Hst390firstdraft - Grade: B PDF

Preview

Summary

First draft of paper...

Description

Fedele, Nogarola, and Cereta and Their Participation in the Humanist Dialogue of the Italian Renaissance Danielle Brod

1

The Italian Renaissance was one of the most influential time periods in changing thoughts around science, art and thinking. It seems that these ideas were only accessible to higher-class men and many historians have long sought to uncover cases of Renaissance thought among women. Although there exists an abundance of works from many female Renaissance writers, it must be put into the context of how they contributed to furthering the participation of women in the humanist dialogue. A woman’s scholarly career was greatly dependent on many factors given both financial needs and societal norms. With looming domestic expectations of women scholars, many utilized their humanist thought and education within correspondences with friends. They sought and gave advice in times of need with both male and female intellectuals, husbands, and priests. At a time when they were not allowed to participate within Universities, women continued to utilize what humanist education they had gained on their own through their letters, whether they were married, widowed, or neither. The published letters and orations of Cassandra Fedele, Isotta Nogarola, and Laura Cereta reveal that these women were not just educated and widely celebrated within their lifetimes, but shared unique and complex friendships that impacted their scholarly careers and roles within society, whether they turned to religion or marriage to fulfill them. By using their letters and orations, a greater understanding of specific friendships and correspondences will reveal how each managed to maintain or give up their studies within either of these institutions. Although a vast and varied historiography of Renaissance Italian women exists from patrons of art to their collected letters, I wish to explore the friendships they shared and how their correspondences fit into the humanist dialogue they participated in.

2 Extensive research by Amyrose Joy McCue Gill into the domestic friendships between husbands and wife during the Italian Renaissance exists in her dissertation Vera Amicizi: Conjugal Friendship in the Italian Renaissance. She aims to explore how the specific term “vera amicizi” influenced the emotional and domestic bonds shared by both sexes in marriage and how a male dominated institution “sought to balance love, affection and intimacy against the constraints of the of the conjugal state as a regulatory institution.”1 Gill moves chronologically through history, beginning with ancient examples of philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Plato and how that influenced the sermons of Bernardino of Siena.2 She uses other writers such as Alberti and Boccaccio to show examples of the male perspective in marriage and friendship, revealing what they understood about this relationship. Focus turns to Isabella d’Este and Laura Cereta, comparing the two in terms of their views on ideal marriage, their social status, and career choices. One significant idea presented by Gill is in terms of their upbringing and education and how this impacted their social and scholarly life. A larger focus on the marriage of d’Este shows how political and economic factors can come into play through kinship and friendship.3 Unlike Gill, I plan to focus on Cassandra Fedele and Isotta Nogarola together with Bernardino and Laura Cereta in showing friendships not just within marriage to serve socio-economic needs, but also outside of marriage existing within just the humanist dialogue. Born in Venice in 1465, Cassandra Fedele quickly rose to fame in her lifetime for her participation in the humanist circles, the countless orations she gave, and her public debates. Although little of her work survives and only one book was published during her lifetime, she had a great influence among the men and scholars with whom she

3 exchanged letters with, but was bared from receiving the same education as.4 Fedele is a particular person of interest in that she no longer pursued her career as a female scholar during her marriage, but does so after her husband’s death as a means to support her intellectual endeavors once again and to provide for her family. Certain men with whom she communicated before her marriage not only valued her for her mind, but also her beauty and more desirable female characteristics. For men, it seemed she appeared as a woman that was referred to in antiquity or simply a miracle.5 However, this influence came to an abrupt end following her marriage as well as when she was widowed as she was no longer invited to participate in debates or give orations. She wrote to the pope following her husband’s death asking for financial assistance with which she would repay with her intellectual abilities.6 Unlike her orations and debates that might have been able to sustain her pursuit of an education before and after her marriage, her letters to friends that seem to merely be on the subject of friendship and loyalty, provide little to serve that end. Fedele may seek financial assistance in exchange for her scholarly abilities, but she also writes letters to friends that seem to not serve any end within her scholarly pursuits. She writes to celebrate the name and virtues of Lepido Pierio d’ Antichi as a thank you for his own letters of praise. 7 Although the subjects of these letters are an example of simple human relations, she does not pass up a chance to use her eloquent language and to allude to stories from antiquity. 8 Perhaps the most important of these letters are the exchange between Fedele and Alesandra Scala, in which Fedele writes to a give advice on marriage and her education.9 Fedele can no doubt attest to the situation at hand and to give advice, saying “you are of two minds, whether you should give yourself to the Muses or to a

4 man”.10 She does admit that her advice however is only useful given the readiness of the advised to accept it. In this instance, Fedele stands as an advisor to women in situations that need guidance and thus the idea of communication and friendship can truly help someone to determine the paths they will choose. This correspondence is short and succinct, only alluding to Plato in a simple way. Fedele does advise her to “choose that to which nature more inclines you”11 where nature can refer to both her gender as well as human nature. Through this simple notion, it is clear that Fedele recognizes the challenges faced by being a woman in that their characteristics can coexist but one must choose over the other in terms of marriage and education. She does not see the possibility in being able to give attention to one particular “nature” over another and that it comes down to an individual woman to make this decision herself. Fedele made this decision as well, choosing to marry and devote time to household and domestic duties, which leave little time for her to pursue or participate in any of her studies. There does exist some conflict within the advice that Fedele gives and one of her orations. Although she is a great advocate for women’s education, her advice to Scala that she cannot be married while continuing her studies shows that she does understand that consequences of her own marriage. As one of the first professional woman writers to speak at events such as graduations or to the Senate in Italy12, she advocates education not only for the “weaker sex”13 but for men as well, as it will lead them to be “more cultivated.”14 However, for women in particular, they should be given this opportunity even if it does not allow them to become great leaders such as the case with men, but “for the pleasure and enjoyment they contain.”15 If Fedele also truly believes in the advice she gave to Scala, then it seems that education would be the more fulfilling option rather than

5 to marry. Yet Fedele does make the decision to marry, perhaps seeing more value in it. Overall, it is the communications Fedele shared through her correspondence with Scala that are most revealing not only of the conflict she faced internally with the thought of marriage, but also one that differs from her orations. Although friendship is not discussed at length in these letters with Scala, it is their true friendship that allows them to confide in one another over these issues. Ultimately there would have been many factors contributing to Fedele’s decision to marry, some of which are made apparent here in her letters. Given her great success throughout Italy and beyond, there may have been not necessarily more, but rather different opportunities that existed for her based on her intellectual accomplishments. Coming to prominence nearly 25 years before Fedele was born, Isotta Nogarola stands out as another influential female Italian humanist writer who chose a path much different from that of other contemporary women. Born of noble Italian families, Nogarola chose a path of humanist scholarly work as she and her sister excelled at an early age from the teachings of their tutor, Martino Rizzoni.16 She was the only one of her siblings to pursue such studies, with her sister abandoning her humanist writings after her marriage and her brothers pursuing fitting careers given their social class.17 Nogarola is noteworthy in that she was able to continue her scholarly pursuits outside of a religious institution, which was uncommon at this time when women would regularly enter convents as a means to continue such endeavors. This decision was one that could only come to fruition with the support of her family, especially her mother who was the first to advocate for her daughter’s education. 18 Other examples are apparent in letters with men urging her to “pursue in the most splendid way, until death, that same course of right

6 living that you have followed since childhood.”19 Yet once again, the same author, Lauro Quirini, speaks to her “overcoming her nature”20, or simply, her gender. Much like Fedele, Nogarola will never be absent of this particular characteristic, despite her male acquaintances praising her. However, this is only partially true in the intellectual attraction by Ludovico Foscarini, who admires Nogarola not only as a woman, but a “holy woman.”21 It is their friendship that prompts Nogarola’s dialogue “Of the Equal or Unequal Sin of Adam and Eve”, which may have been based on an actual dialogue, a public debate, neither or both.22 In any way, the dialogue format was a common writing technique employed by other Renaissance writers. It was received as one of the most powerful works of a woman humanist writer and is revealing of not only Nogarola’s Christian and humanist beliefs, but her friendship shared with Foscarini that existed in a relationship outside of the church or marriage. In her work, Nogarola paints a fictional Foscarini to be her counterpart on the debate “regarding this judgment of Aurelius Augustine: They sinned unequally according to sex, but equally according to pride.”23 The result is somewhat satirical and full of an eloquent argument made on both sides by Nogarola in which not only a vast biblical knowledge and understanding is utilized, but also a focus on antiquity and what has been said before her time by the philosophers Aristotle,24 Ambrose, and Augustine.25 Her wit and charm is remarkably apparent as she is able to, although fictionally, argue both sides with zeal. Nogarola seems to defend the female sex, namely Eve, to be innocent of as harsh of a degree of sin as Adam based on certain female characteristics, such as being weak and inconsistent, in which the serpent merely chose the more vulnerable of the two.26 Also, she consciously inserts an attention to her own

7 possible faults in writing that would be a product of her gender, as this sort of writing is “not a woman’s task.”27 As the dialogue continues, there are insertions here and there in regards to the female nature but the argument seems to shift to be more philosophical, referring to free will, the nature of the creator, and the origin of the first sin and suffering. Foscarini has the last words where he once again refers to the argument set before him, mainly the points brought up by Nogarola, but feels that by continuing to argue that he would be insulting her knowledge, not to mention she restricted his response to a single paper.28 In many ways, this dialogue is a form of Nogarola solidifying her own ideas against a possibly fictional character of Foscarini. Yet the truth that they shared a deep friendship makes him an interesting choice in her debate. It also exhibits the same confusion that Fedele had in regards to the nature of women and the question of not only their ability to gain knowledge, but whether it is truly sinful. By juxtaposing these two male and female characters, whether they were based on Nogarola and Foscarini entirely, brings to light the conflict arising within Nogarola herself. It is not a simple answer that is agreed upon within the dialogue, but rather turns to much larger philosophical questions that have many answers. To gain better perspective into their friendship, there exist actual letters exchanged between the two since Foscarini first encountered Nogarola. Since she was unmarried but had not taken religious vows, it is not surprising that she came under fire from some of her contemporaries that doubted her virginity and virtue, perhaps one of the most sacred characteristics for a woman of her social standing.29 In defense of this, Foscarini writes to Nogarola, focusing on her great virtue as well as her great abilities as a writer. Foscarini writes, ”Here is your most admirable and incredible humanity, by

8 which you yield to all, although you surpass all in virtue.”30 He truly admires her as the most valuable thing to come out of her city of Verona, despite their many marble monuments, basilicas, and paintings.31 He then reveals that he truly loves Nogarola and his short letter does not do justice to her virtue, beauty, and ability, which would in fact require volumes of work.32 It seems they shared a more intimate relationship through this letter than what is revealed through Nogarola’s dialogue, which paints their relationship as one based purely on thought and reason. It seems that much like the debate in the dialogue, their relationship is not as simple as one might believe, with complications relating to her status as an unmarried virgin that has not taken religious vows. Born of Brescian nobility in 1469, Laura Cereta made a definite mark during her lifetime and later in the Renaissance, with some of her letters being published in 1640. She had a tumultuous career similar to that of Cassandra Fedele in which she was widowed after only eighteen months of being married to the merchant Pietro Serina. This greatly impacted her letters, her view on marriage, and her pursuit of a scholarly career following her husband’s death. Her work was only a continuation of her learning that was interrupted by her marriage at the age of fifteen, as she had already shown her humanist capabilities before that.33 It also is apparent that she continued her studies during her marriage,34 yet conflict still arose. Their exchange of letters while Pietro sailed his ship and ran his business reveals that Cereta was equally a business partner as well as a devoted wife. She urges him to “sell of piecemeal the tattered remains of your goods and household furnishing to other merchants at the open market” following a fire on the Rialto where Serina’s business was almost destroyed.35 She also expresses deep sorrow when she believes that their marriage has hit a rough patch, due in part to Serina’s travel

9 for business where he “simply moved away from this place and have gone to Venice, while I still have cause for grief.”36 Furthermore, in this letter to Serina, she wishes to understand the complexities of their relationship, especially when Serina argues whether Cereta says too much or too little. She cannot seem to find a healthy compromise of speaking her mind or sitting in silence when she responds to Serina, though she insists that she is equally to blame.37 Cereta is also there to console Serina following the death of his brother, Nicolai. When Serina has mourned much longer than normal, Cereta says, “I do beg you now because it is time, to return to your former self, since you have a greater duty towards me than you do towards the dead.”38 She reminds him to not curse the gods who have determined this fate and “steal men’s souls.”39 Serina dies very shortly after this letter was written and Cereta reveals much more about their relationship. In a letter to Felicio Tadino, she appears just as inconsolable as Serina was about his brother, wishing for her own death as well.40 She may be quick to give this advice to Serina, but it is of little help to her when she is faced with such grief, much like Cassandra’s advice to Alessandra seems conflicting given her orations that are in favor of women’s education. Yet it shows her capability to reach out to her friends and mentors where she does not hide her painful sorrow. Cereta’s relationship with her husband during their short marriage surpasses that of just love and devotion in which they share business advice, reveal truthfully their emotions and concerns, and even at times, stress the painful truths of reality given the mourning of a close family member. In this way she is not just able to express her humanist intellect, but build her relationship as well as her education from her life experiences. Cereta’s loyalty to Serina seems

10 boundless and most apparent following his death, yet she continues to use her letters and network of intellectual circles to seek comfort from her closest mentors and friends.41 Cereta does not, however, share the same devotion as Nogarola in seeking spiritual guidance, which is apparent in her letters with Fra Tommaso of Milan. Silvestro, Cereta’s father, sends Fra Tommaso some of her letters and he is delighted and impressed with her work, yet he wishes that she had some religious mentors.42 Fra Tommaso is not ashamed when he says, “If Laura has been given such a talent as she has, she should use it to such a noble purpose as this rather than merely to buy flowers.”43 Although impressed with her work, which made him “drunk” and “thirst for more”,44 Tommaso sees little virtue in her pursuits as they satisfy no real purpose if she does not devote herself to god. This quickly turns to anger as Cereta and him exchange letters, and she has been deeply offended by some of the things he has said. He cannot grasp why she is so quick to use harsh words “like a dog prone to barking” and sees no humility in her actions. 45 Until this point, there has been little negativity towards both Nogarola and Fedele between their correspondents. Cereta turns rather cynical and is quick to defend her work and her beliefs. Tommaso also does not attack her on the grounds of her gender but rather how her attacks on him seem unwarranted given the fact that she disseminated her works and should not be surprised by the criticism it receives. As a woman participating in the humanist conversation of her time, Cereta comes off as being traumatized by her experiences with her husband and, although she continues to participate in her scholarly career, acts quickly out of anger to Tommaso, or enough to warrant his letter to her. In the year before this exchange between Tommaso, Cereta writes to Pietro Zecchi in regards to marriage and her advice, giving examples of great

11 women and wives.46 Who words stress that the institution of marriage is sacred on many grounds, but perhaps most importantly because “these are women who have pledge themselves to you under oath in a court of law, and who guard your treasures and offices with solicitous love for the long duration of you life.”47 Cereta can now better understand the institution of marriage as reaching outside of merely socio-economic terms. The sermons of Bernardino of Siena to the city of Tuscany were given in order to bring the city out of political turmoil and to unite the people of the city. Bernardino preached everyday not only on how to be virtuous, how to pray, or h...