Lauro Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists, 1390–1460 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), 210–214, and Fubini, 291, n. 195. Oratio ad Patres Reverendissimos, published as “L’orazione di Costanza,” in Fubini (1990), 315–319. Denys Hay, The Church in Italy in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 103. Bracciolini, in Fubini (1990), 315. Translated in Christopher S. Celenza, Renaissance Humanism and the Papal Curia: Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger’s De Curiae Commodis (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 1999), 187. Also quoted and discussed in Eugenio Garin, “Desideri di riforma nell’oratoria del quattrocento,” La Cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano: ricerche e documenti (Florence: Sansoni Editore S.p.A., 1994), 171–172. Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 28; Anna Esposito, “La città e i suoi abitanti,” in Sto-

Notes to pages 121–123

36.

37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51.

245

ria di Roma dall’antichità a oggi: Roma del Rinascimento, ed. Antonio Pinelli (Rome: Laterza, 2001), 25–26. Lauro Martines “Séduction, espace familial et autorité dans la Renaissance italienne,” Annales HSS 2 (March–April 1998): 265–266. See as well Poggio’s Facetiae. Inferno, XIX. On Boccaccio, see, in general, Natalino Sapegno DBI (1968), 10: 838–857. Giovanni Miccoli “La Storia religiosa,” in Storia d’Italia: dalla caduta dell’impero romano al secolo XVIII, ed. Ruggiero Romano and Corrado Vivanti (Turin: Einaudi, 1974), 2.1: 875–896; Silvana Seidel Menchi, “Characteristics of Italian Anticlericalism,” in Anticlericalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Peter A. Dykema and Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 271–281. Menchi (1993), 274, for example. Garin (1994), 166–182, also argues this. Fubini (1990); George Holmes, The Florentine Enlightenment, 1400–1450 (New York: Pegasus, 1969), 117. Carlo Dionisotti, “Chierici e laici,” in Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1967), 53; Denys Hay, “The Italian Clergy and Italian Culture in the Fifteenth Century,” in Annual Lecture of the Society for Renaissance Studies (London: Society for Renaissance Studies, 1973), 8; Etienne Delaruelle, E. R. Labande, and P. Ourliac, L’Église au temps du grand schisme et de la crise conciliaire (Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1962–1964), 14.2: 1140–1156. Stinger (1985), 14–31. Hay (1977), 102. On the ambiguous status of papal secretaries, see Fubini (1990), 214. Based on Martines (1963) list. Peter Burke, Culture and Society in Renaissance Italy 1420–1540 (New York: Scribner, 1972), 62. John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome: Humanists and Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 16–17. As noted in Hay, (1973), 8–9, and, (1977), 102; and D’Amico, (1983), 5–6, 69. D’Amico, 29–35. Lorenzo Valla, The Profession of the Religious and the Principal Arguments from The Falsely-Believed and Forged Donation of Constantine, ed. and trans. Olga Zorzi Pugliese (Ottawa: Dovehouse Editions, 1985), 48. Part of this passage is also translated, quoted, and discussed in Charles Trinkaus, In

246

52.

53.

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

61. 62.

63.

64. 65.

Notes to Pages 123–126

our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (London: Constable, 1970), 2: 629, who supplies the Latin original, 860. Reformatio Sigismundi, in Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation, ed. and trans. Gerald Strauss (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), 14–15. Bartolomeo Platina, Liber de vita Christi ac omnium ponitificum, ed. Giacinto Gaida, vol. 3.1, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1913–1932), 363. “Refutation of the Accusations of Josse Clichtove against the Suasoria of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in Praise of Marriage,” trans. Charles Fantazzi, in CWE 83 (1998), 130. Politics 1.1252a 17–1253a 39; Nicomachean Ethics 8.1162a 16–19. See chapter one. Epistle 3, in Coluccio Salutati, Epistolario, ed. Francesco Novati (Rome: Tipografia del senato, 1891), 2: 368–369. See Chapter One. Epistle to Nicholas Bildeston, ed. Tonelli, 2: 72, quoted in Fubini (1990), 253. Bracciolini (1966), 2: 673–705. Ibid., 2: 691. Poggio wrote the dialogue to defend his own marriage at age 56 to a much younger Vaggia di Ghino di Manente dei Buondelmonti. On Poggio’s marriage see Martines (1963), 210–214, and Fubini (1990), 291, n. 195. L. Paoletti, “Carbone, Ludovico,” DBI 19 (1976), 701. Epithalamium #152, fol. 205r–v, “At multo maiora incommoda et molestiae sequuntur eosque sine uxoribus degant : solitudo, orbitas, generis interitus, heredes incerti . . . Horum vestigia sequi decrevit Lodovicus noster qui cum se honestissimo loco natu videret, se optimarum artium doctrina praestaret, tamen felicitatem suam quodam modo mancam et debilem atque imminutam fere arbitratus est, nisi thalami sociam fidelissimamque rerum suarum custodem repperisse qua cum ut secum loqui posse(t), in cuius sinu atque sermone omnem siqua accideret amaritudinem deponere posset.” Epithalamium #16, fol. 116r, “Equidem quandoque mecum cogitans comparare soleo domum in qua non sit mulier ac virum qui uxore careat navi sine rectore naufragium patienti.” This is a reversal of the popular medieval characterization of marriage as a shipwreck, discussed in Christopher Brooke, The Medieval Idea of Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 72. Salutati (1891), 2: 368. MS: Vatican City, BAV Vat. Lat. 2928, T, II, 9, fol. 23v; quoted and translated by Ronald G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life, Works, and Thought of Coluccio Salutati (Durham: Duke University Press, 1983), 280.

Notes to Pages 126–128

247

66. As noted in Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 35, and James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 425. 67. Salutati (1891), 2: 369. 68. Alison Brown, Bartolomeo Scala 1430–1497 Chancellor of Florence: The Humanist as Bureaucrat (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 58–59. 69. “Ducendane sit uxor sapienti,” in Bartolomeo Scala: Humanistic and Political Writings, ed. Alison Brown (Tempe, AZ: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1997), 262–273. 70. Ibid., 269. 71. Epithalamium #156, fol. 5r–v, “Natura vobis quemadmodum nascendi ita et gignendi legem scribit parentesque vos alendo nepotum nutriendorum debito (siquis est pudor) alligaverunt. . . . Quod si de tanta iusta sententia conqueri ausi essent, altera poena multabantur et recte quidem cum propriam salutem negligere viderentur . . . quod iura naturae aspernari quae cunctis animantibus coniunctionis appetitum procreandi causa tribuit, quod etiam in aviculis perspicuum est quae tanto nidificandi studio tenentur ut quaedam in his coniugiorum similitudo ad simul procreandum atque nutriendum appareat, ut ipsarum etiam genus perpetuum sit.” 72. Bracciolini (1966), 2: 692. 73. Lorenzo Valla, De Voluptate, ed. and trans. A. Kent Hieatt and Maristella Lorch (New York: Abaris Books, 1977), 123–129. 74. Valla (1977), 123. Valla was no doubt following Leonardo Bruni, who praised prostitutes in his satiric Oratio Heliogabali ad Meretrices (1407), as noted in David Marsh, “Mamma Roma, City of Women: Leonardo Bruni’s Oration to the Prostitutes,” Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Abulensis (Tempe, Arizona, 2000), 413–421. 75. Valla (1977), 123. 76. Valla is following Cicero, who in Pro Caelio 14:34 invoked a Vestal virgin as an example of chastity, as noted in Marsh, 421. 77. Valla (1977), 123. 78. Salutati (1891), 2: 369–370. 79. Ibid., 2: 371. 80. Ibid., 2: 369. 81. Epithalamium #271, fol. 9r–v, “Quare eorum sententia mihi summopere laudanda videtur qui vitam coniugalem celibi ac virginali pretulerunt. Nam et si virginitatis bonum tale esse videtur ut facilius celestis gloriae splendorem assequi eique propius accedere possit, qui tamen illud sequuntur id tantum agere videntur ut sibi ipsis prosint, coniugale vero bonum amplexi non modo sibi sed familiae suae, cognatis, amicis, rei publicae,

248

82.

83.

84.

85.

86. 87. 88.

89. 90.

91. 92.

Notes to Pages 128–129

denique universo humano generi consulunt cum itaque non tantum nobis sed et aliis nati sumus. Hi multo maiore digni laude censendi sunt qui sibi et aliis quam qui sibi tantum prospiciunt quod si virginitate ordo quidam in caelo quasi angelicus augetur, at matrimonio et celum repletur et hominum genus multiplicatur. Accedit ad haec quod cum non virginitas sed matrimonium iussu divino sit constitutum, hi maiore in pretio sunt habendi qui dei preceptum implentes non celibatui sed liberorum procreationi vident.” Patrizi, De regno, cclvii (VI.5), discussed in James Hankins, “Humanism and the Origins of Modern Political Thought,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 126–127. This passage was also interpreted allegorically as a command to increase virtue rather than progeny, as in MS: Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana 1131, fols. 10v–11r. Epithalamium #296, fol. 141r, “Antea quam sacerdotium ullum institutum esset in terris, matrimonii coniugalis copula in deliciarum paradiso decreta fuit.” On Giovanni Mario Filelfo (1426–1480), son of Francesco, see Franco Pignatti DBI 47 (1997), 626–631. In Epithalamium #287, 81, Francesco Filelfo says, “Quantum autem hoc unum matrimonii . . . institutum, ceteris omnibus institutis mirifice antecellat, ea . . . reliqua sacramenta humana sunt . . . at coniugii immortalis deus est auctor.” Epithalamium #296, fol. 141r, “Admirabile certe commertium est matrimonium et cui nullus vitae status comparandus sit.” Valla (1985), 48. Also translated and discussed in Trinkaus (1970), 2: 629. See Letizia A. Panizza, “Active and Contemplative in Lorenzo Valla: the Fusion of Opposites,” in Arbeit Musse Meditation: Betrachtungen zur Vita activa und Vita contemplativa, ed. Brian Vickers (Zurich: Fachvereine, 1985), 206–208. Panizza, 208–209. See Joseph Gill, S. J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). For the Council as a meeting ground for intellectual exchanges between Greeks and Latins, see James Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 1990), vol. 1. Many married Orthodox clergy lived and officiated the mass in southern Italy and Sicily, as noted in James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 476–477. As noted in Fantazzi, CWE 83 (1998), 130, n. 73. As noted in James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London: Longman, 1995), 36, and idem, “Concubinage and Marriage in Medieval Canon

Notes to Pages 129–131

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

249

Law,” in Sex, Law and Marriage in the Middle Ages (Great Yarmouth: Variorum, 1993), VII: 9. MS: Venice, Marc. Lat. XI 83 (4360), fols. 136v–137v, “. . . Id autem omni doctissimo patet quandoquidem nulla religio, nulla civitas, nulla domus absque matrimonio constare possit. Unde non ulli ausi sunt conjugale coniunctum nedum castitati proponere, verum etiam virginitati aequare, arguentes exprime(?) universale bonum ut est conjugium particulari uti sunt castitas et virginitas esse vel preferendum vel omnino non post habendum, ut dicit Augustinus De Bono Conjugali scriptum reliquit. Non impar meritum continentis fuisse. In Abraom qui filios generavit quam in Ioanne qui nullas expertus est nuptias, et Christus Deus noster precepit quos deus coniunxit homo non separat et orthodoxa praeterea religio meam inter ecclesiam sacramentum hoc quoque de quo loquimur matrimonium numerat . . . ex hac nimirum societate divinitus copulata ortos fuisse legimus prophetas, inclitos reges, martiros, doctores, virgines, quibus caelestis aula decoratur et optimi rerum publicarum gubernatores quibus ad res maximas optime gerendas quaedam ex alto probita est gratia atque concessa.” My italics. MS: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. Lat. 3639 Rodericus de Sancta Ella, Dialogus Contra Impugnatorem Celibatu ac Castitatis Presbytorum ad Xixtum Pontificem Maximum, fols. 1r–2v, “Pervenit nuperrime ad manus meas . . . sacrilegus quidam detestandusque libellus cuiusdam Leonardi Basianensis divino quodam presagio cognomine Leti, quod letum insipientibus . . . de uxoribus presbytorum inscriptum suspexi. . . . Quo vero libentius ac commodius Ioviniani huius novi aut Epicuri detestandam heresim, ignorantiam quoque ac levitatem tua Beatitudo provideat more dyalogizantium errata eius arguam, ita ut nomen preterque libidinis cuius arma fidemque pre se fert hosti tribuam, potius vero sacerdotalis continentiae tutatricem pudiciciam appellem . . .” Ibid., fols. 6v–7r, “Vovit igitur occidentalis ecclesia in vi sinodo . . . orientalis vero quae minus culta firmaque in fide quam latina semper fuit, votum de celibatu non accepit ut in hac felicem necessitatem in illa vero infelicem et minus perfectam licenciam videas, nec ab re quidem.” For some of his works, see Erasmus on Women, ed. Erika Rummel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996). See also Guy Bedouelle, introduction to CWE 83 (1998), 33–34. Erasmus quotes Pius II in CWE 83 (1998), 130; in Epistle 61, 153, and Epistle 101, 37, he mentions Giannantonio Campano’s De Dignitate Matrimonii. In the Ciceronianus, CWE 28 (1986), 414–415 and passim, Erasmus refers to Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, Francesco Barbaro, and other Italian humanists. On Erasmus’ debt to Italian humanists, see Paul

250

98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103.

104. 105. 106. 107.

108.

109. 110. 111. 112.

113.

Notes to Pages 131–133

Oskar Kristeller, “Erasmus from an Italian Perspective,” Renaissance Quarterly 23 (1970), 1–14, esp. 3–7; and John O’Malley, “Grammar and Rhetoric in the Pietas of Erasmus,” The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988), 81–98, esp. 82. Bedouelle in CWE 83 (1998), 33. “Encomium matrimonii,” in “On the Writing of Letters,” trans. Charles Fantazzi, in CWE 25 (1985), 137. Ibid., 140. Lancellotto de’ Politi, in Erasmus and his Catholic Critics, ed. Erika Rummel (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989), 2: 133–134. Against Jan Briart in 1519, and against Josse Clichtove in 1526 and 1532. “The Defence of the Declamation of Marriage,” trans. Charles Fantazzi, in CWE 71 (1993), 91–92; CWE 83 (1998), 117–120. On genre and problems of interpretation in Erasmus, see Rummel (1996), 4–5. CWE 71 (1993), 93. For humanist praise of sex, see chapter four. Many of Erasmus’ works on marriage remained prohibited even after the Council of Trent revised the Index, as noted in Rummel (1996), 80. Steven E. Ozment, When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 3–9; idem, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 151ff.; idem, The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 88–89; and John Witte, Jr. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 47–53. Luther’s Works, ed. James Atkinson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 44: 9, “Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it is hardly possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make chastity a matter of obligation.” Ibid., 175–179. Ibid., 179. In another place, 176, he cites St. Paul, “There shall come teachers who bring the devil’s teaching and forbid marriage” (I Timothy 4). Ibid., 176. See Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 385–386. 27 March 1525, quoted by Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 272–273.

Notes to Pages 133–134

251

114. Against the So-called Spiritual Estate (1522), quoted by Oberman (1989), 275–276. 115. Rhetorical culture is central to Erasmus’ thought, as discussed in John W. O’Malley, “Erasmus and Luther: Continuity and Discontinuity as Key to Their Conflict,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 5.2 (1974), 49. On Erasmus and Luther in general, see Ozment (1980), 290–302. 116. Luther did not have much contact with humanists before 1517, but soon after they enthusiastically supported him. Many at first preferred Luther to Erasmus since his writings were direct and explicit. This is discussed and documented in Bernd Moeller, “The German Humanists and the Beginnings of the Reformation,” in Imperial Cities and the Reformation, trans. H. C. Erik Midelfort and Mark Edwards, Jr., (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 19–38, esp. 24–31. 117. O’Malley (1974) argues this. 118. As discussed and documented in Noel L. Brann, “Pre-Reformation Humanism in Germany,” The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14.2 (1984), 159–185.

Index

Abelard, Peter and Heloise, 18–19 Active/contemplative life, 20, 24–25, 29–30, 128–129 Adultery, 39, 108, 120, 121 Aemilia Africana, 112 Ajax, 69 Alan of Lille summa de arte praedicatoria, 37 Alanus de Insulis ad coniugatos, 39 Alban kings, 65 Alberti, Leon Battista Books on the Family, 7, 31, 108, 239 and misogyny, 234 Alberto da Sarteano, 38 Alexander (the Great), 56, 61, 74, 86, 88, 104, 110 Alexander VI (pope), 45 Altieri, Marcantonio li nuptiali, 86 Anticlericalism, 31, 120–134 See also celibacy, criticism of Antoninus (emperor), 60 Aquinas, Thomas (saint), 20–21 Aragon, House of, 3, 51, 57, 65–66, 87, 136 Alfonso the Magnanimous (king of Naples), 4, 58, 60, 63, 66, 77, 85 Alfonso II (duke of Calabria), 77 See also weddings Camilla. See weddings Eleanor, 75, 93, 109, 111–112 See also weddings

Ferrante I, 4, 53, 57, 60–61, 63–64, 70–71, 73–74, 75, 88 See also weddings Isabella. See weddings Ariosto Orlando furioso, 65 Aristides, 43, 54 Aristobulus, 59 Aristotle, 71 on marriage, 11 reception of, 12, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 37, 52, 54, 55, 56, 74, 84, 88, 106–107, 108, 111, 114, 123, 124 Nicomachean Ethics, 73 Aspasia, 112 Athanasius, 14 Athens, 98 Altilio, Gabriele, 102 Attila (the Hun), 67–68 Atti family, 65 Augustine, Saint de bono conjugali, 16–18 reception of, 19, 21, 23, 100 on panegyric, 52 Augustus (emperor), 47, 56–57 Aurispa, Giovanni, 60 Banquets, 45–47, 75 Banquet orations, 104–105 Barbarians, 71–72 Barbaro, Ermolao, 117–118, 242 Barbaro, Francesco, 33, 34, 45 On Wifely Duties, 7, 28, 108 reception of, 31, 39

253

254

Index

Barzizza, Gasparo, 43 Barzizza, Guiniforte, 43 as teacher, 4 wedding orations, 65, 151–152 Basinio da Parma, 89–90 Beatrice of Portugal. See weddings Beauty dangers of, 91, 98 male and female, 91–97 ugliness, 97 See also brides; grooms: women Belisarius, 66 Bembo, Pietro, 94 Bentivoglio Annibale. See weddings Giovanni, 46 Bergamo, 43 Bernardino of Siena, 38, 118–119 Beroaldo, Filippo, 46, 152 Bertalono, Francesco de Arquata wedding oration, 6, 86, 153 Bertini, Francesco wedding oration, 6, 54, 64, 77, 93, 96, 112, 113, 152 Bible, 13–14, 27, 37, 39, 107, 130, 133 Genesis, 16–17, 24, 127, 129, 137 Old Testament, 25, 65, 131 New Testament, 129 See also Jesus; Paul Boccaccio, Giovanni, 30, 52 Corbaccio, 98 Decameron, 91–92, 97, 98, 108, 121–122 On Famous Women, 32, 98, 113 Boiardo, Matteo Maria, 53 Orlando innamorato, 65 Bologna university of, 79 verse epithalamia in, 49 Boncompagni, Troilo (de Visso) wedding oration, 77, 178 Bonsa, Giovanni. See weddings Borgia, Lucrezia. See weddings Bracciolini, Poggio, 32, 33, 45, 52, 53, 101, 124–125 anticelibacy, 120–121 anticlericalism, 120–121 Facetiae, 121 his marriage, 123 on preaching, 38

on translation, 42 On Whether an Old Man should Marry, 6, 30–31, 120, 134 wedding oration, 6, 153 Brancati, Giovanni wedding oration, 47, 71, 154 Brandileone, Francesco, 36–37 Breast feeding, 117 Brides and grooms age of, 65, 66 beauty of, 93, 96–97, 110 genealogy of, 65–72 learning in brides, 110, 111–114 praise of, 40 wealth of, 88–90 See also marriage; weddings; women Bruni, Leonardo against female orators, 111 on Attila the Hun, 67 on Epicurus, 106–107 Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 28–29 Laudatio of Florence, 54 Life of Cicero, 29 Life of Dante, 30, 32, 33 marriage of, 123 on marriage, 30, 124 on panegyric, 52 on prostitutes, 247 on translation, 42 on wealth, 28 on his wedding night, 101 Burchard, Johannes, 36 Burckhardt, Jacob, 3, 8, 114 Burke, Peter, 122 Bussone, Francesco (Carmagnola), 41, 60 Byzantine. See Greek Caesar, Julius, 33, 56, 60–61, 63, 74, 109 daughter Julia, 86 Calco, Tristano, 88 Campano, Giannantonio Oration on the Dignity of Marriage, 3, 49, 118–119, 154 reception of, 131 Canale, Matteo verse epithalamium, 3, 47 Carbone, Ludovico, 44, 131 Dialogue on Obtaining a House, 227 Dialogue on the Trip to Naples, 111–112, 223

Index

love poetry, 239 marriage of, 109 On the Delightfulness, Utility, and Magnificence of Ercole Barchi, 223 On the Happiness of Ferrara and the Best Principate of Duke Ercole, 4, 80–81, 227 salary of, 77–81 student of Guarino, 40 as teacher, 4 vernacular wedding orations, 110 visual arts, 53 wedding orations, 4, 5, 6, 44, 47, 53, 57–63, 64–65, 68–81, 89, 91–97, 102–103, 107–111, 113–114, 125–127, 134, 136–137, 154–157 Carlo III (duke of Savoy). See weddings Carnival, 44–45 Cassandra, 69 Cassoni, 86 Castellesi, Adriano, 122–123 Castiglionchio, Lapo da, 121 Castiglione, Baldesar The Courtier, 8, 56, 86, 94, 110 Cato (the censor), 30, 33, 83, 105 Catullus, 235 Celibacy clerical, criticism of, 120–123, 127–130, 132 clerical, praise of, 118–119, 130 clerics criticizing, 118–119 criticism of, 27, 118–134 early Christian, 13–14 humanist supporters of, 117–118 praise of, 23, 39, 117–118 religious motives for, 118 See also marriage; virginity Cereta, Laura Against Women who Disparage Educated Women, 111, 113 Charlemagne, 65 Christianity and the body, 107 and classicism in humanist writings, 135–136 humanist criticisms of religious celibacy, 130–131 in wedding orations, 114 See also Bible; Jesus; saints and martyrs

Christianity, early celibacy of, 13–14 virginity of, 11, 14–18 Chrysoloras, Manuel, 33, 41–42 Cicero, 29, 30, 33, 37, 40, 109, 114, 126 attr. to, Ad Herennium, 38, 40, 60 as anti-marriage, 16, 19 Ciceronianism, 49, 106–107 Familiar Letters, 24–25 Letters to Atticus, 24 on wealth, 28 Cinna, 109 Circe, 109 Cleopatra, 109 Collenuccio, Pandolfo wedding orations, 6, 49, 64, 84, 85, 96, 158 Colleoni, Bartolommeo, 62 Constantinople, 40, 41, 70 Santa Sophia, 69 Contarini, Francesco wedding oration, 3, 159–160 Cornazzano, Antonio, 62 Cortesi, Paolo de hominibus doctis, 41 Corvinus family, 66–68, 87 Johannes. See weddings Matthias, 68 Costanzi, Antonio, 49, 159 Council of Basel, 48 Council of Constance, 121 Council of Elvira, 129 Council of Florence, 129 Council of Rome, 129 Council of Trent, 35, 101, 196 Critoboulus, 69 Croesus, 90 Crusades, 68, 69 Cynics, 1, 12–13, 22, 23 Cyprian (bishop of Carthage), 14 Cyrus (king of Persia), 52–53, 63 Da Bisticci, Vespasiano, 48 Da Carpe, Marco, 64, 169 Damian, Peter, 18, 129 Dante on Attila the Hun, 67 Inferno, 100, 108, 121 marriage of, 30

255

256

Index

Darius, 56, 61, 90 Dati, Agostino, 43, 48 wedding orations, 6, 119, 160–161 De Bodolono, Giacobbe, 89, 153 Decembrio, Pier Candido, 54 Degli Arienti, Sabadino, 46, 56, 151 Degli Atti Antonio. See weddings Isotta, 104–105, 236 Dei Buondelmonti, Vaggia di Ghino, 120 Dei Libri, Matteo, 36 De Iustis, Manfredo, 93, 167–168 Demosthenes, 43, 75 De Nichilo, Mauro, 3, 41 D’Este family, 5, 40–41, 44, 51, 55, 57, 58–60, 65, 87, 88, 136 Alfonso, 53 See also weddings Beatrice. See weddings Bianca, 113 Borso, 45, 59, 77–80, 84–85, 91, 95 humanists working for, 43 praise of 49, 61–62, 113 on wedding orations, 5–6 Ercole, 44, 46, 49, 53, 59–60, 80–81 See also weddings Leonello, 53, 73, 77–78, 113 Lucrezia. See weddings Niccolò, 77 Obizzo, 59 Polissena. See weddings De Vignate, Ambrogio Dialogue on the Reasons for Marrying, 98–99 Dicaearchus, 11 Di Cavaglia, Pier Leone, 48 Diogenes (the Cynic), 126 Diotima, 112 Dowries, 7, 27, 29, 88–90 See also wealth Ennius, 89 Epicurus and Epicureanism, 11, 92–93, 106–108, 127, 130 Epideictic. See panegyric; rhetoric; wedding orations Epithalamia prose. See wedding orations verse, 46, 49. See also Altilio, Gabriele; Canale, Matteo; Guarini, Battista; Pontano, Giovanni

Equicola, Mario, 88 Erasmus, Desiderius of Rotterdam, 3, 6, 117 Encomium matrimonii, 131–134, 137 and Italian humanism, 249–250 on marriage, 123, 131–134 on marriage alliances, 87–88 on panegyric, 52 Eugene IV (pope), 56, 118 Faba, Guido, 36 Fabii, 109 Ferrara, 43, 51, 57, 69, 71–72, 79, 85, 91, 111 finances of, 81 population of, 46 praise of, 75–76 studium of, 34, 40, 42 university of, 4, 44 wedding orations, 2, 41, 49, 65 See also d’Este family Ferraro, Joanne, 7 Ficino, Marsilio commentary on the Symposium, 94 Filelfo, Francesco, 43, 52 on Epicurus, 107 preface to trans. of Xenophon, Cyropaedeia, 55–57 Satyrae, 89 on solitary life, 242 student of Guarino, 40 on translation, 42 wedding orations, 5–6, 47, 55, 87, 90, 172 Filelfo, Giovanni Mario Amyris, 70 wedding orations, 47, 100, 129, 136, 172–173 Florence, 3, 5, 24, 32–33, 40, 42, 56 humanists of, 84 praise of, 54, 58 weddings in, 45 Fontana, Francesca, 109 Fontana, Gabriel Paverius wedding oration, 47, 162 France, 51, 58 Franciscanism, 25, 38 Frederick III (emperor), 44 Galen, 14, 126 Gauls, 71

Index

Gaza, Theodore (of), 77 trans. of pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 3, 41–42 Genealogy, 65–72 Genoa, 102 George of Trebizond, 41 Gillino, Niccolò, 74 Giorgio di Parma, 27–28 Giustiniani, Lionardo Oration in Disgust of Women, 91, 98 Goggio, Bartolommeo de laudibus mulierum, 109–110 Golden Legend, 67 Gonzaga family, 87 Barbara, 113 Federico, 73 Gianfrancesco, 113 Ludovico, 113 Margarita, 113 Paula, 113 Goths, 71 Gracchi, 33 Greek, 71 classical authors, 41 See also, Aristotle; Byzantium; Menandor Rhetor; Plato; Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus desert fathers, 118 humanist studies of, 40, 41–43, 44 humanists, 41 See also Gaza, Theodore; Chrysoloras, Manuel translation of, 42 Gregory VII (pope), 129 Guarini, Battista verse epithalamium, 47, wedding orations, 162–163 Guarini, Guarino, 77 controversy with Filelfo, 5–6 on marriage, 33–34, 85, 134 panegyric of Carmagnola, 60 as a teacher, 4, 38, 40, 57 wedding orations, 2, 6, 37, 40–44, 50, 100, 163–167 Guibert of Nogent liber quo ordine sermo fieri debet, 37 Guido, Egidio wedding orations, 86, 167

257

Hadrian (emperor), 60, 65 Hannibal, 71, 98 Hay, Denys, 121 Hercules, 91, 95 Herlihy, David, 241 Hippolytus, 93–94 Homer, 53, 55, 69, 95 Iliad, 65 See also Ulysses Homosexuality, 85, 99–100 See also sex, sodomy Horace, 77 Hortensia, 112 Humanist education, 76–77 See also wedding oration, comprehensibility lay versus clerical, 122–123 role in courts, 76–81 See also Florence, humanists; Greek, humanists; Milan, humanists;Venice, humanists; individual authors Hungary and Hungarians, 66–68, 87 Huns, 67–68 Incest, 110 Index of Prohibited Books, 132 Innocent III (pope), 37 Islam. See Muslims Jardine, Lisa, 241 Jerome (saint) Ad Eustochium, 236 Against Jovinian, 15–16 reception of, 19–23, 26, 39, 91, 97,107, 110, 130 Jesus, 13, 20, 57, 61, 63, 68, 100, 110 John of Salisbury, 19 Joseph (saint), 17 Julian, “The Apostate” (emperor) Against the Galileans, 67 Justinian (emperor), 66 Juvenal, 97 Kelly, Joan, 8, 110, 114, 241 Kramer, Heinrich and Spranger, James Malleus Maleficarum, 97–98 Laertius, Diogenes Life of Epicurus, 107

258

Index

Latin as an ambassadorial language, 112 education of elites in, 4–5 education of women in, 112–113 Leclercq, Jean, 39 Leo I (pope), 68 Leti, Leonardo, 130 Libanius the rhetor, 105 Livy, 114 Lombard, Peter, 20 Lucan, 114 Lucullus, 47, 74 Luther, Martin, 1, 3, 117 on celibacy, 123, 132–134 and humanism, 251 On the Married Life, 132 On Monastic Vows, 132 Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, 132 To the Christian Nobility, 132 Lycurgus (Spartan), 119 Machiavelli, Niccolò Florentine Histories, 62 Macrina, 112 Magnificence, 28–29, 44–45, 48, 72–76 See also wealth Maio, Giuniano, On Majesty, 75 Malatesta family Battista, 113 Pandolfo, 22–23 Roberto, see weddings Sigismondo, 70, 89, 104–105 Manetti, Giannozzo wedding oration, 6, 47–48, 65–66, 168–169 Mantua, 112 Mantua, Marquis of, 53 Map, Walter, 19, 234 Marius, 63, 109 Marliani, Giovanni wedding oration, 6, 55, 66–68, 87, 110, 128–129, 169 Marriage annulment of, 101 arguments against, 11–16, 18–19, 27, 84, 97–99, 106 arguments for, 12, 16–18, 30–34, 41, 83–91, 118–134

aristocratic conception of, 28, 31, 55, 84–85, 136 chaste or spiritual, 15, 17, 100, 131 clerical, 122–123, 132–134, 137 of Greek orthodox clerics, 129–30 companionate, 7, 109 consummation of, 102 fides, proles, sacramentum, 18, 41 honestas, utilitas, iocunditas, 41 pleasures of, 41, 100–105 as a political alliance, 7, 29, 51, 55, 85–88, 101, 136 as a remedy for lust, 13, 17, 20, 39, 100, 114 republican humanists for, 24–33 as a sacrament, 17, 39, 85, 114, 128–129 second marriages, 16, 102 and the state, 11–13, 30 whether the philosopher should marry, 11–13, 18–19, 26, 30–32, 83–85, 107, 117, 127 See also brides and grooms; celibacy; dowries; sex; wedding orations; weddings; virginity Marsiglio of Padua, 54 Martin V (pope), 113, 122 Mary, the Virgin (saint), 17, 100 Marzani, 64 Medea, 109 Medici family, 75–76 Cosimo de’, 28 Giuliano de’, 86 Luchino de’, 42 Mehmed II (sultan), 69–72, 137 Menandor Rhetor, 41–43 Merula, Giorgio, 88 Metelli, 109 Milan, 43, 51, 66, 87, 112 Ambrosian Republic, 55 humanists, 48 population of, 46 praise of, 54, 56 university of, 4 wedding orations, 2, 49, 65 See also Sforza, Visconti Misogyny, 15–16, 19, 22, 27–28, 91, 97–99, 108–110, 113 See also women Monasticism, 14, 16, 18, 24, 32

Index

Montefeltro family Battista da, 111 Elisabetta Feretana da. See weddings Federico da, 49 Oddo Antonio da, 43 Mormando, Franco, 38 Mucius Scaevola, 63 Muslims, 69, 71, 72 Naples, 51, 56–57, 65, 80, 101, 112 population of, 46 university of, 4 wedding orations, 2–3, 5, 47–49, 58–59, 62, 75 See also Aragon Nicholas V (pope), 43, 56, 80 Nobility, 64–65 Nogarola, Isotta, 110–111 Notaries ars dictaminis and ars arengandi, 35–36 Numa, 63 On Not Marrying a Wife (anonymous), 99 Origen, 14, 16 Ottoman. See Mehmed II, Turks Ozment, Steven, 7 Palmieri, Matteo, 45 Panegyric, 41, 52–54, 60, 74, 136–137 civic, 54 See also rhetoric, epideictic; wedding orations, panegyric in Parleo, Pietro wedding orations, 6, 65, 74, 100, 104–105, 171 Pasiphae, 109 Pasquino, 4 Patrizi, Francesco, 43, 53–54, 76 de regno, 128–129 wedding orations, 6, 85, 112–113, 171–172 Paul (saint), 13, 15–17, 19–21, 23, 39, 68, 100, 119, 129 Paul II (pope), 56 Paul III (pope), 132 Pavia, university of, 4, 43, 74 Peter (saint), 68 Peter of Blois, 19 Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) and Cicero, 24–25, 28–29

259

as a cleric, 23, 122 on Epicurus, 106 letter to Pandolfo Malatesta, 22–23 on marriage, 21–23 On the Solitary Life, 21–22 reception of, 26–27, 97 Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius. See Pius II Phidias, 53 Philip of Macedon, 63 Pistoia, 23 Pius II (pope, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini), 44, 48, 67, 80, 112 on clerical marriage, 123 Cosmography, 67 reception of, 131 on sexual passion, 103 The Story of the Two Lovers, 103 on the Turks, 69, 71 Pizan, Christine de, 113 Plague and depopulation, 23–24, 119, 121, 128 Platina, 53–54, 56, 67 Prince, 73 Plato, 65, 74, 75, 95, 105, 114 Charmides, 231 on marriage, 11 Symposium, 94 Pliny, 43, 60 Plutarch, 47, 111 Pompey, 59, 86 Pompilius, 63 Pontano, Giovanni, 45, 45, 52, 53–54, 76 verse epithalamia, 47, 103–104 Prato, 23 Proba, 112 Prostitution, 99, 121 Protestant Reformation, 1 and humanist thought on marriage, 133–134 See also Luther, Martin Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 3, 40, 41–43 Pyrrhus, 71 Quintilian, 13 Raimondi, Cosimo Letter in Defense of Epicurus, 107

260

Index

Rasinus, Baldassar, 74, 94–95 Reformatio Sigismundi (anonymous), 123 Rhetoric epideictic, 35, 38, 40, 42–43 as an excuse for Erasmus, 132–133 handbooks of, 13, 41–43 history versus, 70 sincerity of humanist, 136–137 women and, 110–114 See also banquet orations; notaries; panegyric; sermons; wedding orations Riario, Pietro (cardinal), 45 Rimini wedding orations, 2, 47, 49, 65, 70, 104 Romances, chivalric, 51, 103, 108 Rome, 43, 56, 110 ceremonies in, 45 praise of, 80 preachers in, 38 verse epithalamia in, 49 wedding orations, 3, 5 See also Pasquino; Sabine women Ruggiero, Guido, 7 Sabine women, rape of, 86 Sabino, Domenico On the Conveniences and Inconveniences of Wives, 99–100 Sacrati family, 74 Saints and martyrs, 63, 81 See also Aquinas; Augustine; Jerome; Jesus; Joseph; Mary; Paul; Peter; Ursula Salutati, Coluccio, 32–33 on celibacy, 123–124, 127–128, 133 on Cicero, 24–25, 29 on marriage, 24–28, 30, 134 On Matters Secular and Religious, 24, 28 on preaching, 3 Sancta Ella, Rodocatharus de, 130 San Gimignano, 23 Sarno, 64 Scala, Bartolomeo, 5 On Whether an Old Man Should Marry, 31–33, 126, 134 Scholasticism, 20–21, 37–38 See also Aquinas, Thomas Scipio Africanus, 59

Seneca, 19, 28, 30, 37, 106–107 Sermons humanist criticism of, 38 marriage, 37–40, 100, 119, 199 Sex contra naturam, 119 extra-marital, 103 impotence, 102 lust, 97–100 female desire and sexual pleasure, 99, 101 male desire, 99–100 masturbation, 126 pleasures of in marriage, 100–105, 137 sterility, 125–126 See also adultery; homosexuality; incest; prostitution; sexual crimes; sodomy Sexual crimes, 14, 120 clerical concubinage, 129 See also adultery; incest; prostitution; Sabines; sodomy Sforza family, 5, 51, 55, 66, 87, 88, 95, 136 Bianca Maria. See weddings Bona. See weddings Costanzo. See weddings Francesco, 47, 55, 66, 74, 86, 88, 94–95, 110 Giangaleazzo. See weddings Giovanni. See weddings Ippolita, 48, 93, 96 See also weddings Ludovico, 87, 102 Tristano. See weddings Sibyls, 110 Siena, 43 plague in, 23, 119 Simonetti, Giovanni Pietro, 106 wedding orations, 175–176 Siricius (pope), 129 Sixtus IV (pope), 5, 45, 49, 80, 130 Socrates, 52, 83, 94 Sodomy, 99–100, 119, 243 Spain, 65–66 Speradeo, Niccolò, 64–65, 93–94 Spranger, James. See Kramer, Heinrich Stoics and stoicism, 1, 12–13, 22–23, 27, 30–33, 106–107, 126–127, 133

Index

Strozzi family, 69, 75 Tito Vespasiano, 65 Sulla, 54, 63 Tertullian, 91 Thalestris (queen of the Amazons), 104–105 Theocritus, 235 Theodosius (emperor), 65 Theon of Alexandria, 13 Theophrastus, 11, 16, 21–22, 33–34, 97, 110 Thucydides, 43 Tolentino, Giovanni II, 47 Tortona, 102 Trajan, 60, 65 Traversari, Ambrogio, 48 trans. of Diogenes Laertius, Life of Epicurus, 107 trans. of John Chrysostom, On Virginity, 118 Trivulzio, Antonio, 88, 90 wedding oration, 6, 177 Trojans. See Troy Trotti family, 65 Troy, 65, 69–70, 91, 110 Turchi family, 71–72 Turks (Ottoman), 68–72, 137 Ulysses, 77 See also Homer Universities, 4 See also Bologna, Ferrara, Naples, Milan, Pavia Urbino, 43 Ursula (saint), 67 Valentinian (emperor), 66 Valla, Lorenzo, 38, 52–53, 105–107, 131 On Pleasure, 92–93, 95–96, 127 The Profession of the Religious, 123, 129 Valvassor, Peter Sermo matrimonialis, 101 Vandals, 71 Varro, 30 Venice, 48, 56, 71 humanists of, 28, 32–3, 84 wedding orations, 3 Venus, 103 Vergerio, Pier Paolo the Elder, 38, 40, 56 praise of celibacy, 117

261

Verino, Ugolino, 230 Vespasian (emperor), 60, 74 Vestal virgin, 127 Vigevano, 102 Virgil, 47, 95 Aeneid, 65, 70, 93, 95 imitation of, 45 Virginity as a Christian ideal, 11 criticism of 127–129, 133 early Christianity and, 14–16 praise of, 20–21, 118 See also celibacy; marriage; sex Visconti family, 65, 88 Anna Maria. See weddings Bianca Maria, 55, 66, 86, 110 Filippo Maria, 55–56, 86 Galeazzo II, 4 Giangaleazzo, 58 Vives, Juan Luis, 111 Voluptas, 106–107 See also sex; Valla, Lorenzo, On Pleasure Wealth, 88–90 See also dowries; magnificence Wedding orations classical models for, 40–43, 60 comprehensibility of, 4–6 in courts (versus republics), 3 delivery of, 48 erotic purpose of, 104–105 historiography of, 3, 36–37, 54 legal function of 36–37 as a medium of complaint, 79–81 panegyric in 3, 35, 37, 52–54, 58, 60–82, 114–116, 136–137 political ideas in, 54–60 popularity of, 2–3 reception of 5–6, 47–48, 135–136 as a rhetorical exercise, 131–132 role in wedding ceremonies, 44–47 sermons versus, 38–40 sex in, 100–105 themes of, 41, 42–43, 48–49 vernacular and Latin, 48 See also marriage; weddings; rhetoric; individual authors Weddings ceremonies for, 2, 44–47, 101–102

262

Index

Weddings (cont.) courtly weddings Aragon, Camilla of and Costanzo Sforza (1475), 49, 84, 96, 158 Aragon, Eleanor of and Ercole d’Este (1473), 3, 5, 45–46, 57–58, 60–63, 70–71, 76–77, 154, 155 Aragon, Isabella of and Giangaleazzo Sforza (1489), 47, 88, 90, 101–102 Aragon, Maria of and Leonello d’Este (1444), 163 Borgia, Lucrezia and Alfonso d’Este (1502), 45–46, 151, 174 Borgia, Lucrezia and Giovanni Sforza (1493), 36, 45 Catarina and Antonio Atti, 104–105, 171 Chiaramonte, Isabella and Ferrante I of Aragon (1445), 47–48, 65–66, 168–169 d’Este, Beatrice and Tristano Sforza (1455), 5, 47, 163, 172 d’Este, Lucia and Carlo Gonzaga, 166 d’Este, Lucrezia and Annibale Bentivoglio (1487), 46 d’Este, Polissena and Giovanni Bonsa, 74–75, 154 Malatesta, Giovanna and Giulio Cesare Varano, 171 Montefeltro, Elisabetta Feretana da and Roberto Malatesta (1475), 47, 70, 172–173 Portugal, Beatrice of and Carlo III Duke of Savoy (1521), 48

Sforza, Bianca Maria and Johannes Corvinus (1487, planned), 66–68, 87, 128, 169 Sforza, Bona and Alfonso d’Este, 87, 172 Sforza, Ippolita and Alfonso II of Aragon (1465), 54, 64, 80, 88, 112, 171–172 Strozzi, Paula and Zarabinus Turchus (1460s) 58, 68–72, 93, 157 Visconti, Anna Maria and Alfonso d’Este (1477), 90 Visconti, Bianca Maria and Francesco Sforza (1443) 55, 86 See also Finding-List legal rites, 35–36 night, 101, 104 See also banquets; marriage; wedding orations Women ancient models for, 112 defense of, 32, 109–110 domestic role of, 108–109 equality of, 8, 129 learned, 110–114 as orators, 110–114 sexual desire in, 99, 101 silence of, 111 See also beauty; brides; marriage; misogyny; sex; virginity Xanthippe, 83 Xenophon, 31, 108, 114, 239 Cyropaedeia, 52–53, 55–57 Zeno, 12 Zeuxis, 53