The Site of Petrarchism

         -               
 

Stephen G. Nichols, Gerald Prince, and Wendy Steiner

 
 The Site of
Petrarchism
Early Modern National Sentiment
in Italy, France, and England

William J. Kennedy

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Baltimore and London
©  The Johns Hopkins University Press
All rights reserved. Published 
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
        

The Johns Hopkins University Press

 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland -
www.press.jhu.edu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kennedy, William J. (William John), ‒
The site of Petrarchism : early modern national sentiment
in Italy, France, and England / William J. Kennedy.
p. cm.—(Parallax: re-visions of culture and society)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
 ---
. Petrarca, Francesco, ‒—Influence. . Italian
literature—History and criticism. . French literature—
History and criticism. . English literature—History and
criticism. . Sonnet. . Nationalism in literature.
. Politics and literature—Italy. . Politics and literature—
France. . Politics and literature—England. I. Title.
II. Parallax (Baltimore, Md.)
. 
′.—dc 

A catalog record for this book is available from the

British Library.
 For
Maura and Bill Kennedy-Smith
Liam and Barbara Argyropoulos Kennedy

liber liberis
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents

Acknowledgments ix
Notes on Sources xi
Introduction: Fore Sites 

 Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

 Petrarch as Commentator: The Search for Italy 
 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos 
 Amor and Patria: Citing Petrarch in Florence
and Naples 

 Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

 Du Bellay and the Language of Empire:
The Deffence et illustration 
 Totems for Defense: Du Bellay and Marot 
 Illustrations of Taboo: Du Bellay, Héroët,
Saint-Gelais, Scève 
 Mon semblable, mon frère: Du Bellay and Ronsard 

 The Sidneys and Wroth: The Site of Petrarchism

in England
 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities 
 Family Narratives: The Transitional Space
of Petrarchism 
 An Apology for Uncles: Philip Sidney’s
Defence of Poetry 

vii
Contents

 Prosthetic Gods: The Liberties of Astrophil

and Pamphilia 
 Byblis and the Bible: Incest, Endogamy, and
Mary Wroth 
Conclusion: Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites 
Notes 
Primary Sources Cited 
Index 
 Acknowledgments

These pages have profited greatly from the help and advice of friends who
have read or listened to many drafts in progress. I especially thank Rebecca
Bushnell, JoAnn Della Neva, Roland Greene, Timothy Hampton, Lyn Kelsey,
Ignacio Navarrete, Deborah Parker, Richard Peterson, Anne Lake Prescott,
and Alan K. Smith. I thank Katherine Reagan and the wonderful staff at Cor-
nell’s Karl A. Kroch Rare Book Library for facilitating my repeated access to
its magnificent Willard Fiske Dante and Petrarch Collection. For their gener-
ous critique and unfailing encouragement of my work, I am indebted to
nearly every member of Cornell’s departments of Medieval Studies and Com-
parative Literature and to colleagues from a half-dozen other departments who
participate in Cornell’s Renaissance Colloquium. I am especially indebted to
Calum M. Carmichael for providing splendid insight into the biblical texts I
have quoted. I am continually grateful to Mary Lynch Kennedy for surmising
that one advantage of having a spouse so obsessed with the past is that he’s apt
to find you even more interesting the older you get. I am deeply grateful to the
Rockefeller Foundation for a fellowship at the Villa Serbelloni in Bellagio,
where I began revising my preliminary foul papers. I dedicate the result to two
couples, the first of whom walked propitiously into my study the instant I laid
down my pen on a reasonable fair copy and the second of whom walked
bravely down the aisle as this book entered production at the Johns Hopkins
University Press. I thank Trevor Lipscombe for his tact and resourcefulness as
an editor, Elizabeth Gratch for her cheerful and keen-eyed work as a copy ed-
itor, and Tom Roche for his expert guidance as production editor.

ix
This page intentionally left blank
 Note on Sources

Quotations from primary sources used more than once refer to editions
named in the works cited section. All other primary sources and all references
to scholarly and critical studies appear in the endnotes. As my copy text for Pe-
trarch’s Rime sparse, I use Marco Santagata’s superb new edition, but I have
profited greatly from the older annotated editions of Gianfranco Contini and
Giosué Carducci listed in the works cited. Likewise, as my copy-text for Du
Bellay’s poetry I use Daniel Aris and Françoise Joukovsky’s recent edition, but
I have also profited from the older annotated editions of Ernesta Caldarini, J.
Jolliffe, and Michael Screech listed in the works cited. I quote from Robert
Durling’s translation of Petrarch’s Love Poems throughout, though in a few
cases I have modified it to concur with my critical understanding. I quote
from existing published translations of other texts whenever possible, and I list
them accordingly in the notes or in the works cited. All quotations from Scrip-
ture are taken from the Geneva Bible of ; nearly contemporary with the
major French and English texts discussed in this book, it echoed Calvinist
commentary produced in France and was the translation preeminently avail-
able to the Sidney family in England. All other translations are my own.

xi
This page intentionally left blank
The Site of Petrarchism
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction
Fore Sites

The Site of Commentaries

This book proceeds from two premises. The first is that the Petrarchan son-
net, the most widespread vernacular literary mode in elite circles of sixteenth-
century Europe, provides a site for early modern expressions of national senti-
ment. The second is that Petrarchism unfolds amid critical commentary
appended to early modern printed editions of the Rime sparse and that it ac-
quires a protonationalist density through this commentary. The first premise
is not controversial. Petrarch’s fourteenth-century lyric poetry recounts its
speaker’s identification with his native Italy, his awareness of being Italian, and
his sense of belonging to a community larger than a local or regional one.
These sentiments sprang partly from his experience of exile, as his father, ban-
ished from Guelph Florence, took the family to Avignon, where the poet grew
up near the papal court.1 One hundred and fifty years after Petrarch’s death his
Rime sparse and Trionfi came to be canonized as supreme models of Italian lit-
erary style and Italian patriotic emotion, lending themselves to linguistic imi-
tation throughout the Italian peninsula and eventually to stylistic imitation in
other European vernaculars, providing a standard beyond that of local dialects.
So far these claims echo conventional literary history. My second premise,
however, requires proof that this book will supply. Petrarch’s Rime sparse
reached its fifteenth- and sixteenth-century European readership in printed
editions with sometimes extensive marginal commentaries surrounding its po-
etic texts.2 The history of these commentaries records a narrative of multiple


Introduction

Petrarchs who, in different ways, according to different commentators, re-

sponded to provocative issues about politics, religion, love, erotic relation-
ships, family origins, social class, and local self-awareness. The commentaries’
impact upon the reception of Petrarch and Petrarchism was considerable,
affecting the way creative writers approached Petrarchan forms in Italy, Spain,
France, England, Germany, Eastern Europe, and finally the New World. The
Petrarchan lyric affords an especially fertile site (in the familiar sense of a place
or position set aside for some purpose) for the emergence of particular na-
tional styles throughout Europe, and the Petrarchan commentaries provide an-
other fertile site (in the architectural sense of a framework or foundation for
further building) for articulating ideological concerns and emergent national
identities.
The visual sight (pun intended) of these commentaries implies their func-
tion. They surround the poetry with an ocean of annotations, observations,
and interpretations, the result of which is to profile not one Petrarch but
many. In addition to multiplying the possibilities of understanding Petrarch’s
work through competing accounts of its achievement, these commentaries
provide us with a goldmine of information about how sixteenth-century read-
ers across Europe saw Petrarch, how they construed his national sentiment,
and how they constructed their own national awareness. The poet’s love affair
with Laura, lasting from  to , began and ended near Avignon in south-
ern France, where Petrarch lived intermittently for forty-one of his seventy
years. His ancestors, however, hailed from Florence. In  King Robert of
Naples approved his crowning as poet laureate at the Senate in Rome. Not
Naples, not Rome, but Milan and Parma proved to be the sites of Petrarch’s
longest continuous Italian residence, when he served the Visconti lords from
 to . In the final decade of his life he resided alternately at Venice,
Padua, and Arquà. Throughout his life he traveled widely, visiting Paris, Lyon,
Prague, Vienna, and possibly London. One upshot of Petrarch’s ceaseless mi-
gration is that competing regional centers of Europe claimed him as their own.
By the second quarter of the sixteenth century poets across Europe came to
cite (again a homonym) Petrarch as preeminently Italian and specifically Tus-
can and Florentine, even though in his lifetime he had spent no more than ten
days in the city of his father’s birth.3 The conferral of this identity was the
work of Pietro Bembo and his circle as propagandists for the restored Medici
family.4 As even Machiavelli had come to regard political hegemony under the
Medici as one way to confederate Italy, so Bembo proposed a cultural hege-
mony under Petrarch and Boccaccio in the Tuscan vernacular as models for


 Fore Sites

Italian literary discourse.5 Bembo’s Prose della volgar lingua () canonized
Petrarch and Boccaccio as supreme exemplars of poetic and prose styles, re-
spectively, and their dominance as models for literary Italian remained unri-
valed for three centuries.
Earlier commentaries on Petrarch tell a different story. The first printed edi-
tions of the Rime sparse appeared at the end of the fifteenth century under the
auspices of northern Italian patronage. Commentaries accompanying them
written by Antonio da Tempo (composed in the s at Padua and printed at
Venice in ), Francesco Filelfo (composed ca.  at Milan and published
at Bologna in ), and Hieronimo Squarzafico (composed at Verona and
published at Venice in ) identify Petrarch as a public servant of the Vis-
conti at Milan and as a champion of Milanese Ghibellinism.6 The most widely
reprinted commentary of the sixteenth century, composed in  by Alessan-
dro Vellutello of Lucca, a freelance editor at Venice, rearranges the order of the
poems in the received sequence so as to concur with events in the poet’s biog-
raphy.7 Vellutello emphasizes tensions between Petrarch’s service to the popes
at Avignon and his attraction toward Italy, on the one hand, and between his
love for Laura and his devotion to literature, on the other; the poet’s sentiment
is torn between public and private life, southern France and northern Italy,
secular and contemplative activities. In March  Sylvano da Venafro and in
July that same year Giovanni Andrea Gesualdo, both at Naples, published
lengthy rhetorical commentaries that lend Petrarch a cultivated aristocratic
sensibility. Each represents him as a Castiglionesque courtier at home in any
setting that allowed him to exercise his verbal and artistic skills.8 In their wake
Bernardino Daniello, an accomplished humanist scholar at Venice who edited
the Rime sparse in , glossed Petrarch’s debts to classical antecedents, ac-
cording him a cosmopolitan sensibility that harks back to ancient Greece and
Rome.9 Finally, several commentators attracted to Lutheran reform depict Pe-
trarch as a proto-Protestant critic of the papacy, an opponent of Scholastic
dogma, and a precocious reader of Scripture. The commentaries of Fausto da
Longiano (Modena, ), Antonio Brucioli (Ferrara, ), and Lodovico
Castelvetro (late s, published at Basel in , suppressed in Italy but cir-
culating in northern Europe) portray his sentiment as compatible with Protes-
tant reform.10
From this welter of competing constructions emerges a Petrarch who could
be anything and everything to all readers. To those outside of Italy Petrarch
might seem the exemplar of a pan-Italian sentiment as well as of local and re-
gional attachments. As his poetry supplied the dominant model for sixteenth-


Introduction

century European elite culture, it became a site of emergent national con-

sciousness and of specific regional belonging. It is of course anachronistic to
impute ideas of “nationalism” to sixteenth-century Europe. Nations as we now
speak of them are political formations that provide a basis of social and cul-
tural identity in a world transformed by postrevolutionary industrialism, tech-
nology, commerce, and communication.11 Important studies documented in
the endnotes to this book nonetheless try to push forward to the early modern
period the idea, if not of nations politically defined, at least of national senti-
ments socially and culturally articulated.12 I join them in using the words na-
tion and national as a synecdochic shorthand to express the tensile drift of lo-
cal or regional identities toward a larger corporate whole adumbrating but not
functioning the same as modern “national” identities. The effect of expressing
complex local attachments in a heightened form merges with that of express-
ing supraregional sentiments in a nascent form.
In the history of Petrarchism these effects reinforce one another. Petrarch-
ism echoed laterally through the courts of Europe as a nearly universal literary
phenomenon, but it also gave shape and definition to highly particularized lit-
erary vernaculars. Bembo’s standardizing of an Italian literary language based
on Petrarch’s style inspired analogous efforts across Europe. In his Obras of
 Juan Boscán showcased his own and Garcilaso de la Vega’s display of Pe-
trarchan conventions in an elegant Castilian style as a model for the Spanish
vernacular and, within a generation, academics at the universities of Sala-
manca and Alcala augmented his efforts with treatises on the refined use of the
vernacular. Joachim Du Bellay’s Deffence et illustration de la langue françoyse
() and its accompanying Olive (‒) urged an imitation of Petrarchan
style as a way to enrich the French vernacular and advance a national literary
discourse. Philip Sidney’s A Defence of Poetry (ca. ) and Astrophil and Stella
(ca. ‒), his sister Mary Sidney’s translation of Petrarch’s Triumph of
Death (), and their niece Mary Wroth’s Pamphilia to Amphilanthus ()
showed how a Petrarchan style could empower English literary expression.
Elsewhere across Europe Petrarchism served to jump-start other literary
vernaculars.
How and why such writers came to cite Petrarch as a model for expressing
national sentiment forms the topic of this book. That these writers ap-
proached Petrarch’s poetry through commentaries appended to early printed
editions of the Rime sparse might explain the how. The why raises different is-
sues associated in my view with conflicting representations of Petrarch in the
commentaries. Despite their great variety and sometimes discrepant claims, all


 Fore Sites

the commentaries focus on his status as an exile. An inhabitant of multiple

sites but the possessor of none, Petrarch grounds a factitious sense of his iden-
tity in a recollection of classical culture, ancient Roman civilization, Christian
teaching, and late medieval remnants of Siculo-Tuscan and Florentine literary
texts that lay at hand. As I shall argue in part , this composite of ancestral
sources, begetters of Petrarch’s imagined cultural patrimony rather than of any
existing political patria, assumes a totemic function in his cognitive system.
Totemic here refers, in the sense that Freud gave it in Totem and Taboo, to an
organizing principle that confers a bond of group identity upon ambivalent
subjects as a substitute for some figure of authority which once inflicted pain
on them.13 In this case the offending figure is the Florentine republic that has
rejected Petrarch and his father, while the substitute is an ancient classical civ-
ilization associated with Rome and the greater part of the Italian peninsula.
Working hard to recover and assimilate what has been lost or denied in the
past, Petrarch invests this totemic substitute with supreme value. In so doing,
he edits out of his personal history the painful, disagreeable elements of polit-
ical exile and replaces them with a new narrative of cultural patrimony. In this
narrative Petrarch is no longer the despised offspring of a fractious Florentine
city-state but the inheritor of a grander, nobler, more virtuous, and more en-
abling civilization. His true parentage is neither Guelph nor Ghibelline but a
Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, sometime republican, sometime imperial cul-
ture. The process corresponds to what Freud represents in his essay on “Family
Romances” as the replacing of a real begetter by a superior one.14
The terminology and conceptual structure of Freud’s social psychology help
to situate diverse fifteenth- and sixteenth-century commentaries on the Rime
sparse and their effects on early modern imitations of Petrarch. I find them
useful not because they explain once and for all the psychological impact of
Petrarch’s poetry but because they bring an array of social, cultural, political,
and economic features of that poetry into an explanatory focus. To put it an-
other way, their social, cultural, political, and economic concerns illuminate
historical factors pertinent to the reception of Petrarch’s texts in this period.
Lorenzo de’ Medici nurtured a Petrarchan revival to bolster the totemic value
of Florence’s cultural hegemony, turning Petrarch’s evaluation of ancient mod-
els into a revaluation of Florentine ones. Cariteo, a Spanish émigré at the court
of the viceregal government of Naples, used the style to reconnect the former
kingdom with the rest of Italy. As we shall see at the end of part , both
Lorenzo and Cariteo reinvented Petrarch’s narrative to affirm more exalted cul-
tural pedigrees than the ones that they inherited.


Introduction

The dissemination of Petrarchism beyond Italy mirrors this pattern. Spain,

the first European site outside of Italy to cultivate Petrarchan style, fixed its
identity as a nation-state rather quickly at the end of the fifteenth century in
an effort to meet the goals of the reconquista. Seventeenth-century Germany,
late in adopting Petrarchan models, resisted union as Protestant and Catholic
factions fought for control over independent territories. Sixteenth-century
France and England, the sites of focus in parts  and  of this book, offer more
ambivalent, more complicated, and therefore, I argue, more instructive ex-
amples. Here we might think of site in the military sense of a fortress or en-
trenchment positioned to attack or defend. Both France and England, riven
with internal factionalism, the former on religious grounds, the latter on
grounds of monarchical succession, experienced corresponding degrees of ten-
sion and dispute in their cultural expression. The elite cultures of both France
and England divided those who would replicate a medieval canon from those
who would generate new forms through a takeover of foreign models, itself re-
sulting in a reaction-formation of strategized tribal identity among those who
participated in this effort. It seems no accident that the word defense figures in
the titles of apologues by Joachim Du Bellay and Philip Sidney, which I will
analyze in the second and third chapters.
Profound social impulses encouraging public solidarity underlay these
manifestos. In France Du Bellay and his colleagues in the Pléiade brigade,
members of the landless nobility that suffered impoverishment after the Hun-
dred Years War, sought to improve their social status with a Petrarchan pro-
gram of humanist education and literary refinement. Immediately they con-
fronted the problem of obligation to an older homegrown culture that
anticipated Petrarchism. Partly by totemizing their canonical literary ancestors
and partly by casting a taboo on imitating such eminent predecessors as Marot
and the Rhétoriqueurs, they averted fratricidal competition and internal con-
flict. For all their apparent solidarity, however, various rivalries would beset the
Pléiade, as we shall see in the divergent careers of Du Bellay and Ronsard,
which I trace in chapter . Partly in response to the strain in their relationship,
Du Bellay articulates in his poetry a romance of origins in which he gains ac-
cess to a set of models even more appropriate to cultural diversity than those
of his friend.
In England the trappings of such romance find a striking application in the
literary work of the Sidney family, consisting of Philip, his siblings Mary and
Robert, the former’s son William Herbert, and Robert’s daughter Mary
Wroth, the last two of whom joined in an inbred sexual liaison. I will show in


 Fore Sites

part  that their collective efforts to reclaim a noble pedigree (lost when
Philip’s aristocratic mother married the commoner Henry Sidney, regained
when Mary married the earl of Pembroke, and reinforced when Robert’s
daughter married Lord Wroth) generated a family history that exalts the
virtues, and sometimes derides the foibles, of an emerging English national
character. Philip Sidney set an example for his siblings and their children
when, in order to succeed among the intimates of Queen Elizabeth, he rein-
vented himself as a Continental courtier bearing a totemic Italianate Petrar-
chism. This model might seem to challenge Protestant convictions that judged
Continental forms as morally decadent, resurrecting a defunct authority asso-
ciated with papal Europe. But, as I argue in my focus on both courtly and
anti-courtly values in chapter , once we locate Petrarchism in the context of
the commentaries, we find several versions of Petrarch available to Sidney and
his heirs. The version that they promoted was decidedly a Protestant one that
deepened the expression of national sentiment in Elizabethan and Jacobean
England. The personal liberty that it endorsed and the active siblinghood that
it promoted, even verging upon incestuous degrees of affection and endogamy,
govern my focus in the balance of part .
Cultural, political, and literary historians have staked various claims for this
surge of supraregional attachments and patriotic identifications. They include
the Italian and German territorial consolidation of city-states for economic,
military, and judicial purposes, often concentrated on figures of charismatic
rulers;15 the Western European spread of bureaucratic state forms and the fo-
menting of collective agency in response to social conditions fostering and fos-
tered by high mobility, the growth of capital, and the transformation of pub-
lic ideals from ones associated with the nobility into ones associated with the
people;16 the rise of Lutheran, Gallican, proto-Anglican, and other forms of
religious and cultural pluralism resistant to the universalizing control of the
Roman papacy;17 and an increasingly mobilized opposition to the Other,
whether construed xenophobically as neighboring states or self-critically as
one’s own hated earlier history, now discarded in favor of a brighter future.18
Each of these claims has broad merit without telling the whole story. What
could? Benedict Anderson has argued that early modern print capitalism
helped to standardize social norms that allow the nation to be imagined in a
“homogeneous, empty time.”19 Yes, the age of print accelerated such imagin-
ings, but literacy and education, often surprisingly high in the early modern
period, reshaped them in timely fluctuation with the push and pull of social,
cultural, political, and economic currents in jagged ways. In my view concrete,


Introduction

limited, sometimes transitory allegiances among people operated at personal,

highly contingent levels, with the inflecting power of gender, class, and status
modulating their affiliations. From them flow the currents and cross-currents
of social, political, economic, and legal institutions and ideas that would later
define nation-states in western Europe.
Lyric poetry, despite its highly conventional, highly formalized rhetorical
structures, offers especially good insight into these personal, private, and idio-
syncratic contours of early national sentiment.20 Petrarchan lyric poetry allows
specific insight because of its elite provenance, linking it to social groups
among the aristocracy and professional urban classes with well-defined invest-
ments in the ideology of patria, race, and nation.21 Because of its focus on am-
atory relationships and on the poet’s role in relation to patrons, supporters,
and other poets, Petrarchan poetry addresses major issues of gender, class, and
status which are implicated in expressions of national sentiment.22 Cariteo’s
beloved Luna, Du Bellay’s Olive, and Philip Sidney’s Stella are noble ladies cel-
ebrated by upwardly moving, socially mobile members of the lesser aristocracy.
The beloved of Mary Wroth’s Pamphilia to Amphilanthus is a fictive Holy Ro-
man emperor admired by the queen of Morea. While Cariteo sought patron-
age from the Spanish nobility in Naples, Du Bellay received the patronage of
his cousin Cardinal Jean du Bellay, and Philip Sidney claimed access to his un-
cle the earl of Leicester. As noblewomen, Mary Sidney and Mary Wroth wrote
as independent agents. The collective service of these poets in the reigns of the
Spanish viceroy in Naples, Henry II in France, and Elizabeth I and James I in
England brought them close to the heartbeats of monarchical power. Other
more or less contemporaneous genres—the dynastic epic romances of
Boiardo, Ariosto, Tasso, and Spenser; the religious epic of Agrippa d’Aubigné;
the historical drama of Garnier, Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Lope de Vega—
may have celebrated the formation of national identities. Petrarch’s poetry and
that of his imitators did more. They inscribed their readerships onto the site
of early modern national sentiment.

The Site of Italy and European National Sentiment

Petrarch’s poetry stimulated the development of literary vernaculars in Eu-
rope, and it transmitted to them its own sense of cultural awareness inherited
from classical and late medieval Italian poetic texts.23 Concepts of Italy and
Italian national sentiment had evolved in the Rime sparse after a long and com-
plex history. The name Italy appears to have originated in the fifth century


 Fore Sites

..., when the Greeks who colonized southern Calabria called it vitalia (cat-
tle country; cf. vitulus, calf ).24 By the third century ... the name extended
to the entire peninsula south of the Rubicon. In Julius Caesar’s time it reached
to Cisalpine Gaul. The name evoked a land inhabited by several ethnic
groups, including the Gallo-Celts in the north, the Ligurians and Etruscans
bordering upon them, kindred tribes of Umbrians, Sabellians, Oscans, and
Latins in the center, and Greeks in the far south.25 The Roman republic’s
achievement was to have united them all, a multicultural conglomerate of peo-
ples ranging from hardy and frugal mountaineers to easygoing inhabitants of
fertile valleys and plains.26 In Georgics .‒ Virgil proclaims that under
Augustus no other lands “laudibus Italiae certent” ‘may vie with Italy’s glories’
(), commending its “ver adsiduum” ‘eternal spring’ (), which favors “tot
egregias urbes operumque laborem” ‘all the noble cities, the achievement of
man’s toil’ ().
Nine centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire the idea of Italy and its
spoken dialects offered Dante a figure of desolation and defeat.27 In Purgato-
rio , after Virgil identifies himself as Mantuan, the expatriate poet Sordello
steps forward as “Sordello / de la tua terra!” ‘Sordello from your own land!’
(‒). His name rhymes cruelly with the nouns ostello and bordello which
apostrophize a debased Italy: “Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello, / nave sanza
nocchiere in gran tempesta, / non donna di provincie, ma bordello” ‘Ah, servile
Italy, hostel of grief, ship without pilot in great tempest, no mistress of
provinces, but brothel’ (‒).28 The complex rhyme pattern in this canto
colors the speaker’s humiliation. In De vulgari eloquentia . Dante had
judged the language of Italy capable of yielding poetry “more sweetly and
subtly” than other Romance languages, even though he acknowledged its di-
vision into fourteen major vernaculars with countless variants.29 But Sordello’s
abandoning his Mantuan tongue for Provençal sadly betokened the impossi-
bility of harmonizing the languages of Italy, a situation that reflects the penin-
sula’s social and political disarray as well.30 In Purgatorio  Sordello’s evocation
of the Italian terra prompts Dante to chide the emperor-elect Albert I and
his father Rudolf I of Hapsburg for relinquishing their rule to a corrupt
clergy. Italy, its language, and its civilization have now become “vedova e sola”
‘widowed and alone’ ().
Upon the coronation of Charles IV of Luxembourg and Bohemia as Holy
Roman emperor in , a celebrated canzone, “Quella virtù che ’l terzo cielo
infonde” ‘That virtue that the third heaven infuses’ (attributed to Bindo di
Cione del Frate), expressed hopes for a united Italy to be ruled by “un vertu-


Introduction

dioso re che ragion tenga / e la ragion dello ’mperio mantegna” ‘a virtuous king
who keeps order and maintains the order of the empire’ (‒).31 Such
hopes dissolved when Charles retreated to Prague after his coronation,
prompting Petrarch’s friend Antonio de’ Beccari to forge a canzone of despair
about the fate of the empire, “O sacro imperio santo” ‘O sacred Holy Em-
pire.’32 After  a series of sonnets by Francesco da Vennozzo rejected the
empire and instead supported Gian Galleozzo Visconti of Milan, the “Conte
di Virtù” ‘virtuoso Count’ as a leader whom all Italy might trust: “Italia, figlia
mia, prendi diletto . . . / Che Italia ride ed è zunto ’l Messia” ‘Italy, my daugh-
ter, rejoice . . . that Italy smiles and her Messiah has arrived.’33
As a geographical entity, Italy no longer dominated the Holy Roman Em-
pire. Nor was it a coherent nation, for which concept a substantive noun did
not even exist. For both Dante and Petrarch the cognate adjective natio desig-
nates “native, indigenous.” In Inferno  Farinata degli Uberti displays exorbi-
tant pride in being a natio Florentine: “La tua loquela ti fa manifesto / di quella
nobil patrïa natio” ‘Your speech clearly shows you a native of that noble fa-
therland’ (‒). In sonnet  Petrarch returns from his “natio dolce aere
tosco” ‘sweet native Tuscan air’ to Vaucluse, where Laura resides, “per ritrovar
ove ’l cor lasso appoggi” ‘to find again a place where my weary heart can lean.’
The Tuscan noun that best approximates a concept of nation is gente, a collec-
tivity of people, especially foreign peoples, as opposed to those in the more
personalized ancestral space of a patria. Thus in Dante’s Inferno  Fortune ap-
portions wealth among various genti by alternating richness with poverty “di
gente in gente e d’uno in altro sangue” ‘from people to people, and from one
to another blood’ (‒).
Petrarch uses gente with scorn to suggest a vulgar crowd or mob: “Seguite i
pochi et non la volgar gente” ‘Follow the few and not the crowd’ (sonnet ;
cf. sonnets , , and ). In his political canzoni gente designates foreign
peoples to the north, where “nemica naturalmente di pace / nasce una gente”
‘is born a people naturally the enemy of peace’ (.‒; cf. .); the op-
pressed people of Rome, as in the exhortation to Cola di Rienzo to end civil
strife “per cui la gente ben non s’assecura” ‘because of which the people are not
safe’ (.‒; cf. ., ); and those who serve the warring lords of north-
ern Italy as mercenaries, “e ’n disparte / cercar gente, et gradire” ‘and in foreign
parts seek and reward men’ (.; cf. ., , ).
In  Fazio degli Uberti, a descendant of Dante’s Farinata, completed a
long didactic travelogue in terza rima, Il Dittamondo, in which Solomon
guides the exiled speaker on a journey through “lo mondo tutto e la gente”


 Fore Sites

‘the entire world and its people.’34 When he visits his father’s Florence, he
burns with love for a patria that he has never seen, “Quivi provai come è
grande l’amore / della patria” ‘Here I experienced how great is the love of one’s
fatherland’ (..‒). In these lines the poet clearly distinguishes between his
terra natia, the city of Pisa where he was born during his father’s exile, and his
ancestral patria, the republic of Florence. His deep feelings now embrace a
corporate Italy—“Qui sono i collicai dolci e piacevoli, / adombrati e coperti di
bei fiori” ‘Here are sweet and pleasant hills, shaded and covered with beautiful
flowers’ (..‒)—registering his strong sentiment for a geographic entity
larger than that of family or place of birth, a depersonalized site that is some-
thing less than territorial but something more than a historical memory.
The Latin nouns gens and natio carry different meanings from those of
their fourteenth-century Italian cognates. In Cicero’s usage, for example, gentes
refers to foreign “peoples” whose inferior origins subordinate them to Roman
citizens.35 In late medieval vulgar Latin, nationes refers to communities of im-
migrant scholars united by a common “native” language and place of origin at
various universities in western Europe—forerunners of foreign students’
unions that shared a set of allegiances within the transnational institutions
they belong to.36 At the University of Paris they included the “nations” of Pi-
cardy, Normandy, England, and Germany. In the late thirteenth century the
idea of nation as a community of opinion was applied to various representa-
tives at church councils who served as spokesmen for diverse secular and reli-
gious causes. Because they possessed some cultural and political authority,
these spokesmen came to be identified with a ruling elite, a social class that
constituted a nation in a narrow sense.37 In the fourteenth century they gen-
erally included representatives from France, Germany, Aragon, and England.
In sixteenth-century England the word nation acquired its modern sense as
referring to the entire people of a country, the broad expanse of land and small
communities facing (contra, whence “country”) the ruling metropolis and de-
pendent on it.38 This new usage embraces the lower classes as well as the up-
per so as to mitigate the formerly derogatory sense of “people” attaching to the
lowest stratum of the populace.39 Both nation and people now project positive
meanings as bearers of sovereignty and units of political solidarity. As the word
nation came into English, it resonated with the biblical associations of the
Latin gens, gentis in Jerome’s Vulgate. The latter in turn translates the Septu-
agint Greek to ethnos, which denotes a group of foreigners from a single or
shared place of origin, in dire circumstances referring to the Jewish people
during their nomadic exiles. In Genesis . “the nacion [to ethnos / gentem],


Introduction

whome thei shal serue” means Egypt, the unruly Other that threatens or hin-
ders Jewish sovereignty.40 But in Genesis . nation means Abraham and his
progeny, descendants from one ancestral root (Latin radix, whence “race”)
who will share an ethnic and religious identity when they live as foreigners
(ethnoi) in Egypt: “I will make of thee a great nation [ethnos mega / gentem
magnam].”41 Both meanings of the word span Shakespeare’s Merchant of
Venice (), in which Shylock presents himself as a tribal member of the di-
asporic Jewish “sacred nation” ghettoized in Venice (..), while Antonio ac-
knowledges a rule of law that binds “all nations” as discrete foreign political
entities and sovereign states (..).
To quote from the  Geneva Bible and from Shakespeare as I have done
brings us from the age of Petrarch to the terminal point of this study in the
early seventeenth century. At that time European texts represented the nation
as a function of political and ideological, not just geographical determination.
This idea had a long gestation. Ancient geographers such as Strabo and Pliny
the Elder commented upon the cultural unity of Italy despite the variety of its
peoples and extreme differences in its topography.42 Flavio Biondo’s Latin Italia
illustrata () describes these differences and provides an account of their his-
torical associations. The advent of print subsequently enabled reproducible Por-
tolani maps to present visual cosmographies along with narrative chorographies
or discursive accounts of various lands.43 Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia
(), Leandro Alberti’s Descrittione di tutta l’Italia (), Abraham Ortelius’
Theatrum orbis mundi (), and Pietro Bertelli’s Teatro della città d’Italia
() all helped to fix the site of Italy within the world and give it a substan-
tive identity.44 Despite the diversity of Italy’s regional composition and its
stubborn particularities, a sense of pan-Italian unity had come to prevail.
Similar features mark the formation of German national sentiment. The
latter’s origins reach back to the first century ..., when tribal lands in the
Saar, Rhine, and Danube basins became Roman provinces, administered
through such imperial cities as Trier, Cologne, Mainz, Augsburg, Regensburg,
and Vienna.45 Classical Latin designated this area as Germania but called its
peoples by their various tribal names. The etymology of Germania is uncer-
tain, sometimes held to be a name given by Gauls to their neighbors from
Celtic gair (neighbor) but also possibly related to Latin germanus (brother) (cf.
germen, shoot, bud), referring to close kinship bonds in its tribal society.46 Late
Roman and early medieval writers favored the word teutonicus, derived from
Teutones, an ancient tribe that inhabited Jutland in the fourth century ...
and with the Cimbri devastated Gaul in  ...47 In the thirteenth century


 Fore Sites

these peoples referred to themselves as Diutisch (modern Deutsch) and to their

territory as Diutischland.48 The word derives from the Gothic thiuda (people),
whence the Old High German Diet (an assembly of people) and the adjective
diutisc (of the people, popular), equivalent to the Latin vulgaris in distin-
guishing the vernacular language and its dialects from the institutional Latin
of church and scholarship.49 Italian and French neighbors later referred to the
country as Allamagnia or Allemagne (from medieval Latin allemania, country
of the Alemanni), evoking a specific tribe in the upper Rhine-Danube region
defeated by Clovis at the end of the fifth century.50
Charlemagne’s conquest and Christianization of the Saxons in the ninth
century helped to confer upon federated German localities a distinct political
identity. In  the Carolingian succession of the East Frankish kingdom
passed to the election of Conrad I, duke of Franconia, as king of Germany.51
Through his successor Henry I, duke of Saxony, Otto I inherited the kingdom
in  and was anointed emperor in . Five tribal Stamm (stem) duchies of
Saxony, Franconia, Lorraine, Swabia, and Bavaria formed the core of tenth-
century Germany, but already Henry I had sponsored Saxon migrations into
the Slav territories of Silesia and Pomerania, and Otto I encouraged Bavarians
to move into Magyar lands that later became Austria, the German Österreich.
Hapsburg control from  onward projected an illusion of seamlessness
upon Germany and the empire, but Germans groups within the empire re-
mained keenly aware of their multiethnic, multinational differences from one
another.52
Sixteenth-century Spaniards certainly thought of themselves as different
from the subjects of Charles V’s Hapsburg Empire. Early modern Europe’s
fiercest defenders of a determinate ethnicity, the Spanish comprise an interra-
cial mixture that is among the most varied and complex (Iberian, African, Ro-
man, Visigothic, Arabic), a fusion registered in the late foreign coinage of the
adjective español. The word originated in thirteenth-century Provence among
pilgrims to Santiago de Compostella in Galicia and was used to designate the
heterogeneous mass of Basques, Catalans, Castilians, Leónese, Aragonese,
Navarrese, and Galicians who lived south of the Pyrenees.53 The word echoes
the Latin Hispaniensis, which first-century ... Romans applied to inhabi-
tants of the province of Hispania embracing tribal Cantabrians, Asturians,
Galicians, and Carthaginians in Iberia (so called from the Greek name for the
peninsula, Iberes).
Religious differences forged a major taxonomy for Spanish self-definition
after Recared I (‒) converted his followers to Christianity. From the


Introduction

eighth to the thirteenth centuries Iberian cristianos set themselves apart from
Arabic Moors and Sephardic Jews.54 Such kingdoms as Castile, León, Navarre,
Aragon, and Catalonia brought further distinctions. The Crónica General,
commissioned by Alfonso X the Wise (‒), imputes a speech to Alfonso
VIII of Castile before the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in  in which he ad-
dresses his Portuguese and Aragonese allies as “todos nos somos españoles” ‘we
are all Spanish.’55 The word español henceforth conferred a unity upon Spain’s
Christians, who would trace their descent from Tubal, the grandson of Noah,
“donde vinieron los españoles” ‘whence came the Spaniards.’ 56 The fifteenth-
century reconquista of Moorish territories in the south ultimately gave voice to
the idea of a limpiezza del sangre (purity of blood) which proclaimed a corpo-
rate Old Christian ethnic identity.57 In the year of Ferdinand and Isabella’s vic-
tory over Granada, Antonio de Nebrija dedicated to the queen his Gramática
de la lengua castellana (). Proposing Castilian as the best model for a na-
tional language, this book—the first European vernacular grammar—privi-
leged Isabella’s dialect above all others in the emergent nation, where “siempre
la lengua fue compañera del imperio” ‘language has always been a companion
of empire.’58
The formation of specifically French and English national sentiments and
their inflection in sixteenth-century Petrarchan poetry dominate this book,
and parts  and  will treat this topic in detail. Like the Spanish, French people
regarded their common Christianity as the basis for a shared identity. From
the start, usually assigned to Clovis’s victory over Frankish rivals and his unifi-
cation of the Paris basin ca.  ..., they proudly acknowledged their mul-
tiethnic origins as a mosaic embracing Greeks, Romans, Celtic Gauls and
Bretons, non-Indo-European Aquitani, Germanic Franks, Visigoths, Burgun-
dians, Norsemen, and more. They derived their name from the Franks, who
in turn derived theirs variously from Germanic franc (ferocious, barbarous),
Latin fractum (detached, independent, free), and even Greek phrenērēs (sound
of mind, prudent, wise).59
The Hundred Years War (‒) between France and England doubt-
less fostered a sense of solidarity among people in Brittany, Aquitaine, and
lands north of the Loire against their common enemy across the Channel. But
the English upper class also viewed its identity as French. Its claim to the
French throne, after all, had caused the war. The English lower classes in turn
acknowledged their multiethnic origins as successive waves of Celtic Bretons,
ancient Romans, sixth- and seventh-century Angles, Saxons, Danes, and fi-
nally eleventh-century Normans crashed on Albion’s shores and flooded in-


 Fore Sites

ward.60 Like the French, Latin-educated English scholars recounted an origi-

nary myth about the settlement of their land by refugees from the Trojan War
(led by Hector’s son Francus to France and by Aeneas’ great-grandson Brutus
to Troynovant, the site of London). Seventh-century Latin writers called this
people Angli, referring to the Danish Angles who had settled in the East Mid-
lands region, while tenth-century vernacular writers called them Angelcynn
(Angle-kin) and named the land Angleland or Englaland.
French people developed sentiments about being “French” earlier than the
English did of being “English,” partly because their administrative structure
sustained a longer historical continuity than England’s had.61 But the English
seem to have evolved a deeper sense of nationhood as a multiclass, multiethnic
community of peoples largely unrelated to one another yet sharing common
social, political, and economic goals.62 If the English brushed aside a sense of
cultural unity that the French had nurtured, the French ignored a process of
political confederation that had taken root in England. This difference points
to the divergent emphases that each later assigned to its idea of national char-
acter, the one mirroring the other as an inversion of itself. In the nineteenth
century Lord Acton described the English national character as one that resists
uniformity and affirms a pluralist accommodation of various interest groups
who prize their individuality and unabashed eccentricities.63 Ernest Renan de-
scribed its French counterpart as a concept of community predicated on a
form of relation, based on the willingness of citizens to surrender their ethnic,
cultural, and linguistic particularities to a factitious standard that protects the
rights of all.64 The French attainment of a common culture required an am-
nesia about its contentious origins and a deliberate effort to shape a social
imaginary.65 But this is of course true of the English imaginary as well. Its
myths juxtapose narratives about a state that absorbed the rights of different
groups (the Bretons, Saxons, and Normans; the king, nobility, gentry, and
commoners), even as its contrarian will to preserve territorial rights, local lib-
erties, and feudal prerogatives led to nearly continual civil strife in the late
Middle Ages.66

The Site of Language

Parallel to sociocultural differences between the French and the English are
their respective early modern attitudes toward language at a time of chaotic
variance among dialects and local idioms. The French early on embraced a
regularizing of their language and other semiotic modes (fashion in food,


Introduction

dress, social activities, leisure pursuits), though effective normalization did not
occur until the mid-nineteenth century, with the administrative centralization
of a public school system.67 Sixteenth-century speculation about a common
French language by Geoffroy Tory, Robert Estienne, Peletier du Mans, and
Louis Meigret, echoed by Joachim Du Bellay in his Deffence et illustration,
guides my analysis of Du Bellay and the language of empire in part . The
English, on the other hand, have long prized their own irregularities, includ-
ing a language full of anomaly. What they call the King’s English (even when
the royals spoke nothing but French or German) is the upper-class dialect of
London. George Puttenham in  refers vaguely to this standard as the lan-
guage heard within a radius of sixty miles of London. But, as my study of Sid-
neian cultural politics and the linguistic order will show in part , other Tudor
writers such as Thomas Wilson and Richard Mulcaster simultaneously en-
couraged a farrago of native coinages and idiosyncratic forms. This peculiarity
would enrich English Petrarchism even as it helped to express a distinctive
English sentiment in and through the poetry.
Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century commentaries on Petrarch’s Rime sparse
display the history of Petrarchism as one of negotiation between the imputed
universalism of a Petrarchan style shared across Europe and the particularism
of its local and regional adaptations. Such writers as Bembo, Boscán, Du Bel-
lay, Sidney, and Opitz encouraged a regeneration of vernacular styles based on
Petrarchan models. Still, Du Bellay would doubt whether any standardized
(let alone literary) vernacular could provide the glue imputed to it for pro-
moting ideological agreement. In Deffence . and . he recognizes that no
language is innately superior to any other: “Toutes Langues sont d’une mesme
valeur, & des mortelz à vne mesme fin d’un mesme jugement formées. Par-
quoy . . . je croy qu’à un chacun sa Langue puysse competemment communi-
quer toute doctrine” ‘All languages are of a like value, and formed by mortals
to a like end with a like judgment. Wherefore . . . do I believe that to each
man his language can completely communicate every doctrine’ (/). The
logic of this argument implies that no dialect or stylistic variant of a language
trumps any other, unless it acquires social prestige through ascription or con-
vention. Certain uniform modes of discourse can and do bring people to-
gether in legal, economic, and administrative exchange, and they play impor-
tant roles in politics, law, trade, and commerce. Perceptions of correctness or
incorrectness in grammar, syntax, spelling, and pronunciation nonetheless seg-
ment speakers and writers into hierarchies based on social status, gender differ-
ences, and educational attainments.68 The composite language in its diversity


 Fore Sites

inexorably reproduces the divisions in society which tug at a sense of corporate

political identity.69
Far from self-evidently uniting people, then, standards of linguistic usage
rather differentiate and discriminate among them, as we shall see in parts 
and .70 Foreign or regional accent, popular or idiomatic diction, formal or in-
formal style, ostentatious error or correctness, all constitute social markers that
locate speakers in hierarchically defined categories. Philip Sidney recognized
the social incongruity of his taste for an old Scottish border ballad about Percy
and Douglas: “Certainly I must confess my own barbarousness; . . . it is sung
but by some blind crowder . . . in the dust and cobwebs of that uncivil age” (A
Defence, ). As Sidney knew, differences in status exercise enormous impact
upon linguistic usage through upbringing, economic resource, or, as his peers
believed, genetic determination.71 Mary Wroth’s titular heroine in Urania, a
foundling born of royal parents but raised by a shepherd, displays such supe-
rior physical and ethical attributes that her royal birth “could not be other-
wise,” while its principal characters, Pamphilia and Amphilanthus, display
such attributes that “kindnesse [i.e. their degree of birth] then betray’d
them.”72 Blue-blooded aristocrats flaunt genealogies that link them to famous
events in national history and affirm them to be of more valiant stock than
commoners with obscure origins.73
The sharing of a mother tongue, a common language within broad bounds
of local difference, might nonetheless constitute a metaphor for collective ori-
gins, a figure of natural inclusion and national coexistence that accepts all who
embrace it regardless of social rank or geographical locale.74 No matter who
they are or where they now reside, people belong to the motherland if they
speak some variant of its language. Even at a distance across mountains and
seas, those who share its tongue feel a sense of attachment to the land of their
birth, their natio. The idea of a fatherland, a patria, implies more restrictive
form of coexistence as it embraces only those who formally submit to its laws
and orders, as expressed in a particular variant of its language.75 Rather than
simply belonging to it, people aggressively will a fatherland into being by ac-
tivating its values (classically associated with ancient republican virtue) and de-
fending its sovereignty in a precise lexicon. This father tongue is the acquired
discourse of law, education, commerce, and specialized professions, couched
in a language such as Latin in the West, Arabic in Islamic countries, and Man-
darin in the East.76 It is learned in the academies by a segment of the popula-
tion, largely male and wellborn, destined for leadership.
As I will argue in part , Petrarchan style provides an apt medium for a na-


Introduction

tional literary discourse because its scope accommodates the mother tongue of
the modern vernaculars to the father tongue of the ancient classics. The Rime
sparse deploys an artificial, self-consciously constructed amalgam of literary
Tuscan, Sicilian, Provençal, and classical Latin, all of them elite forms embed-
ded in textual conventions of antiquity and the later Middle Ages. Fashioned
in this composite, such patriotic poems as Petrarch’s canzoni  and  express
some of the earliest national sentiment in European letters. But, as a vehicle
for predominantly amatory poetry, Petrarch’s style favors topics that express
personal feelings and interpersonal relationships. It offers a transitional space
for freedom, play, and creation which permits access to sometimes discordant
and discrepant dreams, exurient desires, and tractable realities. Not the least of
its features, as I shall argue at the end of part , is that it provides a voice for
women to express widely ramifying relationships to place and home. As figures
of partitive exchange between families in exogamic marriages, often trans-
ported far from their regions of birth to new spousal households, such women
become the conveyors of translocal feelings and attachments across permeable
boundaries. In their writing on these experiences, national sentiment has an
opportunity to take root.77
This book will show that national sentiments spring from loyalties to par-
ticular people and among classes of people which straddle institutions of state
and emblems of rule. In the early modern period such loyalties grew increas-
ingly strong. The formation of nationally organized states and churches gave
rise to an increasingly secularized bureaucratic class. The creation of central-
ized monarchies quelled a powerful clergy and an autarchic feudal nobility.
Symbolic trappings of ritual, identification, and pageantry defined and con-
tinually redefined states, churches, and monarchies. Each of these forces
strengthened the loyalties that I refer to. Collectively, such institutions of state
and church, along with their symbolic trappings, enforced order by equating
the figure of a ruler with the totalizing, transcendent identity of a territory,
culture, and population designated as “the nation.”78 In my view, however,
more than any ideological commitment to hegemonic forms of authority, a
highly mobile set of loyalties to individual people and specific classes of people
ordered society at all levels and provided an immanent basis for national sen-
timent. Totemic allegiances to households, guilds, neighbors, associates, pa-
trons, clients, and kin usually outweighed notional attachments to emerging
national ideals, even as the dynamics of group psychology began to inflame
passions about the latter.
Through such networks of loyalty and allegiance, I contend, individuals


 Fore Sites

sought to replace weaker elements of their identity with stronger ones. In so

doing, they felt themselves part of or alienated from conceptions of a patria
celebrating the heritage of one’s ancestors, a race stemming from a common
radix (root), a natio sharing communal associations through birth, settlement,
language, or custom. Strictly speaking, only the elite may claim a patria, race,
or natio by virtue of possessing a legal title, a pedigreed lineage, inheritable
proprietary rights, something to protect and pass on, and hence something
that confers a political status.79 Still, I would argue for the permeability of
boundaries marking social classes in the sixteenth century. The mass of a
population could and did share in political claims of the elite by participating
in coalitions that the latter formed and by adopting their loyalties and alle-
giances. Sentiments about the state or nation functioned as no disembodied
system of ideological beliefs but, rather, as a congeries of overlapping and of-
ten discordant beliefs about patria, race, and natio held by people across the
social spectrum. Different groups put such beliefs into eddying circulation
while frankly acknowledging conflicts and divisions among themselves in sta-
tus, rank, and proprietary rights; and in so doing, they produced a set of ideas
about the character of the community which served to define the responsibil-
ities of its individual members. The outcome, founded less on an agreement
than on dialogue about what an agreement might mean, allowed such groups
and individuals to explore and exploit and, when necessary, to expose and ex-
plode phantasms of national solidarity as they resisted domination by more
powerful elites.80 What remains, then, is no solemn, stately, confident march
toward the creation and possession of some timeless, universally accepted idea
of national character or identity but, instead, an ebb and flow, a jagged history
of contending ideas about the possibilities of mobilizing affective national sen-
timent as a work-in-progress.
In De vulgari eloquentia . Dante implies that the language of poetry
could promote cultural values and political myths. The capacious vernacular
that he calls “illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial” (/) might legitimate
the dialects of Italy by selecting their best features and making them common
to all. It would be courtly in echoing the ceremonial language of a royal court
that did not exist but whose potential Italian leaders could emulate and curial
in emulating the well-balanced constructions of judicial and administrative
officers. But it would be opposed to the “municipal vernacular” of cities, sites
of faction and frenzy, arrogance and divisiveness, semaphores of division
within Italy. Dante’s treatise, however, remained unknown to Italian human-
ists until Giangiorgio Trissino recovered and published it in . By that time


Introduction

Bembo’s Prose had already established Petrarch’s model as the basis for Italian
literary style.81
Only cloistered literary scholars (present company excepted) might assume
that poetry or critical theory could have had a real impact on the linguistic de-
velopment of Italian, Spanish, French, English, or German spoken forms. As
a subset of literary style in these languages, international Petrarchism appears
a wholly unlikely model for any national style. Petrarchan poetry has little to
do with the state vernaculars of early modern Europe, except as providing one
among several training grounds in verbal expression for members of the elite
who became catalysts for national sentiment in Italy, France, Spain, and Eng-
land.82 Its figurative yoking of oxymoronic opposites, its penchant for a mul-
tilayered wordplay that incorporates literary, historical, and cultural allusions,
and its elaborate protocols of difference and deference in voice and address
made it an apt vehicle for developing one’s verbal skills. The self-consciousness
of Petrarchan style and the dramatic energy of the Petrarchan amatory situa-
tion, in which the lover anticipates, manages, and responds to the beloved’s nu-
anced reactions, parallel strategic functions in game theory and state manage-
ment.83 These considerations about rhetorical strategy and verbal manipulation
return us to the commentaries on Petrarch’s poetry which conditioned its re-
ception throughout Europe from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries.
Responsive readers and creative poets found in them variously situated re-
flections on Petrarch’s work. The rhetorical commentaries of Gesualdo, Syl-
vano da Venafro, and Bernardino Daniello took great care to gloss Petrarch’s
diction, trace his figurations, explain his tropes, excavate his ancient and me-
dieval sources, and situate his language in a rich stylistic context. The bio-
graphical commentary of Vellutello set out to provide a narrative that would
link the action described in the poems with the life of the poet, and it deliv-
ered a profile of Petrarch’s career which shows the connection between his
public and political aspirations and his private and poetic goals. Earlier com-
mentaries by Antonio da Tempo, Filelfo, and Squarzafico from the perspective
of imperial ideology and northern Italian Ghibellinism focused on Petrarch as
a seeker of patronage in aristocratic circles of Milan, Verona, Venice, and
Padua. Proto-Protestant commentaries by Fausto da Longiano, Antonio Bru-
cioli, and Castelvetro capitalized upon the poet’s criticism of ecclesiastical in-
stitutions and church-state relations, representing him as a forerunner of the
great sixteenth-century reformers. Their collective impact on the early modern
reception of Petrarchan poetry, of the poet’s role, of poetic language, and of
the interface between poetry and politics shapes the chapters that follow.


  
Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy
This page intentionally left blank
 1 Petrarch as Commentator
The Search for Italy

In his Familiares and Seniles Petrarch provides his own best commentary on his
literary work and on his sentiment as an Italian writer.1 Carefully collected, re-
vised, edited, and arranged, these letters project the site of his work as one of
continual displacement. The introductory letter of the Familiares addressed
early in  to Ludwig van Kempen, familiarly called “Socrates,” a Belgian
musician at the papal court of Avignon, concerns time and its disruptions that
hamper, ravage, and deform his work. But it equally and perhaps more pro-
foundly concerns space and its dislocations that separate the poet from a com-
munity defined as protonational. Petrarch’s incipient humanist sense of tem-
poral alienation, his sense of remove from the ancient past, appear to heighten
his identity as an exile, a traveler, a wanderer.2 But an even sharper sense of his
spatial disjuncture, first in southern France and then in northern Italy, throws
into bold relief his need for a social, cultural, and above all geopolitical site
upon which to construct a public and therefore a class- and gender-defined
pan-Italian identity.
Familiares . dramatizes the poet’s personal and professional confrontation
with deep loss. Composed probably at Padua in the wake of the Black Death,
the letter evokes the devastation of .3 Famine, plague, loss of life, demo-
graphic decline, economic upheaval, and public unrest have caused social tur-
moil, but a keen sense of fleeting time causes even greater psychological tur-
moil. Needing to edit his letters “scattered [sparsa, echoing the adjective that
describes his Italian poetry, Rime sparse] and neglected” (/), Petrarch sees a
replication of the humanist hermeneutic in his own writing.4 Over time his


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

letters disclose “the changed nature of my own understanding (intellectus mu-

tata)” (/). Tricks of memory (“I could hardly recognize certain letters”)
prompt him to revise his Familiares toward a goal that would later be identified
with “humanist” scholarship: to bridge the distance between past and present by
making the past comprehensible to the present. Petrarch stares into an abyss
of time frozen by an event in  which inspired him to collect these letters.
In that year Petrarch had discovered at Verona Cicero’s long lost letters to
Atticus, at once changing his perception of Cicero and unsettling his faith
about the past. Recording petty quarrels and parochial invective, these letters
belie Cicero’s great public reputation.5 They move Petrarch “in a fit of anger”
to write to Cicero “as if he were a friend living in my time, . . . forgetting as it
were the gap of time [quasi temporum oblitus]” (/).6 Petrarch’s passage
through this trauma of re-cognition makes him “stronger [securior] out of that
very state of despair,” and it helps his style to grow sinewy, muscular, febrile,
“more vigorous [nerviosior]” (/). Physical and intellectual experience
merge at the site of his humanist activity. Summoning the concrete spatial di-
mension of the humanist project, Petrarch works to “gather together [recolligo]
his writing in “the form of a book” (/). The room where he is ready to in-
cinerate unfit texts seals him off from a world of real or imagined communi-
ties that take shape according to social, cultural, and political needs. This in-
terior site is cluttered with unsorted texts but is not lacking in design, since
here Petrarch has arranged “little bundles [sarcinulas]” of books for an im-
pending journey (/).
The writer’s self-identification as one about to become a “wanderer” (mi-
graturus) projects a different space (/).7 On the one hand, travel expands the
writer’s mind, range of topics, and available audience. It introduces him to
“countless famous men [notos]” who will receive his letters (/). On the other
hand, Petrarch addresses so many diverse audiences that he loses his focus, at
times repeating words, inflecting them differently for different readers, contra-
dicting or denying what he has written elsewhere. The result is confusion. The
composite volume of his writing has become “a deformity [deformitas]” (/).
More insistently, travel deprives the writer of a material res publica, the site
of heroic activity and participatory local community. Petrarch associates his
epistolary style, “plain, domestic, and friendly [mediocre domesticum et famil-
iare],” with that of Cicero’s letters, not the “almost torrential [exundans] kind
of eloquence” which the Roman writer elsewhere deployed “against his ene-
mies and those of the Republic” (/). Puns and wordplay sap Petrarch’s
style.8 Relieved to be “free from all cares of state [a reipublice muneribus abfui]”


 Petrarch as Commentator

(/), he feels a palpable loss, teasingly expressed as a stylistic breach. If the res
publica is a site of heroic male action, Petrarch needs to locate another site where
he might deploy his rhetorical skills: “If [this rhetorical power] did abound, I
would not know where to exercise it” (/), in which the syllables of the pro-
tasis (si exuberet) punningly reverse those of the object clause (ubi exerceam).
Petrarch genders his feelings about such action in a pattern of complex
overlapping associations. “Compare my wanderings [errores] to those of
Ulysses,” he writes, summoning Dante’s representation in Inferno  of the de-
fiant old warrior who persuades his men to travel beyond “the borders of his
fatherland [patrios fines]” (/).9 Ulysses chose to abandon his ancestral do-
main, but Petrarch’s exile was imposed on him, the unwilled result of his fa-
ther’s manly opposition to misguided politics. “Expelled from his native city
[the insistently alliterative pulsus patria pater magna] with a file of good men
[acie, a military battle line]” (/), the elder Ser Petracco evokes Aeneas in
his flight from Troy. Compared with these masculine precedents, the younger
Petrarch’s “first labors [labores]” seem passive, puny, even unconscious as he
asks, “where [quo] am I being led, forgetful of my purpose?” (/‒). La-
bores anticipates his acts of writing in a cramped room, but it also resumes the
birth pangs, “with so much labor undergone by my mother [matris labore] and
with so much danger that she was considered dead” (/). Now, as Petrarch
describes his family’s westward migration to Avignon, he constructs for him-
self a feminized self-image that evokes Virgil’s Camilla (Aeneid .‒)
wrapped in a bundle and suspended on a rod “just as Metabus had done with
Camilla” (/). This confused, shifting, transgendered identity marks off no
social, cultural, or political site for masculine action. And yet, while Petrarch’s
labors extend beyond Cicero’s res publica, the literary fragments that describe
them originate “among the manly [virili] portions of the remains” (/).
Petrarch’s efforts to recuperate his masculine public identity prompt him to
represent his life as a martial engagement, “not only like military service [mili-
tia] but like actual warfare [pugna]” (‒/). They also prompt him to rep-
resent his writing as a battleground of ideas “in constant contradiction [pug-
nantia].” The act of writing compels him into “a double labor [geminus labor]”
in which he charges others “first to consider to whom you have undertaken to
write, and then what his state of mind [affectus] will be” (/), evoking the
reciprocal exchange of the Gemini constellation’s Pollux and Castor as the
writer becomes the reader’s twin, and vice versa. One result is an apparent loss
of identity in Petrarch’s tendency “to be very inconsistent [differre]” as he ad-
dresses his readers’ various concerns (/).10 From those unable to accept


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

contradiction, Petrarch counsels his accomplices to conceal variant texts “lest

readers become upset at changes [verborum mutatione] I have made in the con-
tent or in the style” (/). His labor becomes an act of deformity as it seeks
to avert factious responses in a makeshift space of social, cultural, and politi-
cal exchange.11
“For me writing and living are the same thing” (/), Petrarch con-
cludes, proclaiming his survival after the Black Death but also his will to liter-
ary immortality. From a hemmed-in site of temporal loss Petrarch has moved
forward to a threshold of advantage in the belief that if he “were ever to enjoy
a steady abode [stabilis sedes]” he would weave through his writing “a more no-
ble and certainly a unified web or tapestry [nobiliorem et certe uniformem
telam].” At the time of his writing in  Petrarch had not yet attained his
“steady abode.” He was in fact on the verge of renouncing the greatest stabil-
ity he had ever known at his retreat in Vaucluse and would not settle at Arquà
until , four years before his death. He has nonetheless succeeded in pro-
ducing a body of texts “with multi-colored threads [diversicoloribus liciis texta],”
and he promises to accomplish as much or more in the approaching future
(/). The lack of an Italian home may unwittingly have generated positive
results. Precisely because Petrarch has addressed his readers from multiple per-
spectives in different localities, he has found himself projecting a deeply reso-
nant transnational voice with profound consequences for a later readership.
Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century commentators, for example, would try to
smooth out Petrarch’s inconsistencies in his regional relationships with the
Visconti rulers of Milan and Francesco Carrara of Padua.12 Depending upon
their provenance or patronal affiliation, these commentators would represent
Petrarch as either friendly or reserved toward such lords.13 In reply to a hostile
letter of  by Brizio Visconti, the belligerent son of the coruler Luchino, in
which the former disparages the art of poetry, Petrarch wrote his Metrical Epis-
tles . and .. Here he condemns Brizio’s avarice, stupidity, and selfish in-
dulgences, which Viscontian wealth has made possible. By  August ,
however, Petrarch is thanking the ruler, Archbishop Galeazzo Visconti, for his
gifts of “leisure and solitude [solitudinem et otium]” made available at a house
near Sant’Ambrogio in Milan: “You certainly know my ways [morem]: I re-
fresh my mind, wearied by affairs, through a change of location [locorum al-
ternatione]” (Fam. .: ./). Fifteenth-century commentators writing
under the patronage of the later Visconti in northern Italy would elaborate
upon Petrarch’s indebtedness to Galeazzo in their reading of his life and works.
Francesco Filelfo, producing his commentary in direct service to Duke Filippo


 Petrarch as Commentator

Maria Visconti in , relies upon Antonio da Tempo’s pro-Visconti biogra-

phy of Petrarch written in the s, with its account of the poet’s residence
(‒) at Milan and Pavia, “la quale città molto suole collaudare, dicendo
nelle sue epistole in niuna avere trovato migliore abitazione” ‘a city that he
used to praise greatly, saying in his letters that nowhere had he found a better
home’ (Aiiiiv).14
Petrarch’s changing attitudes toward earlier authors strike deeper chords.
The offense that Petrarch took upon reading Cicero’s querulous letters to At-
ticus is one example. Others seem more arbitrary, such as his contradictory
evaluations of Dante and the Italian vernacular.15 In a letter to Boccaccio writ-
ten in  Petrarch belittles his predecessor as a popular poet “who devoted
his entire life to those things that were only the flower and first fruits of my
youth” (Fam. .: .), though he grudgingly admits that Dante is “doubt-
less noble for his theme” (.). Petrarch couches his evaluation in spatial fig-
urations, acknowledging that, for Boccaccio, Dante’s example “afforded you
ardor and light for this pathway [in hoc calle] that you have been treading with
giant steps toward a glorious goal [finem]” (./). Dante remained ad-
mirably steadfast amid the displacements of exile, since “nothing diverted him
from his course [calle] once he had embarked upon it” (./). Yet Pe-
trarch declines to mention Dante’s proper name in this letter.
Petrarch moreover boasts that he has never owned a copy of Dante’s poetry
despite its “easy availability” (.). The reason he alleges is that “were I to
immerse myself [imbuerer] in his or any other’s writings . . . I could scarcely es-
cape becoming an unwilling or unconscious imitator.” It is as though Dante’s
Italian writing were an ocean or abyss in which Petrarch could lose himself. In-
stead, he charts a space for his own originality, attributing any echoes to “pure
chance or similarity of mind.” At the same time he insists that he has explored
Dante’s terrain better than other readers whose “pathways of intelligence are
closed [obstructis]” (./). Such “illiterates in the taverns and squares
[ydiotas in tabernis et in foro]” Petrarch wishes to avoid. He nonetheless knows
that his youthful rime have attracted a wide following, and, in an allusion to
the insults exchanged between poet-shepherds in Virgil’s Eclogues, he bitterly
regrets (or at least professes to regret) that “each day as I stroll, reluctantly and
angry at myself, through the arcades [in porticibus], I find scores of ignora-
muses everywhere [ubique] and some Dametas of my own at the street corners
[in triviis]” ready to “strident miserum stipula disperdere carnem” ‘ruin my
poor song with a screeching reed’ ” (./).16 The verse quoted from
Eclogues . draws the ancient poet into conflict with Dante as Petrarch re-


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

futes critics who question his own patriotism: “If they believe that a Mantuan
[Virgil] is dearer to me than a Florentine [Dante], the fact remains that origin
by itself [origo per se ipsam] without any other factor is not sufficient reason for
esteem.” The accident of his birth in the same locale as Dante’s may in fact
strain Petrarch’s allegiance to his patria, since “envy flourishes more vigorously
among neighbors [inter vicinos]” (./). The shared site of their ancestry
becomes a ground for rivalry and competition, disputed loyalties and ruptured
affiliations.17
Pressed to admit another rivalry that he hoped others might notice, Pe-
trarch would have cited his relationship with Virgil. Until at least  Pe-
trarch regarded his Latin epic Africa as his most important project, designed
to equal the Aeneid: “I seem to shudder at my boldness and at the great frame-
work I laid” (Fam. .: ./).18 Ever since initiating it in , however, he
complained of distractions. Not the least was his preoccupation with Laura.
Already on  December  (Fam. .) he had replied to the ironic re-
proaches of Giacomo Colonna, bishop of Lombez, about her. The letter deals
humorously with Petrarch’s hopes, desires, plans, and intellectual pretensions,
but its light touch invites serious questions. Colonna has evidently accused the
poet of misleading his friends with invented fictions (“You maintain that
many people have held magnificent opinions about me because of my inven-
tiveness [fictionibus meis]”) and of preferring ancient pagan deceit to Christian
truth (“that I have embraced Augustine and his books with a certain amount
of feigned [simulata] good will, but in truth have not torn myself away from
the poets and philosophers”) (./). Among the fictions that Colonna cites
is Petrarch’s love for Laura, a figure so “completely invented [manufacta]” that
his poems are wholly “fictitious [ficta]” and his “sighs feigned [simulata]”
(./).19 Among the fictions that the poet defends is the story of Scipio,
the hero of Africa and a sufficient reason for Petrarch to want to visit “the city
of Rome where Scipio . . . triumphed in glory” (.). Present duties and “the
will of others” delay his journey and heighten his wish to abandon “the restless
anxieties” at Avignon (.). Rome now displaces Avignon in the writer’s
imagination even as the geographical site of Vaucluse claims his physical pres-
ence. Dreams displace reality, and history gives way to fiction.
The letter’s elaborate structure barely conceals its linguistic preoccupation
with two words, amor and Roma. It concludes with Petrarch’s admission of
friendship with Colonna, playing on punning associations of his name Pe-
trarca with petra (stone) and on the idea of their friendship as a higher form of
love: “I am not so insensitive [saxeus (stony)] that I must have someone incite


 Petrarch as Commentator

me to so generous and so worthy a love [amor]” (./). But elsewhere the

letter catalogs the writer’s other experiences of love: for transitory and fleeting
fame but also for elevated poetry and philosophy; for Augustine and the
Christian saints but also for Cicero and Seneca; for Laura and poetic fiction
but also for Scipio and poetic history; for the site (locum) of Rome as a birth-
place of national greatness but also for the sight (aspectum) of Rome, a Chris-
tian city and “an image of heaven on earth [celi instar in terris, with the con-
crete sense of instantiating the one in the other]” (./). With regard to
his writing Petrarch mentions “the theatricality [scenam] of my achievement”
quite literally as “the stage setting of my mind laid bare,” a site exposed by
Colonna’s attentive reading of the text and of Petrarch as “a magician with
mere words” (.).20
And the magic word is amor. Just as love for Laura distracts him from im-
portant tasks, so it may be his reason for remaining in France this winter of
‒.21 It prevents him from reaching Colonna’s Rome, both the real city
“that has never been equaled nor ever will be” but also the imagined city
“about which I read infinite things and have written many and shall perhaps
write even more” (.‒). And just as his vernacular poetry will reveal his amor
for Laura to be part of a continuum embracing amor for others human and di-
vine, so may the magic of this poetry reveal that the palindromic inversion of
amor spells Roma, a boustrephedon asserted in antiquity and one that I contend
gives a powerful resonance to the Rime sparse.22 The love that prompts Pe-
trarch is a love for Laura and all that the sound of her name may signify: the
laurels of poetry, transnational fame, and earthly glory; but also all that the let-
ters of an inverted amor might signify: Roma, the city of history, ancient great-
ness, and Christian witness, its Republican heritage and Imperial rule, the pa-
pacy and the Holy Roman Empire, cultural achievement and Italian prestige.23
The very site of amor proclaims the sight of Roma, while the site of Rome can
only challenge, undo, reinstate, or comply with the sight of his Love.
Petrarch’s Coronation Oration, composed upon his crowning with laurel at
Rome in , displays a similar preoccupation. The event takes place at the
site of ancient ceremonies “in this very Roman Capitol where we now are
gathered” ().24 Petrarch celebrates the power of Roma as a historical locale.
But he also celebrates the power of love, amor, which has impelled him to go
to Rome to receive the laurel.25 The oration begins with a quotation from Vir-
gil repeated four times throughout the discourse: “Sed me Parnasi deserta per
ardua dulcis / raptat amor” ‘But a sweet longing takes me on upward over the
lonely slopes of Parnassus’ (Georgics .‒). In the Oration Amor motivates


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

the poet’s “eagerness of a studious mind” willing to “take on [raptat]” a diffi-

cult task.26 For both Virgil and Petrarch the Latin verb raptat conveys a pri-
mal, irresistible, violent sort of energy. Petrarch tries to harness this force by
citing Marcus Varro, the ancient lexicographer, inventive etymologist of
words, and indefatigable decoder of anagrams and words within words, for de-
scribing poetry as an “energy within the mind” and a “divine inbreathing”
(). The link between this energy and amor occurs in the Georgics in which
Virgil analogously refers to the renewal in springtime of sexual powers among
beasts and humankind, prompting shepherds to mate their flocks and urging
poets to sublimate eros in verse composition.27 Here Petrarch quotes Virgil
again, “Labor omnia vincit” ‘toil overcomes all difficulties’ (Georgics .).
The site of Rome draws Petrarch’s meditation on amor and labor into yet
another orbit congruent with cultural history and political activity. Recalling
a competing invitation from scholastic Paris to receive the laurel there, Pe-
trarch attributes his choice to visit classical Rome as the outcome of a patriotic
emotional attachment.28 Citing Virgil’s text, “Vincet amor patriae” ‘Love of
his fatherland will conquer’ (Aeneid .), he curiously mangles the original
by transforming Virgil’s future vincet (will conquer) into his own past vicit (has
conquered). Virgil is recounting Anchises’ prophecy in the underworld, ne-
cessitating the future tense, and one might argue that Petrarch’s adjustment
merely fits his own past narrative. Still, Anchises foretells the agonizing deci-
sion of Junius Brutus at the beginning of the ancient Roman Republic to con-
demn his own sons for trying to restore Tarquin’s monarchy.29 The conflict be-
tween republican and monarchical values reaches its violent resolution in
Anchises’ narrative, only to be overturned during Virgil’s Augustan age by
Rome’s reversion to imperial rule.
In Petrarch’s epoch a series of crises sought resolution not only in the con-
test between the papacy and the empire but also in the rise of despotic local
rule, in the conflict between feudal aristocracy and urban bourgeoisie, and in
a renewed form of republican government at Rome led by Cola di Rienzo,
whom Petrarch would support even to the detriment of his earlier patrons in
the aristocratic Colonna family.30 Petrarch found his way through these crises,
I contend, with an emphasis on personal allegiances to the extent that these al-
legiances mobilized his expressed political sentiments. The problem of an un-
resolved future nonetheless complicates the oration’s reference to several pos-
sible sites with Petrarch’s wish “to bring some glory to this city, to the city
whence I came, and to all Italy” (). The first site, “this city,” implies Rome,
but which incarnation of Rome does Petrarch mean: the ancient republic? the


 Petrarch as Commentator

capital of the empire? the seat of the papacy? the medieval city governed by
contentious nobles? The second site, “the city whence I came,” may imply his
ancestral Florence, a republic now in disarray; or Avignon, the papal residence
controlled by a foreign monarch; or Naples, where he has just been examined
by King Robert, himself an ideological foe of the Holy Roman emperor Louis
IV of Bavaria. The third site, “Italy,” evokes protonational sentiments, but of
what precise sort and in what exact relation to republican city-states or a con-
solidated empire? To which of these competing centers and systems of govern-
ment does the poet pledge himself?
The one relatively stable object of amor that Petrarch can claim without
hesitation is the cultural patrimony of Roma. Here the laurel intervenes as
both a promise and a fulfillment. Poets who deserve it have exercised the high-
est office of poetry, defined as the power of commuting historical truth
through figurative understanding, “tak[ing] things that have really come to
pass and transform[ing] them by means of subtle figures” (). Because such
poets intervene upon national histories, their work complements that of
rulers. As Petrarch proclaims, the laurel is a “due reward of Caesars and of po-
ets” (), evoking the fragrance of a good reputation, a resting place after ar-
duous labor, a preservative against corruption, an ornament of sacred institu-
tions, and an emblem of eternal life. Poets share these honors with monarchs
and imperial rulers because their poetry unites groups of people and promotes
social relations. The conventional vehicle for such activity is the Latin epic, to
which the newly crowned Petrarch aspires.31
Here the Rime sparse stand as testimony that Latin epic eluded Petrarch
throughout his career. Their recurrent subtext evokes the author’s deferral of
his Africa to the fragments of his Italian songs and sonnets, his rerum frag-
menta vulgarium. This topic incorporates echoes from Ovid’s Amores, trans-
posing them to a contest between Latin and the vernacular. In sonnet , “Era
il giorno ch’ al sol si scoloraro” ‘It was the day when the sun’s rays turned pale,’
positioned as sonnet  in early editions of the Rime sparse, Petrarch’s speaker
complains that Cupid or Amor deserves no praise for having wounded him on
Good Friday, without reciprocally wounding Laura:
Però, al mio parer, non li fu honore
ferir me de saetta in quello stato,
a voi armata non mostrar pur l’arco.
Therefore, as it seems to me, it got him no honor to strike me with an ar-
row in that state, and not even to show his bow to you, who were armed.


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

Likewise, Ovid’s speaker complains in Amores . that Cupid has attacked
him unarmed: “Nec tibi laus armis victus inermis ero” ‘Nor will it be praise for
thine arms to vanquish me unarmed’ (..). Wounded, he hardly recovers.
The wound refers not to the beloved’s immunity or sexual indifference but
to the lover’s preoccupation with writing poetry. He had, he explains at the be-
ginning of Amores ., set out to compose a Latin epic in dactylic hexameter
before Cupid assailed him. Not only has Cupid diverted his attention to am-
atory matters, but the god has also robbed him of a metrical foot, evoking the
truncated line of elegiac verse which alternates with dactylic hexameter and
compromises Ovid’s high style:
Arma gravi numero violentaque bella parabam
edere, materia conveniente modis.
par erat inferior versus—risisse Cupido
dicitur atque unum surripuisse pedem.
(Amores ..‒)32
Arms, and the violent deeds of war, I was making ready to sound forth—in
weighty numbers, with matter suited to the measure. The second verse was
equal to the first—but Cupid, they say, with a laugh stole away one foot.
A parallel anxiety haunts Petrarch’s speaker. Africa stands on hold as he turns
his attention to Laura. Marking his descent from the ambitions of Latin epic,
the scattered rhymes of Petrarch’s Italian poetry constitute a scandal, a stum-
bling block on his route to poetic fame, a site of national failure.33
Repeatedly, Petrarch’s speaker evokes this defective foot as a metonymic fig-
ure for the vernacular rhymes that have displaced classical meters in his writ-
ing. At times he wonders how his feet have sustained their burden: “Et che’
pie’ miei non son fiaccati et lassi / a seguir l’orme vostre in ogni parte” ‘And
that my feet are not worn and tired of following your footsteps everywhere’
(.‒). He acknowledges that they cannot do otherwise: “Amor in altra
parte non mi sprona, / né i pie’ sanno altra via” ‘Love does not spur me any-
where else, nor do my feet know any other road’ (.‒). A “fera stella”
‘cruel star’ has presided upon the “fera terra ov’ e’ pie’ mossi poi” ‘cruel ground
where I later set my feet’ (.). And after Laura’s death his poetic talent
serves to no avail in reclaiming her: “Pie’ miei, vostra ragion là non si stende /
ov’ è colei ch’ esercitar vi sòle” ‘My feet, your region / reason does not extend
to where she is who used to make you work” (.‒; trans. mod.). Petrarch’s
final appeal enlists the defective Ovidian foot that long ago directed him to the
site of love. Here he has suffered diverse torments (“diversi tormenti,” with a
possible pun on di versi tormenti [torments of verse]):


 Petrarch as Commentator

E ’ncomincio: —Madonna, il manco piedo

giovinetto pos’ io nel costui regno,
ond’ altro ch’ ira et sdegno
non ebbi mai; et tanti et sì diversi
tormenti ivi soffersi. (Canzone .‒)
And I begin: “Lady, when I was young, I placed my left foot in his king-
dom, whence I have never had anything but sorrow and scorn; and I have
suffered there so many and such strange torments.”
Against such odds the speaker has deferred Africa to the strangeness and vari-
ety of the Rime sparse.34
Curiously enough, Africa reaches its impasse on political rather than ama-
tory grounds. Here Petrarch transfers his praise of republican Rome to an un-
easy endorsement of Ghibelline imperialism. The poem glorifies Roman an-
tiquity but also submits both the republican and the imperial institutions of
Rome to trenchant critique.35 In the end its political focus blurs, rendering its
sympathies for or against republican or monarchical government indetermi-
nate. Petrarch began his epic in  or , when Livy’s celebratory history of
the Roman Republic still exerted a profound and positive influence upon him.
After  he tried only sporadically to revise and finish the poem while serving
the Visconti and Carrara lords and their northern imperial monarchism.
Africa pays allegiance to both causes.36 Laelius’ discourse on early Roman his-
tory exalts republican libertas as an antidote to the tyranny of Rome’s Etruscan
kings: “Libertas optata diu nunquamve petita / Mulcebat splendore animos,
sed sceptra premebant” ‘The light of liberty, unrealized / but long held dear,
shone in our hearts the while / a haughty sceptre held us all in thrall’
(.‒/.‒).37 Counterbalancing this discourse, however, the narrator’s
report of Scipio’s exile discloses the destructive workings of envy, mob rule,
and injustice in a republican government: “Ubi unquam / Gente pares animi
totque adversantibus ulla?” ‘Say where on earth is found / a nation [gens] with
like spirit—and like foes’ (.‒/.‒). Here the citizenry is a clueless
rabble, a deformation of the public voice, an abomination.
Every credit exacts a debit. Near the beginning Scipio experiences a vision
of the future which lauds Julius Caesar, antagonist of the republic, as “Fortis-
simus ille nepotem / Unus erit magno semper cantandus in orbe” ‘the bravest
of all Rome’s sons [worthy to] be sung throughout the earth’ (.‒/.)
but which also criticizes him as intemperate in his use of force: “O felix si forte
modium sciat addere ferro!” ‘Ah, happy conqueror could he but learn / to set
due limits on his flashing blade’ (./.‒). Likewise, Augustus ranks


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

high for inaugurating “tranquilla secula” ‘centuries of peace’ with imperial rule
(./.), but yet he scores low for bequeathing an era in which “video Ro-
mana reverti / Fata retro et pulcros prolabi ad turpia mores” ‘I see the fates of
Rome / reversed and all our ancient practices / once fair degenerate’
(.‒/.‒). In the end Scipio can only postpone his vision of ideal
rule to a remote future that “abscondit sub nube Deus” ‘God enshrouds in
mist’ (./.). Petrarch’s hero then retreats into ambiguous silence, his
judgment on the republic and the empire suspended.
So too does the epic narrator of Africa. At its conclusion Ennius, author of
the hexameter Annales in the second century ..., anticipates poets who will
outdo him in integumentum, the veiling of truth with signifying figures, “sub
ignoto tamen ut selentur amictu, / Nuda alibi, et tenui frustrentur lumina velo,
/ Interdumque palam veniant, fugiantque vicissim” ‘disguised beneath / a cov-
ering cloak, or better, a light veil / which tricks the catcher’s eye and now con-
ceals / and now discloses underlying truth’ (.‒/.‒).38 Homer
himself informs Ennius about Petrarch’s efforts to win the laurel: “Francisco
cui nomen erit; qui grandia facta, / Vidisti que cunta oculis, ceu corpus in
unum / Colliget” ‘He will be called Franciscus; / and all the glorious exploits
you have seen / he will assemble in one volume” (.‒/.‒). The very
laurel that Ennius wears matches Scipio’s, so that the poet and the leader share
the fame of victory and its commemoration in verse.
Petrarch had never read Plato’s Republic, unavailable to him in any com-
plete Latin translation, but from Cicero and Seneca he knew that Plato had
banished the poets from his commonwealth.39 Petrarch’s Metrical Epistle .
offers a curious interpretation. Plato separated the poets from ordinary citizens
not for the citizens’ good but for the well-being of the poets. He wanted to
protect the poets by offering them sanctuary apart from the mob, a nurturing
environment in which they might accomplish their best work, “adversos pop-
uli nos moribus, illum / moribus infestum nostris studioque futurum” ‘know-
ing we poets would be alien / to habits of the masses, and the folk / intolerant
of our manners and our zeal / for study’ (..‒ ).40 Ultimately, the poets’
exile to such a site benefits the state, for the work that they produce there de-
fines its national goals and provides a basis for science and wisdom, learning
and knowledge, history and community.
In the politically troubled years between  and , years that saw the
deepening intransigence of the Avignon papacy, the death of King Robert of
Naples, the rise and fall of Cola di Rienzo at Rome, the devastation of the
Black Plague, and an intensification of the Hundred Years War between


 Petrarch as Commentator

France and England, Petrarch composed a series of twelve pastoral eclogues in

Latin, the Bucolicum carmen, which reflects upon these events.41 The first
eclogue, a dialogue between Silvius (Petrarch) and Monicus (his brother Gher-
ardo, a Carthusian monk) explores the respective merits of a worldly and a
cloistered life. To Monicus’ question about what motivates his painful exertion
“per deserta vagari / Muscososque situ scopulos fontesque sonantes” ‘to wander
through desert wastelands, / Over moss-covered crags or where lonely cataracts
thunder’ (.‒), Silvius answers, “Hei michi! Solus Amor” ‘Love ’tis, alas,
only love’ (.). His love is, of course, a love for song, but when Monicus-
Gherardo invites him to sing David’s Psalms in the monastery, Silvius-Petrarch
declines by avowing that his songs should be secular and historical in the clas-
sical manner, evoking the palindromic Roma and amor: “Hi Romam
Troiamque canunt . . . / Quid dolor et quid amor possit” ‘My masters sing of
great Rome and of Troy . . . telling of love and its power’ (.‒). In eclogue
 the shepherd Stupeus (Petrarch) pursues Daphne (Laura), a transparent fig-
ure for poetic composition as well as for the poet’s human beloved. Daphne
leads him to the Capitoline Hill, where she reveals the glories of Rome and his
historical patrimony, “viridi lauro” ‘with a wreath of laurel encircled’ (.). The
wreath rewards the poet for art as well as love; both are braided in its leaves.
The speaker’s identification with Rome deepens in later eclogues. In
eclogue  Gallus, a pastoral figure for French culture and its national politics,
would purchase an Italian lyre to import song into his native land. His inter-
locutor, Tyrhennus, a figure for the patrimony of Italian culture, argues that
music belongs to Italy and cannot be hauled abroad: “Citharamque relinque; /
Est quibus a teneris tractata suaviter annis” ‘Leave the lyre to its rightful own-
ers, those who from tender years have drawn from its strings sweet music’
(.‒). In eclogue  the shepherd Amyclas (Petrarch) bids farewell to his
friend Ganymede (Giovanni Colonna), allegorizing Petrarch’s painful rupture
with Colonna after Cola di Rienzo’s war on the Roman barons in . Amy-
clas cites the compulsion of his amor patriae, evoking Virgil’s pathos, though
not exactly the agonizing context of Junius Brutus’ commitment to the emerg-
ing republic in Aeneid .: “Agnosco validum patrie revocantis amorem”
‘Yonder I feel the love of my country calling me homeward’ (.). In response
to Ganymede’s questions, he adduces personal, political, and poetic goals sum-
marized in the word principia (origins), including those inscribed in ancient
textual sources: “Levis est ad prima recursus / Principia” ‘Going back to my
sources cannot but bring me / Happiness’ (.‒). In eclogue  he finally
travels to Rome, where his favorite poets, Virgil among them, sit on the Capi-


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

toline crowned in laurel: “Celsoque virens in vertice laurus / Admonuit nostre”

‘High on that lofty summit a laurel, fresh in its greening, / Made me remem-
ber my own’ (.‒). The younger poet can now construct his supra-
regional identity as an Italian inheritor of Roman culture precisely because he
has journeyed in time to the classical past and has discovered there a site of
achievement that he can relate to.
This journey has disclosed a movable, itinerant Rome, one implicated in
the transmission of culture but not at all stabilized or fully recoverable at any
single time or narrowly circumscribed place. To Petrarch it came to seem least
recoverable upon the particular site of Rome in his own time. This lesson he
may have learned from St. Augustine, who, after the Goths had sacked the an-
cient capital in , dismissed reports of harm to the city by proclaiming that
the true civitas consists of citizens, not walls.42 The concrete materiality of
Rome cedes to the abstract idea of a city unbound to its physical location:
Rome need no longer be in Rome. Petrarch’s relationship to the city as the site
of his coronation in , as the ancestral domain of his later estranged
Colonna patrons, as the stage of Cola di Rienzo’s abortive effort to establish a
limited constitutional republic in , and as the potentially renewed seat of
imperial power under Emperor Charles IV, whose coronation at Rome in 
the poet supported, welcomes all these multiple meanings. Still, while Petrarch
allowed himself to grow increasingly comfortable with patronage from the
Visconti, Francesco da Carrara, Azzo da Correggio, and other northern Italian
lords after , he hesitated fully to detach Rome’s mobile symbolic life from
its physical space. His alternate embrace and abandonment of Rome become
comprehensible in this light as an unflagging effort to assert the sentimental
claims of a specific place, a topographical location, a geopolitical site, to stand
synecdochally for a larger whole.


 2 Petrarchan Totems and
Political Taboos

Petrarch’s ambivalent attitude toward Rome as both a mental construction and

a geographical site finds a forceful expression in Familiares ., written at Vau-
cluse in February , a few months before his final departure for Italy. An ir-
resistible urge to leave southern France had seized him, despite reports that it
would not be safe or wise to do so.1 On the verge of reclaiming his Italian
identity yet forced to remain in Provence, Petrarch writes that physical loca-
tion seems immaterial: Vaucluse embraces Rome and Athens as a site where he
may best communicate with his friends and ancient writers.2 Here I have es-
tablished my Rome, my Athens, and my spiritual fatherland [patriam]; here I
gather all the friends I have or did have . . . from every land and every age in
this narrow valley, conversing with them more willingly than with those who
think they are alive because they see traces of their stale breath in the frosty air
(.‒/‒). Even as he writes, however, he seems ready to leave Vau-
cluse, his spiritual fatherland, to possess the soil of Italy, the land of his mother
tongue.
Petrarch’s attitude toward Florence, the birthplace of his forefathers, is like-
wise ambivalent. Although its literary language fuels his Rime sparse, the city
of his parentage represents strife-torn factionalism. It has conferred upon him
an exilic identity that he now wishes to redeem from its Guelph victors, who
had driven out his father. Related to Florence by a bond of culture and ances-
try, he nonetheless shuns it because of the crime it has committed against his
family. It acquires totemic status as a figure of ancestral origin from which he
might have expected to receive care and protection but has instead suffered


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

deep pain. Hostile toward it, fearful of it, he displaces his unappeased longings
on to other sites in northern Italy.
In Totem and Taboo Freud describes such ambivalence, the simultaneous ex-
istence of love and hate toward the same paternal object, as matter for a social
psychology focused on the interplay of religion, art, law, and other social and
cultural institutions that arise from it. A sense of remorse from having felt an-
tipathy toward this figure of origin generates a “deferred obedience” with cre-
ative and socially integrative consequences (.). The survivors of an ances-
tral violence who once banded together to subdue the latter now become rivals
to acquire its power and patrimony. In order to avert a zero-sum struggle for
possession, they have no choice but to agree upon a system for factoring its in-
heritance. Establishing a prohibition on such sexual practices as incest and
wife stashing which confuse paternal bloodlines and inflame household rival-
ries, they form a fraternal clan linked by exogamic blood ties and economic al-
liances. The basis for their social and political reorganization rests upon sexual
taboos.
In coming to terms with the conditions of his exile, Petrarch targeted his at-
tention to compensatory sites in northern Italy. What he did not expect was
the degree of internecine strife and fraternal rivalry that he found there. Con-
flicts between Guelphs and Ghibellines had racked most of the area, but by
 the Visconti family had come to power in Milan, and within a few gen-
erations it controlled Lombardy.3 The aftermath of the Black Death in the
mid-fourteenth century brought great unrest throughout Italy, notably in
Cola di Rienzo’s renewed disturbances at Rome and in a war between Venice
and Genoa which broke out in .4 Still, Petrarch took his permanent de-
parture from Vaucluse for Italy in late May . He well knew that Giovanni
Visconti’s aspirations to dynastic absolutism in Milan represented the antithe-
sis of republican liberty prized at least by lip service in Florence, but he as-
sented to Viscontian sovereignty in exchange for patronage. At least some of
his bad faith in having done so emerges in the confessional Secretum.5 Other
indications emerge in his collected letters.
In Familiares ., dated  January , Petrarch recounts the struggle
within his conscience, “the monstrousness [monstrum] of my spirit,” in terms
of a Pauline depravity of will and Augustinian perplexity of desire, “that I may
not want wholly what I wish in part and, unless I am mistaken, what I desire
to will fully” (./).6 The letter resonates with Petrarch’s awareness of com-
promising his libertas. The word certainly implies the writer’s professional free-


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

dom to devote himself to his literary career but also the political freedom that
writers endanger when they attach themselves to despotic patrons. This liber-
tas was embodied for Petrarch, Dante, and Boccaccio in the ideals of an an-
cient Roman Republic, now prey to the aggressive designs of northern lords
who serve as vicars of a reconstituted empire: “Even in fetters, if fortune con-
demns me to them, I continue thinking of liberty [libertatis], and amid the
cities I continue thinking of the country” (./). Having already settled in
Milan when he wrote this letter, Petrarch concluded that Viscontian economic
support was worth the compromise.7
Italy had acquired a naturalized value in Petrarch’s imagination. It repre-
sented not so much a genetic patrimony as a cultural inheritance to be passed
on and protected, especially the latter, because civil disputes and fraternal ri-
valries were threatening to annihilate it. The violence of war and stupidity of
local despots had depleted its reserves. Petrarch aimed to restore a historical
consciousness that would effect change in human relations and would help to
resolve antagonisms that divided communities.8 If human beings are to coex-
ist and thrive as autonomous agents, they have no alternative but to impose re-
straints upon their desires and institute laws against the unbridled force of
might. And, if sexual taboos form a basis for social and political regulation,
then sexual restraint may serve as a psychic emblem for this development. In
the Rime sparse Petrarch’s tempering of his desires for Laura provides such an
emblem, so that the sublimation of libidinal drives becomes a conspicuous
feature of social, cultural, political, and economic progress. Fifteenth- and
sixteenth-century commentators on the poetry interpret the implications of
this scenario from widely varying regional perspectives.
Petrarch’s fifteenth-century Visconti apologists, Antonio da Tempo (s),
Francesco Filelfo (‒), and Hieronimo Squarzafico (), for example,
repeatedly massage the implied narrative of the Rime sparse until it appears
complimentary to Milan and its tyrannical leaders at the expense of Florence
and republican ideals.9 Petrarch renounces his psychic allegiance to Tuscany
and even to Laura, and he directs it instead to a displaced Visconti and Mi-
lanese paternalism. Filelfo’s commentary gives a typical twist to the famous
sonnet , “Movesi il vecchierel canuto et bianco” ‘The little white-haired pale
old man moves,’ usually understood in the context of Petrarch’s  journey
to Rome.10 In Filelfo’s account Petrarch has stopped at Milan en route to
Rome, and the charms of Milanese women offer the poet a standard of com-
parison to Laura:


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

Era il petrarcha gia in Italia gionto e fermatosi qui in Milano al tempo della
felice memoria di magnanimo principe Messer Galeazo uesconte inclyto
signor de Milano dalla cui excellentissima sublimita lui fu ben ueduto e
molto honorato. Il perche da questa illustrissima cita abondatissima semper
stata come hoggi anchor uedemo di bellissime donne. Il presente sexto dec-
imo sonetto scripse allamata sua madonna Laura. (v)
Petrarch had already arrived in Italy and had stopped here in Milan at the
happily remembered time of our great prince, Galeazzo Visconti, lord of
Milan, by whose most excellent highness he had been well received and
much honored; because this most illustrious city has always been most lav-
ishly endowed with the most beautiful ladies, as we still see today. He wrote
this sixteenth sonnet to his beloved.

In sonnet , “Orso, al vostro destrier si po ben porre” ‘Orso, on your charger
can be put,’ Filelfo wastes no opportunity to defame Florence. The poem con-
soles the Roman nobleman Orso dell’Anguillara for having been prevented
from participating in a local tournament. Filelfo uses the occasion to recount
an incident concerning Pandolfo Malatesta, lord of Rimini.11 In Filelfo’s nar-
rative Galeazzo Visconti has invited Pandolfo to join his service as military
commander, but Pandolfo must first obtain release from the Florentine balìa,
to which he has pledged his support. The Florentines rudely refuse this request
because “sempre alla illustrissima e triomphal casa di Vesconti furon pocho
amici: & hora son men che mai come quei channo grandissima suspitione di
non perdere il loro stato tyrannico chiamato liberta” ‘they were always un-
friendly to the most illustrious house of the Visconti, and now are less friendly
than ever as they are wholly paranoiac about losing their tyrannical state,
which they call “liberty”’ (v). When Pandolfo leaves Florence without this
permission, the Milanese congratulate themselves for being more attractive to
him than the Florentines.
Filelfo’s manipulations occasion piquant digressions and gratuitous distor-
tions. In sonnet , a highly mannered greeting that accompanies a gift of fowl
to an unnamed friend, Filelfo conjectures that the animal might be a par-
tridge. He then remarks parenthetically that, because Leonardo Aretino re-
ferred to two Florentine homosexuals as “old partridges,” we should disparage
Florence for tolerating such vice: “E messer Leonardo aretino huomo doctis-
simo soleua chiamare Nicolao nicoli da Pistoia. e poggio bambalione da terra
nuova iuechi pernicioni. . . . Il che di lor dui per tutta firenze cum grande in-
famia susaua publicamente parlare” ‘The most learned Leonardo Aretino used
to call Nicolao Nicoli of Pistoia and Poggio Bambalione from the provinces


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

the old partridges. . . . This gossip about them was whispered publicly
throughout Florence with great infamy’ (v).12 In sonnet , a poem honor-
ing Simone Martini for his portrait of Laura, Filelfo again refers to the same
Poggio. Here he bathetically juxtaposes the poem’s reference to Pygmalion
with Poggio’s account of a masturbatory fantasy: “Ma ne etiandio parlargli: ue-
duta una imagine de legno ingessata: in cui la figura e similitudine di quella
fanciulla mirabilmente si representaua: non una uolta ma piu di cento quella
carnalmente hebbe ad usare” ‘He said he had seen a figure of plastered wood
in which the image and likeness of a young girl was wonderfully represented;
not once, but more than a hundred times he had carnal relations with it’ (r).
Filelfo concludes that such psychosexual depravity could take place only in
Florence.
Filelfo’s most striking manipulations concern poems that ostensibly repre-
sent Petrarch’s love for Laura but which allow amatory and erotic motifs to
blur into social and political commentary. Even submerged references to Laura
provide Filelfo with political themes glorifying Milan and the Visconti. Son-
net , for example, an address to Stephano Colonna from the estate in Gas-
cony of his son Giacomo, honors the family’s moral leadership: “Gloriosa
Columna in cui s’appoggia / nostra speranza e ’l gran nome latino” ‘Glorious
column on whom rests our hope and the great renown of Latium.’13 Filelfo ex-
plains that even without mentioning Laura the poem recalls the ennobling
effects of love upon a poet who serves patrons like the Colonna and Visconti:
“Il precedente decimo sonetto: quantunque non paia hauer conformita cum la
precedente materia amorosa non e perho da quella alieno: inquanto glin-
namorati uolentieri cercano luoghi solitarii & dilecteuoli per poter senza meno
impaccio usare il loro pensieri & fantasia” ‘However much it appears not to
conform to the preceding amatory material, this tenth sonnet is nonetheless
not alien from it insofar as lovers willingly seek out remote and pleasant places
in order to be able to exercise their thoughts and imaginations without im-
pediment’ (r). Petrarch’s visit to Gascony allows him to return refreshed to
his duties in the world of political action. From a group of three occasional
sonnets addressed to close friends, Filelfo extracts the poet’s anti-Florentine
sentiments. Sonnet  recounts to one friend his distraction as he falls into a
stream while journeying toward Italy. Sonnet  records for another his deter-
mination to live a better life as he approaches “l’aspetto sacro de la terra vos-
tra” ‘the holy sight of your city.’ Sonnet  describes for a third his unsuccess-
ful attempt to escape from Love’s influence.
For Filelfo these poems evoke a precise geographical site. The speaker is en-


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

tering his ancestral Florence, here figured by its totemic “aspetto sacro” ‘sacred
aspect’ (sonnet ), which other commentators had identified with Rome.14 In
Filelfo’s view their single addressee is Boccaccio, who has recently encouraged
Petrarch to return to the land of his forefathers: “Nel presente soneto quin-
quagesimo quinto risponde messer Francescho Petrarcha a Messer Giobanni
boccacio: Il quale poi che gia era stato ribandito doue prima era ribello in-
sieme cum Ser Petrarcho notaio apostolico suo padre: il confortaua che uolesse
tornare a firenze” ‘In the present fifty-fifth sonnet Petrarch responds to Gio-
vanni Boccaccio, since the poet had already been banished when he was pro-
claimed a rebel with his father Ser Petracco, an apostolic notary. Boccaccio had
given solace to Petrarch when he asked him to return to Florence.’ Fearing the
consequences of political factionalism, Petrarch declines Boccaccio’s invitation
with the excuse that he must return to Avignon because he pines for Laura: “Il
che lui non uolendo fare: per la spesse turbatione & inuidie la quella citta gli
manifesta sotto piaceuol parlare che non ne uole fare nulla: assegnando una
leggiadra cagione: cioe il uolere ritornare in auignone a uedere madonna
Laura. Il che non fe perho” ‘Not wishing to do so because of that city’s frequent
turmoil and envy, he instead remonstrated with pleasing words that he would
not remain there by adducing a graceful excuse: namely his preferences to re-
turn to Avignon to see Laura, which in any case he did not do’ (v). Literature
suffers a loss because of Florentine belligerence and Petrarch’s love for Laura.
Filelfo neglects to mention that this narrative violates chronology, since Pe-
trarch did not meet Boccaccio until , two years after Laura’s death.15 Still,
the commentator’s invention allows for a dramatic moment in which Petrarch
chooses between pious affection for his father’s homeland and a burning desire
for Laura in southern France: “Mostra lui esser combattuto da questo duo
pensieri dello andare a firenze: doue secondo il confortare del boccacio
harebbe acquistato grande honore e gloria. E del tornare in auignone” ‘It
shows him besieged by two thoughts, whether to go to Florence, where ac-
cording to Boccaccio’s encouragement he would have acquired great honor
and glory, or to return to Avignon.’ In the end he chooses Avignon over Flo-
rence, affirming a commitment to Laura and papal service over the hypocrisy
of Florentine politics. For Filelfo the choice is right because Petrarch was not
really Florentine after all: “Nel uero Messer Francesco: non fu fiorentino: ma
da lancisa: che del contato darezzio” ‘In truth Petrarch was not Florentine but
came from Incisa in the domain of Arezzo’ (v). Born in exile after Guelph
compatriots ejected his father, he would eventually find northern Italy more
hospitable. The dominant motif in Filelfo’s analysis of Petrarch’s poetry, then,


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

is passion. The speaker’s love for Laura represents one form of it, but his evolv-
ing love for patria represents another. Contending definitions of patria
nonetheless trouble him, whether evoking his ancestors’ origins in Florence,
his birthplace near Arezzo, his adoptive residence in northern Italy, or his
hopes for a renewed site of power in Rome.16
Filelfo vividly associates amatory devotion with patriotic fervor in a group
of four poems that appear to ignore Laura. The first two, sonnets  and ,
address a male friend who has overcome debilitating passions, while sonnets
 and  celebrate the effort of European rulers to overcome their political
differences as they direct their energies to a crusade in the Holy Land.17
Among these poems Filelfo understands sonnets  and  as urging prepara-
tion and purgation before undertaking more exalted work. He speculates that
the addressee of both sonnets is Cino da Pistoia: “Dice che amore & ancor lui
insieme mirando che la sua anima era disciolta e libera da legami corporei”
‘The poet says that both he and Love marvel that his soul had been released
and freed from corporeal bonds’ (r).18 The legami (bonds) to which Petrarch
refers include Cino’s political allegiance to Tuscany. Consequently, Filelfo
comments upon sonnet : “Lamore della patria hauer forza grandissima ni-
uno e che non intenda. Et ancho il petrarca assai perho che essendo luy ribello
& discacciato insieme cum suo patre nominato Ser Petrarca da lancisa: quan-
tunque male contento fusse da suoi citadini: non perho si trouo mai contra la
patria ne sallegno dalchuna adversita di quella” ‘There is no one who does not
understand that love of one’s fatherland is extremely potent; and especially Pe-
trarch, since he was a rebel and an exile together with his father from Incisa;
but however unhappy he was with its citizens, he was never hostile to his fa-
therland, nor did he take pleasure in any adversity against it’ (v).
In Filelfo’s view Petrarch’s praise of Cino for having returned “al dritto
camin” ‘to the right path’ implies that he is tempering his own impulses and
moderating his own desires, both amatory and political. Despite his hostile at-
titude toward Florence, Filelfo concedes that even the fractious citizens of that
republic appear capable of transformation, “secondo quel prouerbio: che dice.
Firenze non muoue se tutta non duole” ‘according to the proverb that Florence
is not moved to action unless all its citizens suffer’ (r). The commentator’s
animus feeds upon regional rivalries that inhibited pan-Italian national senti-
ment for centuries. The product of a courtly patronage system, Filelfo exalted
the factional claims of his lord rather than the bonds linking him to others.19
Firm in his allegiance to current benefaction, he nonetheless shifted allegiance
when it profited him. After vilifying Florence when he served the Visconti, he


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

accepted an offer from Lorenzo de’ Medici in , moved to Florence, and
died there celebrating the republic. With cultural voices such as Filelfo, Italy
needed no enemies to impede its political unity.
Alessandro Vellutello likewise devotes much of his commentary to explor-
ing figurative links between Petrarch’s libidinal drives and his supraregional
political attachments. A native of Lucca, erstwhile friend of Bembo, and re-
sourceful editor at the press of Giovanni Antonio da Sabbio at Venice, Vel-
lutello rearranges the sequence of the Rime sparse to parallel events in Petrarch’s
life.20 His edition of Il Petrarcha () separates from the amatory poetry a
body of nonamatory poems, regrouping the latter as a new sequence of thirty-
four sonnets and three canzoni. These poems constitute a terza parte that fol-
lows upon the prima parte of poems in vita de M. Laura and the seconda parte
of poems in morte di M. Laura.21 Among them, thirty address specific male au-
diences. Eight concern general matters of friendship, such as comfort in afflic-
tion and advice to pursue worthy goals (sonnets , , , , , , , and
 in that order). Nine explore political issues associated with the Babylon-
ian papacy in Avignon and factional strife in Italy (canzone ; sonnets ,
‒, ; canzone ; sonnet ; and canzone ). Three convey amatory
advice to friends who lament their beloved’s cruelty (sonnets , , and ).
Ten focus on literary issues that the speaker vents with potential patrons or
other poets (sonnets , , , , , , , , , and ). Here the in-
stinctual rivalries that destroy many communities are overcome in acts of sub-
limation and patriotic accord.
Many poems in this last group acknowledge personal debts. In sonnet ,
for example, Petrarch thanks Giacomo Colonna for hospitality at his estate in
the foothills of the Pyrenees, “onde si scende poetando et poggia” ‘where we
climb up and down poetizing.’ Vellutello comments that “quello non esser lu-
ogo frequentato dal vulgo, . . . ma da contemplanti & nobili spiriti, che la soli-
tudine cercano” ‘this is not a place frequented by the common populace, . . .
but by contemplative and noble spirits who seek solitude’ (v). Implied in
Petrarch’s praise is a request for continued patronage from Colonna, “Gloriosa
Columna in cui s’appoggia / nostra speranza” ‘Glorious Column on whom
rests our hope.’ According to Vellutello, the speaker renews this request in son-
net , “L’aspettata vertù che ’n voi fioriva” ‘The hoped-for virtue that was
flowering in you,’ this time promising his warrior friend Pandolfo Malatesta
“cosa onde ’l vostro nome in pregio saglia” ‘something to increase your fame.’
As Vellutello sees it, the speaker reminds Pandolfo that poetic praise endures
longer than statues made of stone and should receive ample recompense:


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

“Hanno ad hauere piu obligo a quelli che di loro hanno scritto, che a quelli
che li feron le statue, perche le statue sono andate per terra, & per le scritte
charte sono & saranno anchora in luce” ‘Patrons should be more obliged to
those who have written about them than to those who would make statues of
them, because statues have crumbled into the earth, but on written pages the
subjects of verse will still remain as though alive’ (v). In January  Pe-
trarch sent Pandolfo a nearly complete manuscript of his Rime sparse in thanks
for an offer of shelter at Pesaro during a time of plague and warfare between
Padua and Venice. It was the closest that he came to dedicating his Italian po-
etry to a single potential patron.22
Circumscribing his relationships with patrons and other poets is an implied
narrative about Petrarch’s conception of a goal and his frustrations upon at-
tending it.23 The speaker is beset by human interference and adverse fortune.
Sonnet  laments the death of Giacomo Colonna. Vellutello explains that a
malign planet has looked upon them: “Onde domanda da qual fero pianeta
fossero insieme tanto inuidiati, che per la sua morte egli non potesse tal lauoro
mostrarli” ‘Whence he asks by what cruel planet they had both been envied so
much that through the latter’s death the former could not show him such
work’ (r). In sonnet  Petrarch politely asks an unnamed colleague, per-
haps a fellow poet, to return a borrowed book that he needs to complete his
own work, “un mio lavor sì doppio / tra lo stil de’ moderni e ’l sermon prisco”
‘a work so double between the style of the moderns and ancient speech.’ Ac-
cording to Vellutello the book is one by “quel suo diletto padre Santo Au-
gustino” ‘his spiritual father, St. Augustine,’ and the speaker’s work is De
Remediis, a “lavoro” doubly double because it concerns both good and bad for-
tune and is written in a style evoking both the ancients and the moderns, “es-
sendo doppio il soggetto, perche dell’una e dell’altra fortuna trata, & anchora
per introdurui (come dice)  stile, cio è la dottrina de moderni, con quella de
gli antichi” ‘being double for the subject, because it treats of both kinds of for-
tune, and again for introducing (as he says) the style, i.e., the learning of the
moderns with that of the ancients’ (r). Here Petrarch’s obsession with clas-
sical Latin style supersedes even his obsession with Laura.
In sonnet  Petrarch is vexed because he cannot complete his Africa, and
according to Vellutello the reason for his distraction is not Laura but his re-
sponsibilities at court:
S’ i’ fussi stato fermo a la spelunca
là dove Apollo diventò profeta,
Fiorenza avria forse oggi il suo poeta.


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

If I had stayed in the cave where Apollo became a prophet, Florence would
perhaps have her poet today.

The commentator explains that court politics and public life have interrupted
Petrarch’s literary production. He might have succeeded only “se egli fosse
stato fermo alla sua habitatione di Valclusa, & non si fosse a seruigi del Pon-
tifice, & a seguitar la corte condotto” ‘if he had stayed at his residence in Vau-
cluse and had not been inducted into the pope’s service or to follow the court’
(v). The demands of diplomatic service have a calamitous effect upon the
poet, diverting the springs of his Helicon, “l’acqua che di Parnaso si deriva”
‘the water that flows down from Parnassus,’ and withering the fruit of his olive
tree, emblem of poetic wisdom: “L’oliva è secca” ‘The olive tree is dry.’ The
major casualty is Petrarch’s commitment to Latin style.
In sonnet , “Se l’onorata fronde che prescrive” ‘If the honored branch
that protects one,’ Petrarch offers another striking figuration of the olive tree,
this time attributing blame to Laura for distracting him. In Vellutello’s para-
phrase, “Quella ingiuria fattami, come uuole inferire, da M. L. di tenermi in
tante amare passioni  mi sprona, gia mi fa andar lungi  l’inuentrice de le
prime oliue, cio è da Minerua Dea delle scientie” ‘As he implies, this injury
done to me by Laura, of distracting me with so many bitter emotions, forces
me to stray far from the inventor of the first olives, Minerva, goddess of the
sciences’ (v). In this figuration Petrarch’s pursuit of ancient wisdom reaches
its limit in Laura. Her presence keeps returning him to a volatile, hypertrophic
reality in Avignon.
A concept of poetic destiny underlies addresses to other Italian poets in part
 of Vellutello’s sequence. They include sonnet , a complaint about abuses of
the times; sonnet , a lament on the death of Cino da Pistoia; and sonnet
, a lament on the death of Sennuccio del Bene. Vellutello identifies the re-
cipient of sonnet  as Boccaccio, Petrarch’s most distinguished literary com-
peer.24 Its speaker inveighs against “la gola e ’l sonno et l’oziose piume” ‘gluttony
and sleep and the pillows of idleness,’ and he exhorts the younger poet “non las-
sar la magnanima tua impresa” ‘not to abandon your magnanimous undertak-
ing.’ As Vellutello construes it, “il presente So. secondo la opinione d’alcuni,
fu mandato dal Poe. a Giouanni Boccaccio da Certaldo, dubitandosi, che per
uilta d’animo, o qual si fosse altra cagione non abbandonasse i principiati
studi, a quelli seguitare” ‘the present sonnet, according to the opinion of some,
was sent by the poet to Giovanni Boccaccio at Certaldo, questioning whether
through cowardice of spirit or some other reason he had abandoned the stud-


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

ies that he had begun’ (r). In Vellutello’s view Petrarch stands above the fray
of poetic competition in Italy by encouraging his friend and potential rival to
literary excellence. As the recipient of generosity from his own patrons, Petrarch
becomes a protector of other poets and helps to dissolve rivalries among them.
Sonnet , “Piangete, Donne, et con voi pianga Amore” ‘Weep, Ladies, and
let Love weep with you,’ inscribes Petrarch’s homage to Cino da Pistoia (‒
). More than either Petrarch or Boccaccio, Cino pursued a highly visible
career of public service. As a scholar, he contributed to legal reform in Italian
politics: “Della nobile famiglia de Sighibuldi, dottissimo in utroque Iu. Com-
pose sopra del Codico una lettura utilissima, Et sopra una parte del digesto
uecchio, & sopra gli altri digesti, cio è lo infortiato et innovo molte additioni”
‘From the noble family of Sighibundi, most learned in both kinds of law, he
composed a very useful commentary on the Codex [of Justinian] and on a part
of the old digest and on the other digests, that is, he strengthened them and
introduced many additions’ (r). In Vellutello’s view Cino represents a nearly
ideal combination of poetic talent “in componer uersi e rime uolgari d’amore”
‘in composing [Latin] verses and vernacular rhymes about love’ and public
service in the name of Italian unity, a runner-up to Petrarch in the former and
a near-equal to him in the latter.
For the final poem in his reorganized sequence Vellutello designates sonnet
, a lament for the death in  of a Florentine poet, “Sennuccio mio,
benché doglioso et solo / m’abbi lasciato” ‘My Sennuccio, though you have left
me alone and sorrowing.’ In Vellutello’s narrative Sennuccio takes his place in
the third celestial sphere, the abode of lovers, where Laura resides and which
Petrarch will visit in his Trionfo d’amore. Here Sennuccio joins “l’altra schiera
di volgari scrittori di quel tempo da lui nel triompho d’Amore nomati, liquali
per essere in uita stati soggetti ad amore, & cose amatorie hauere scritto, mette
che siano ne la terza spera, laqual a Venere e attribuita” ‘the other band of ver-
nacular writers of that time cited by Petrarch in his Trionfo d’Amore, and be-
cause in this life they were subject to Love and wrote about amatory matters,
Petrarch asserts that they should be in the third sphere which is assigned to
Venus’ (r). Vellutello has effectively posited the idea of a brigade to which
Petrarch belongs, “pregandolo, che ne la terza spera saluti Guitton bonati
d’Arezzo, messer Cino da Pistoia, Dante excellente & notissimo Poe.
Franceschino” ‘praying that in the third sphere Sennuccio might greet Guitton
Bonati d’Arezzo, Cino da Pistoia, the excellent and most famous Dante, and
the poet Franceschino [dagli Albizzi]’ (r). The poet accordingly signals his
own status in a hierarchy of literary achievement.25


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

With Boccaccio in sonnet  and Sennuccio in sonnet , Petrarch now

joins Guittone, Cino, Dante, and Franceschino degli Albizzi as the seventh
worthy poet. He has instituted a pléiade, his own band of seven distinguished
writers who divert their competitive drives from one another. In Vellutello’s
scheme, not the least of Petrarch’s reasons for exalting these writers is that they
shared his Ghibelline inclinations in turbulent political times. Vellutello pro-
files Petrarch’s loyalties by anchoring part  with eight sonnets (Rime sparse ,
, , , , and  to ), three canzoni (, , and ), and one frot-
tola () criticizing papal imperialism and the rapacity of squabbling mag-
nates in the empire. Sonnets  to , for example, compare the vices of the
papal court at Avignon with those of the Babylonian Empire.26 In sonnet 
Avignon is a nest of treachery where lecherous old men debauch young vic-
tims; in sonnet  it is a sack bursting with greed and perversity; in sonnet 
it is a school of error, a temple of heresy. Vellutello explains how Petrarch “bi-
asmandola generalmente di tutta i vitij, ma in specialita di rapina, di tradi-
mento, di gola, e di lussuria” ‘accuses the papacy in general of every vice, but
in particular of violence, treachery, greed, and sloth’ (r).27
Commentators after Vellutello certainly profit from his mastery of details,
his historical erudition, and his effort to contextualize the poetry’s implied
narrative, while they adapt his patriotic perspective to the changing times. A
barometer of their sentiments can be found in their responses to canzone ,
“Italia mia” ‘My Italy,’ a poem explicit in its patriotic sentiment and, in the
view of subsequent history, one that acts as a magnet for citing Petrarch in
protonationalist contexts. Its outrage at “Bavarico inganno” ‘Bavarian treach-
ery’ points to its historical situation (). Most commentators identify it with
the violence of German mercenaries who aided opposing Italian lords in their
struggle to control Parma in ‒.28 This reading, first offered by Filelfo
and now shared by modern historians, builds upon the description in Famil-
iares . of the poet’s flight from Parma in February .29 In Filelfo’s view
“ch’ alzando il dito colla morte scherza” ‘which lifting its finger toys with
death’ refers to the mercenaries’ halfhearted commitment as they protected
their own self-interests and avoided real sacrifice ().
As Filelfo explains, such conflicts exemplify a long-standing need for Vis-
conti leadership. In his chronology German aggression had already imperiled
Italy before Petrarch’s birth. Its instigator was Emperor Albert of Austria, rul-
ing from  to , whence the “distructione dele gente todesche lequale
eran in quel tempo a petitione e richiesta de limperadore Alberto” ‘destruction


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

by German troops that had descended into Italy at this time upon the petition
and request of Emperor Albert.’ Only a hegemonic Visconti rule might heal
such wounds, a solution that Filelfo finds appropriate in Petrarch’s time as well
as in his own.30 Filelfo describes the poem’s address to warring lords of Italy
who resist Milanese supremacy: “Drizza il suo parlare uniuersalmente a tutta
italia per rispecto de romani e di fiorentini e de lombardi. . . . Honestamente
gli riprende come ingrati e senza alchuna compassione e carita uerso la patria:
comportando tante gente darme todesche” ‘He addresses his words to all Italy
embracing the Romans, Florentines, and Lombards. . . . He frankly reproves
them as ungrateful and without compassion or charity for unleashing so many
German armies against the homeland’ (r).
Vellutello radically disavows Filelfo’s interpretation, and the reason is that
in his view its pro-Viscontian propaganda evokes the specter of fratricidal
strife in Italy. To circumvent this taboo and its calamitous consequences in his
own time, Vellutello shifts the poem’s focus to invective against foreign ag-
gression. For him the “bavarico inganno” refers to the treachery of Albert’s
successor, Lewis IV of Bavaria, who gained the support of anti-Hapsburg Ger-
man magnates for his election as Holy Roman emperor in . Angry at Pope
John XXII’s refusal to confirm this title, Lewis descended into Italy in ‒
and terrorized it for nearly two decades, prefiguring the French and Spanish
invasions of Italy after .
Vellutello attributes additional significance to the poem by linking it to the
beginning of Petrarch’s love for Laura. He speculates that Petrarch wrote it at
the start of Lewis’s campaign and that it survives as the first of his Italian com-
positions, afterward followed by his amatory verse: “Fu fatta da lui l’anno di
nostra salute MCCCXXVIII. che fu l’anno seguente, nelquale di M. L. s’era
innamorato, & auanti, che di lei alcuna cosa cominciasse a scriuere” ‘It was
composed by him in , the year after he fell in love with Laura, and before
he began to write anything about her.’ Petrarch initially stood to profit from
Lewis’s intervention: “Essendo ne la città di Milano, oue da Valclusa era
venuto, sperando col mezzo di Lodouico Bauaro, ilquale con valido essercito
in Italia era disceso, essere insieme con gli altri ribelli di Firenze in patria resti-
tuto” ‘He was in the city of Milan, having come from Vaucluse, hoping to be
restored to his native city along with other exiles from Florence through the
agency of Lewis the Bavarian, who had descended into Italy with a powerful
army’ (v). In short order, however, Petrarch comes to decry Lewis’s land-
grabbing motives. Vellutello situates canzone  as the first poem in the newly


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

designated third part of his rearranged sequence, explicating it as a cautionary

tale in the political life of its author as he edges toward a new understanding
of his national attachment.31
Two years after Vellutello published his commentary Charles V’s imperial
troops sacked Rome (). Commentators afterward couple Petrarch’s four-
teenth-century anxieties to sixteenth-century concerns about Charles V’s Holy
Roman Empire.32 The Hapsburg heir upheld his rights over Naples, Rome,
and Milan in order to proclaim his direct dynastic descent from ancient Rome
and thereby enjoin a new world order with universal stability. He also wanted
to situate Italy in a line of defense against Ottoman invasions in the south and
Lutheran and Calvinist rebellion in the north. The rest of Europe saw the mat-
ter differently as a bid to impose harsh Spanish rule upon the entire Conti-
nent. Later Petrarchan commentators interpreted canzone  in the context
of national sentiment and a deep-rooted pessimism about Charles V’s empire.
Gesualdo, for example, chronicles three possible scenarios: the invasion of
Lewis the Bavarian; the siege of Parma pitting the Visconti against the lords of
northern Italy; and a war between Genoa and Venice enlisting Milan on be-
half of the former and Padua, Verona, Mantua, and the Emperor Charles IV
on behalf of the latter.33 The poem’s style greatly impresses him as an attempt
at epic composition. He admires the formal structure of its invocations and its
narrative, implying Petrarch’s lofty ambitions to write heroic verse: “E, perche
la materia è heroica, uolle qui imitare gli heroici poeti” ‘And because the topic
is heroic, he wishes to imitate here the heroic poets’ (CLXXVIIIr). Its indict-
ment of abusive power aims at rulers with false claims to authority, such as
Lewis or his successor, Charles IV of Luxembourg and Bohemia, or even their
current avatar, Charles V of Spain: “Quando adunque al nome non rispon-
dono i fatti, il nome si dice uano, e senza soggetto. onde generalmente il
potresti intendere per qualunque imperatore de suoi tempi, e di nostri, che
hanno il nome senza imperio” ‘When the facts do not correspond to the word,
the word is said to be empty and without subject. Hence you could generally
understand it to mean some emperor of his time, or even of ours, who might
enjoy the title without the right to rule’ (CLXXXIIr). The Neapolitan com-
mentator’s barb directed at Charles V condemns the Spanish conquest of
Naples as an illegitimate claim to rule and an obstacle to Italian national unity.
Sylvano da Venafro likewise views the historical record from a Neapolitan
perspective, but he recognizes that amid long-standing Italian conflicts Pe-
trarch is referring to an aggregate of events. One result is that all of Italy has
become contested territory down to the present, lacking in national cohesion,


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

“di modo che tante queste della chiesa come quelle del imperio tutte restorno
occupate fin al tempo di Alessandro sesto & molti al di hoggi” ‘so that all the
lands of the church as well as of the Empire remained occupied until the time
of Pope Alexander VI, and many remain so today.’ Another is that the poem
cannot be assigned a precise date. On stylistic grounds Sylvano argues that its
formal mastery precludes its composition in Petrarch’s youth, when Lewis first
invaded Italy: “Non e ragione che fusse scritta da lui sendo di eta di xxii o xxiii
anni: nel scrivere di poca sperienza anchor novello” ‘It is not reasonable that it
was written by him at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three years, still quite
young and with little experience in writing’ (CIXv). Such a claim radically re-
vises Vellutello’s oblique connection between Petrarch’s amatory verse and his
political poetry. In Sylvano’s view Petrarch could develop his skills as a politi-
cal thinker and writer only after he had matured as a love poet.34
Bernardino Daniello specifically relates the poem’s style to its historical
situation. On the whole he attributes the latter to the Ghibellines’ support of
imperial rule: “Italia, laquale al suo tempo era molto infestata, e guasta dalle
barbare nationi, per cagion della parte Ghibellina, che le vi tenia” ‘Italy at this
time was greatly overrun and laid waste by barbarian nations through the
workings of the Ghibelline party that sustained them there.’ Like Gesualdo
and Sylvano, Daniello notes that this topic requires a mastery grounded in an-
cient, especially Virgilian, models: “A gli alti soggetti; come son quelli delle
guerre, par che il piu alto, e sublime stile si richiedesse in descriverle” ‘As for
such elevated topics as those of war, it seems that the most elevated and sublime
style is required for describing them’ (r). As the referent for “alzando il dito”
(), he names Lewis of Bavaria, who had arranged the deaths of Galeazzo,
Stefano, and Marco Visconti “con alzare il dito, dando loro la fede, e non
l’osseruando poi” ‘by raising his finger, pledging his faith to them, but not ob-
serving it afterwards.’ In an alternate interpretation Daniello evokes the taboo
of factionalism: “Overo nel alzar del dito, dimandando li di che fattion fosse
alcuno” ‘Or in lifting one’s finger, asking to which faction one belonged’ (r).
The figure constitutes a metonymy for the breakdown of national sentiment.
Still other commentators sympathetic to Lutheran Reform locate the
poem’s historical action in a context of biblical pronouncements about the rise
and fall of nations. Fausto da Longiano reads the poem as an affirmation of di-
vine providence.35 Moved by caritas, effective grace conferred as God’s gift to
humankind, Petrarch urges his compatriots to a stronger sense of Italian unity:
“Onde ’l nostro gentil Poe. mosso da vna certa carita verso l’amato paese scriue
questa canzo. ai signori d’Italia essortandoli alla vnione contra le gentii strane”


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

‘Whence our gentle poet, moved by a certain charity toward his beloved
homeland, addresses this canzone to the lords of Italy, exhorting them to
union against foreign armies’ (v). Conversely, Antonio Brucioli argues that
the poem’s representation of internecine strife shows God’s wrath upon those
who harm their national communities in a shameless pursuit of selfish goals:
“Duolsi in questa presente canzone il petrarca delle miserie nelle quali si
trouaua la Italia ne suoi tempi. Et della malignita de principi christiani, che la
lasciassino cosi miseramente disfare” ‘In this present canzone Petrarch laments
the miseries in which Italy found itself in his times, and the evil of Christian
princes who would allow it to come so miserably undone.’ Brucioli adds that
these issues still plague Italy as “miserie nelle quali si trouaua la Italia ne suoi
tempi, & anchora ne nostri si troua” ‘miseries in which Italy found itself in Pe-
trarch’s time and still finds itself in ours’ (v).
Castelvetro, the last commentator in this grouping, likewise expresses views
sympathetic to the Lutheran cause. For the poem’s opening lines, “Italia mia,
ben che ’l parlar sia indarno / a le piaghe mortali” ‘My Italy, although speech
does not aid those mortal wounds,’ he recalls the synoptic Gospels’ contrast
between words and deeds: “Et par, che senta l’historia del vangelo di colui, che
s’auenne ne ladroni, & fedito a morte, gli furono date parole dal Leuita, ma
aiuto dal Samaritano” ‘And it seems that one might hear the Evangelist’s story
of one who fell in with robbers and, nearly beaten to death, was given words
by the Levite but help by the Samaritan’ (). He associates Petrarch’s evoca-
tion of Fortune, “Voi cui Fortuna à posto in mano il freno / de le belle con-
trade” ‘You into whose hands Fortune has given the reins of these lovely re-
gions’ (‒), with St. Paul’s emphasis on God’s foreordaining power, “che
egli per Paolo dice, Non est potestas, nisi a Deo. Rom. .” ‘where God speaks
through Paul: “For there is no power but of God,” Romans . (). To the
words of rulers who reflect upon their own relation to Italian soil, “Non è
questo ’l terren ch’ i’ toccai pria?” ‘Is this not the ground that I touched first?’
(), he summons the rituals of ancient pagans condemned by St. Augustine:
“Par, che senta certa vana religione de Pagani . . . Augustinus . De Ciuitate
Dei” ‘It seems that one might hear the empty religion of pagans . . . as in chap-
ter  of St. Augustine’s City of God’ (). And to Petrarch’s forecast of a final
judgment, “chè l’alma ignuda et sola / conven ch’ arrive a quel dubbioso calle”
‘think of your departure, for the soul must go naked and alone on that per-
ilous path’ (‒), he compares Ecclesiastes .: “Sicut prodijs ex vtero ma-
tris suae, sic reverteretur nudus, & nihil auferet secum de labore suo” ‘As he
came forth naked of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return to go as he


 Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

came, and shall take nothing of his labor’ (). For readers convinced of the
paradigmatic workings of God’s grace and divine election in human affairs,
the poem measures the suffering of Italians as a dispossessed, alienated
people—in the biblical sense, an ethnos or gens (nation)—in thrall to their
own imperfections and the perversity of others.
Commentators such as Filelfo, Vellutello, Gesualdo, and Sylvano da Ve-
nafro alert readers to Petrarch’s blurring of erotic ardor, religious impulses, and
political allegiance.36 Just as the lover’s efforts to seek Laura result in his rime
sparse and potential loss of soul, so the warring lords’ forced effort to “cercar
gente” ‘seek a [foreign] people’ to serve as mercenaries produces the outcome
“che spargo ’l sangue et venda l’alma a prezzo” ‘that they shed blood and sell
their soul for a price’ (‒). And the supraregional audience that Petrarch
addresses, “Voi cui Fortuna à posto in mano il freno / . . . di che nulla pietà par
che vi stringa” ‘You into whose hands Fortune has given the reins for which no
pity seems to move you’ (‒), expands upon that of sonnet , “Voi ch’ as-
coltate in rime sparse il suono / di quei sospiri” ‘You who hear in scattered
rhymes the sound of those sighs,’ from whom he hopes to find “pietà, non che
perdono” ‘pity, not only pardon.’
To look to these commentaries for Petrarch’s patriotic sentiments is to find
difference and diversity, a welter of conflicting interpretations that record the
commentators’ own national sentiments. The latters’ foregrounding of Pe-
trarch’s political discourse serves notice to sixteenth-century readers that the
language of Petrarchism is more than an expression of amatory devotion. It is,
or can be made to be, a conveyor of political goals, imperial aspirations, and
national conscience. As it dramatizes the lover’s passions, it lays bare the sav-
agery and frenzy that also disturb the body politic. The proximity of amor, the
power of eros to patria, the power of community, defines the character of both
amor and patria. The most widely reprinted commentator, Vellutello, draws
attention to this connection by positioning Petrarch’s nonamatory poems in a
triad that includes Petrarch’s amatory poetry in vita di Laura and in morte di
Laura. The sheer bulk of Vellutello’s newly constructed Terza Parte (Third
Part) of Petrarch’s Rime sparse throws into bold relief the concerns of Petrarch’s
poetry about a national consciousness and the workings of tyranny and em-
pire, and it testifies to the totemic power of these motifs and to their integra-
tion with the rest of his poetry. Alerted to the disposition of these motifs in a
reconstituted Rime sparse, later poets and commentators would approach Pe-
trarch with a heightened social, cultural, political, and historical awareness of
their own national sentiments.


 3 Amor and Patria
Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century commentators were not the first readers to

detect links between amor and patria in Petrarch’s poetry. His premier con-
temporary disciple, Giovanni Boccaccio (‒), wrote a collection of son-
nets whose amatory focus, like Petrarch’s, incorporates social, cultural, politi-
cal, and historical criticism.1 It recounts the poet’s love for the Neapolitan
“Fiammetta” during his youth in Naples (‒/), years that overlap with
Petrarch’s earliest vernacular poems and indicate the latter’s astonishingly
prompt reception in the Angevin court. Shortly after Boccaccio’s departure in
late  or early , Petrarch visited Naples to receive King Robert’s spon-
sorship for his coronation at Rome. Two and a half years later, in November
, Petrarch returned to Naples and lamented that after Robert’s death the
preceding January the kingdom showed “no piety, no truth, no faith” and all
signs of collapse (Fam. .: ‒/‒), a judgment already registered in
Boccaccio’s Rime.2 Petrarch found Naples so depraved that it no longer shared
the Italian ethos that he identified with Rome, Parma, Padua, and Verona.
This experience set the stage for his eventual loss of faith in a pan-Italian or-
der. Boccaccio registers a similar disappointment in his Rime, in which the
beloved’s betrayal saps the speaker’s self-assurance and leads to a crisis of con-
fidence in the values of his patria.
As a result of his disillusionment, Boccaccio renounced his Rime and
burned his manuscript in , allowing the survival of some  poems al-
ready in random circulation.3 The result is a more scattered collection than Pe-
trarch’s, with a concentration of amatory poems in its first half and many de-


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

votional and occasional poems in its second half. Its implied narrative offers a
highly romanticized account of the poet’s experience in Naples, when, as an
apprentice of his father, an associate of the Bardi banking company who man-
aged King Robert’s financial affairs, he enjoyed some access to the Franco-
Angevin court. Disaffected with his father’s bourgeois career and with alterna-
tive plans to study law, he devoted himself to poetry and to the love of
Fiammetta, whose name bears the emblem of Maria d’Aquino, an illegitimate
daughter of the king.4
In Filocolo . (‒) Boccaccio had invented for himself a mythic an-
cestry of royal birth to erase his illegitimacy. Through his unknown mother he
claimed to descend from the kings of France and ultimately from Francus
through Hector to Dardanus, from whom Fiammetta also descends.5 In this
version of Freud’s “family romance” the poet’s painful but necessary liberation
from his parents signals a traumatic conflict between successive generations
upon which “the whole progress of society rests.”6 Boccaccio, dissatisfied with
his lot, imagines himself an illegitimate child separated at birth from biologi-
cal parents of a higher social, cultural, and intellectual standing whose patri-
mony he intuitively displays. He springs neither from provincial Certaldo nor
from the Republic of Florence but from an international aristocracy with roots
in ancient Troy. In the Ninfale fiesolano Boccaccio would go on to provide ge-
nealogical accounts of his major characters, each of whom claims to have been
separated from a putatively noble or royal parent. Parallel to these accounts is
a narrative about the origins of Florence (Prose ). Founded by Atlas, de-
stroyed by barbarians, and restored by Charlemagne, it derives its greatness
from a hybrid of Greco-French influence.7
The story of Boccaccio’s Rime likewise tells of social stratification and class
conflict, but here its speaker’s effort to take on a new identity invites disaster.
His amatory interest leads to failure and frustration when the higher-born
beloved rejects him for others of her own standing. Such a narrative dominates
early biographies that weigh Boccaccio’s oedipal struggle with his bourgeois fa-
ther against his aspiration toward a life of poetry and learning. In Giannozzo
Manetti’s Life of Boccaccio (s) the young man “shrank by nature from fi-
nancial arts of [his father’s] sort, and he was felt to be more suited to literary
studies. . . . Accordingly, when he seemed of an age to be his own master he
decided to abandon [legal] studies as well and turn to poetry before all else.”8
Hieronimo Squarzafico’s Life of Boccaccio (appended to an edition of Filocolo
printed at Venice in  and reprinted at Milan in ) links the poet’s frus-
tration to his subordinate status.9 Recounting his career from a pro-Milanese,


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

pro-Viscontian perspective, Squarzafico dwells on Boccaccio’s scornful nature.

Unlike Petrarch, who had accepted Viscontian support, Boccaccio could not
bring himself to submit to any powerful lord in such a fashion: “Fu questo
messer Boccatio . . . molto disdegnoso di natura, il quale vicio molto li fu con-
trario nelli studii, perché mai né a signori né ad altri se volse accostare, tanto
era della sua propria libertate amatore. Né a nessuno, per premio che avesse
potuto avere, avrebbe scripto epistole né versi” ‘This Boccaccio was by nature
quite disdainful, a vice that is not very conducive to scholarship since he
would attach himself to no lords or any one else, so great a lover was he of his
own freedom. Nor for any compensation that he would have been able to re-
ceive would he have written letters or verses for anyone’ (Solerti, ed., p. ).
In this environment the Rime express Boccaccio’s ascetic apprenticeship in
poetry and his pursuit of higher social standing in the Kingdom of Naples,
where sybaritic courtiers mingled with Franco-Angevin royalty, a competing
Spanish Aragonese nobility, migrant Provençal professionals, and a flood of
transient merchants and adventurers from northern Italy.10 The Rime begin
with the poet’s idealized love for Fiammetta rehearsed in an elevated mode of
the Stil Nuovo. As his desire grows more passionate and conflicted, the speaker
shifts to a Petrarchan mode overlaid with heightened references to classical
myth, legend, and history. The latter focus on narratives of deluded self-origin
among such figures as Arion (sonnet ), Antiphon (sonnet ), Narcissus (son-
net ), Prometheus (sonnet ), and Ulysses (sonnet ), many drawn from
the elegies of Ovid and Propertius, with their exempla of failed self-restraint
and lapsed moral civility.11 In sonnets  to  the beloved retreats to a villa at
aristocratic Baia, where she forswears her fidelity to the speaker: “Ed è di
questo Baia la cagione, / la qual invita sì col suo diletto / colei che là s’emporta
la mia pace” ‘The reason for this is Baia, that with its pleasures so invites her
that my peace is borne away there’ (sonnet ). In sonnet  the speaker decries
Baia’s reputation for sexual license (“Se io temo di Baia e il celo e il mare . . . /
alcun non se ne dee maravigliare” ‘If I fear the sky and sea of Baia, no one
should wonder why’), and in sonnets  to , situated after the speaker’s im-
plied return to Florence, he inveighs against its corrupting influence, “ché hai
corrotto la più casta mente, / che fosse ’n donna, con la tua licenza” ‘because
with your licentiousness you have corrupted the most chaste mind that a lady
ever possessed’ (sonnet ).
Later sonnets extend the speaker’s negative estimate with comparisons of
Naples to Florence and northern Italy. Corruption and immorality reign there
as well: “Fuggit’è ogni virtù, spent’è il valore / che fece Italia già donna del


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

mondo” ‘Every virtue has fled, spent is the valor that made Italy the mistress
of the world’ (sonnet ). Depravity cripples not only the old aristocracy and
rising magnates but also citizenry in the merchant and artisan classes, the
popolo grasso and the popolo minuto: “E insieme con esse leggiadria / dalle vil-
lane menti disciacciata” ‘And together with these practices has beauty been
driven away from common thinking’ (sonnet ). Finally it brings down writ-
ers and scholars, dividing them into factions unduly critical of one another’s
work. As Boccaccio’s collection draws to a close, the speaker addresses his crit-
ics, some of them honest and helpful in assessing his work, others merely in-
vidious in their barbed judgment: “Credo sarebbe cosa assai onesta / prima
lavasse il tuo gran vitupero / che mordesse l’altrui” ‘I think it would have been
more honest of you to have cleaned up your own execrable behavior before
taking a bite into that of others’ (sonnet ). The final poem, a valediction on
Petrarch’s death, names some poets from the predecessor’s Italian pantheon but
omits others (Guittone and Franceschino), presumably because by himself
Boccaccio makes up for their absence: “Or se’ colà, dove spesso il desio / ti tirò
già per veder Lauretta. . . . / Or con Sennuccio e con Cino e con Dante / vivi,
securo d’etterno riposo” ‘Now you go where your desire often drew you to see
Laura. . . . Now live with Sennuccio and Cino and Dante, secure in eternal
rest’ (sonnet ).12 Bereft of her Tuscan poets, Italy grieves her lack of cultural
and political cohesion.
As Petrarch’s first major poetic imitator, Boccaccio had become Petrarch’s
first major critical commentator in practice, and later he would become a line-
by-line commentator on Dante in public lectures on the first seventeen cantos
of Inferno at Florence in ‒.13 As negative as Boccaccio had been in his
assessment of Florence and Naples in his Rime, here he proclaims his pride in
the distinctiveness of Italy and its cultural heritage. This pride motivates him
to exhort Italians to distinguish themselves from the rest of Europe. His com-
mentary on the adulterers in canto , for example, includes a digression on im-
modest clothing and lascivious behavior that Italians have shamefully im-
ported from “l’usanze dell’altre nazioni” ‘the customs of other nations.’14 Italy,
he argues, had once been the master of those “nazioni strane . . . che furon
vinte e soggiogate da noi” ‘foreign nations . . . that were conquered and sub-
jected by us,’ and so must set a positive example for such “nazioni barbare”
(). Foremost among the centers of Italy in setting such an example should
be a morally rehabilitated Republic of Florence.
Wracked by fratricidal strife in Boccaccio’s lifetime, Florence would un-
dergo a spectacular cultural and political development in the fifteenth cen-


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

tury.15 In reaction to lower-class rebellion that culminated in the Ciompi Re-

volt of  and to recurrent Visconti aggression until , Florentine politi-
cal institutions devised highly conservative mechanisms to prevent the domi-
nation of any single faction, ruler, or ruling party. In this climate of distrust
one prosperous but formerly obscure family nonetheless managed to assume
preeminence, de facto if not always de jure, with stunning consequences.
From  to  in the person of its head, Lorenzo de’ Medici, its leadership
appeared on the way to becoming hereditary, absolute, and dynastic. The rise
of the Medici coincided with a broad sentiment in Florence approving the re-
public’s conquest of outlying territories and its control over weaker dominions
in the face of external aggression. It coincided as well with a shift in the hu-
manist representation of the city’s origins from a hybrid genesis to a planned
settlement instituted by Augustus, implying its ancient imperialist legacy.16 It
is no accident that with (often minimal) Medici support, humanist scholar-
ship aspired to new and higher standards of ambition and that through his
own literary practice Lorenzo himself reclaimed Petrarch for the cultural pat-
rimony of Florence.17
Lorenzo’s adoption of Petrarch as a totemic figure projects a version of
family romance in which, as head of the Medici family, with its undistin-
guished genealogical roots in the Mugello and no political capital until the fif-
teenth century, he claims a poetic ancestor with impeccable credentials. In the
larger world of Italian power politics Leonardo’s inscription of Petrarch like-
wise projects a conscious design to promote Florentine culture at home and
abroad.18 Just as the northern commentators had tried to fix an image of the
poet amid the struggles of Milanese expansionism, so Lorenzo in the s
and s brought Petrarch home to Florence by imitating his Italian poetry
and framing the results with a self-written commentary.19 In both his Rime
and his Comento sopra alcuni dei suoi sonetti Lorenzo’s use of the Petrarchan
mode comes to serve political ends in ways that forecast sixteenth-century Pe-
trarchism.20 Not the least is its figuration of Lorenzo’s sacrificial offering to
Love which symbolically enacts the ruler’s devotion to the state. Like a Petrar-
chan lover, Lorenzo undergoes a transformation that relates the rhetorical
world of poetry to the active world of politics.21
Petrarch’s vernacular reception in mid-fifteenth-century Florence bears
visible marks of an elite culture that displayed it as a commodity for promi-
nent citizens.22 Lorenzo’s poetry addresses this culture, while his rhetorical
commentary promotes a critical analysis based upon humanist principles.23
Such principles inform the contrasting careers of two scholars supported by


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

Lorenzo in the s and s, Cristoforo Landino and Angelo Poliziano.24
Both offer distinct alternatives to the older analogical methods of interpreta-
tion by late medieval glossators which accord with the Augustinian principle
of welcoming each and every spiritual or moral allegory into the kingdom of
hermeneutics as long as it promotes the doctrine of charity.25 Landino and
Poliziano abandoned this principle altogether when they set about to restrict
the possible meanings of a text to putatively “original” historical meanings.
Theirs is the sort of commentary that sixteenth-century annotators would
bring to Petrarch’s vernacular poetry.
The analytical presuppositions of Lorenzo and Poliziano nonetheless diverge
quite sharply. As a teacher of the young Lorenzo in the s, Landino encour-
aged a complex philosophical understanding of classical texts through direct
reference to Platonic schemata.26 He approached cultural differences in the past
by acknowledging that ancient systems of thought do not necessarily concur
with Christian systems of belief. In the Quaestiones Camaldulenses (), for
example, he explains how Virgil’s Aeneid charts a forest of symbols that express
Plato’s moral philosophy in ways that may baffle later readers. The reason is
that the Aeneid is a historical poem with concrete meanings rooted in a specific
time and place. Virgil deploys poetic materials that are “not those which he
himself might choose by his own genius, but those which history offers.”27
With these materials he imparts a deeper significance to his narrative “in such
a way that although he did not abandon history, he nevertheless expressed
through it . . . the sum of human felicity” (). At one stroke Landino disman-
tles every generalizing assumption of late medieval allegoresis and puts in its
place an analytic mode of criticism and interpretation grounded in temporal
and material specificity. Although Landino often lacked pointed and precise
documentary evidence to validate his hermeneutic convictions, he nonetheless
announced an important conceptual breakthrough in envisioning the past.
By the s further advances took shape, not the least through the schol-
arship and example of Landino’s former student and now younger rival, An-
gelo Poliziano. As the latter gained renown, Landino undertook to emulate his
techniques, devoting himself to a rigorous philological exactitude in studying
source texts, literary cross-references, grammatical structures, and rhetorical
conventions. The result was Landino’s edition of Virgil’s works published in
‒ with an elaborate commentary that proclaims a new critical approach
to the Aeneid, “nam quemadmodum in chamaldulenensibus philosophi inter-
pretis munus obivimus, sic in his commentariis grammatici rhetorisque vices
praestabimus” ‘for as in the Camaldulenses we discharged the services of a


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

philosopher in interpreting the texts, so in these commentaries we will fulfill

the duties of a grammarian and rhetorician.’28 The commentary is a monu-
ment to scholarly detail replete with facts, figures, historical information, and
linguistic analysis, and it affords a model for later commentary on Petrarch by
Vellutello and Gesualdo, Daniello and Castelvetro.
Landino was adopting a method that Poliziano had pursued after encoun-
tering neo-Aristotelian empiricism at Padua and Venice. There he had bene-
fited from Ermolao Barbaro’s recuperation of Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric in
the s, sensing their usefulness in ways that foretold the future of human-
ist scholarship and forever changed his work.29 Heeding the call to empiricism
as well as to Aristotle’s formalism, Poliziano now incorporated concrete ar-
chaeological, anthropological, and historical evidence into a detailed examina-
tion of stylistic expression and rhetorical construction. After his reconciliation
with Lorenzo and his appointment to the Florentine Studio in the s,
Poliziano gave testimony to his discoveries in letters to Barbaro and others, in
his prolusionary poem on literary history, Nutricia (), and above all in his
Miscellanea (published in  and  but available to Landino before then),
two collections of short, specialized essay-treatises on a variety of such isolated
and often unrelated topics as source identification, authorial attribution, or-
thographic emendation, and textual exegesis.30
Just as classical scholarship followed a trajectory from moral allegoresis to
rhetorical analysis and historical reconstruction, so did later criticism of ver-
nacular poetry. Landino’s detailed commentary on Dante’s Commedia ()
accordingly reinterprets the historical conditions of the text’s production. Ad-
dressing an elite readership of Florentine citizens, untitled “illustrious lords” of
a republican aristocracy, Landino tries to reinstate Dante as a true Florentine:
“We shall demonstrate that Dante did not disgrace the homeland,” and hence
“we shall prove that our own Republic should not be criticized.”31 Dante’s ex-
ile impugns not the place of his birth, Florence, site of ancient liberty but an
era of fractious partisan politics: “This was a fault of the times, and not one of
the nature of the people” (). The republic can reclaim Dante from exile pre-
cisely because he harnessed his language to its values: “He was the first who
ennobled with fullness and elegance, with erudition and ornament our own
native tongue” (). After Dante came Petrarch, Boccaccio, Leon Battista Al-
berti, and others who refined Florentine discourse, and finally Lorenzo him-
self: “Already there is flourishing one who—if my judgment is worth any-
thing—will be in the first of the most rare” ().
As Lorenzo’s former teacher, Landino gave himself credit for his pupil’s po-


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

etic production, the fruit of “my most faithful precepts” (). When Lorenzo
was seventeen years old Landino had delivered a series of controversial lectures
on Petrarch.32 Here Petrarch’s poetry displays an eloquence that can improve
the Tuscan vernacular, “acciò che con quelle possiate eliminare e crescere la lin-
gua patria” ‘so that with these examples you can weed out and recultivate the
language of the fatherland.’33 Eloquence is a vital adjunct to the pursuit of free
speech in a republic: “La eloquenzia poté da principio gl’uomini . . . in uno
ceto e congregazione ragunare, e, ragunati, alle leggi e al giusto vivere sot-
tomettergli” ‘Eloquence can gather people . . . into a social order and assem-
bly, and, so gathered, can make them submit to law and upright order’ ().34
Great writers not only celebrate great patriotic deeds in the past, but they also
encourage great patriotic deeds in the present and future. This lesson was cer-
tainly not lost on Lorenzo.
In  Lorenzo sent to Federigo of Aragon, son of the king of Naples, an
anthology of Florentine poetry, the so-called Raccolta aragonese (Aragonese
Collection), with a prefatory letter extolling the preeminence of Tuscan over
other forms of Italian usage. The letter, possibly ghostwritten by Poliziano, as-
sociates excellence in poetic composition with excellence in the social and po-
litical order.35 Not only does it collect samples of the best Tuscan verse, but, by
appending some of Lorenzo’s own verse, including four sonnets later used in
his Comento, it reifies the linguistic superiority of Tuscan, the cultural excel-
lence of Florence, and the political aptitude of the Medicis. The Raccolta in-
cludes examples of non-Florentine poetry (e.g., verse by Guido d’Arezzo,
Bonagiunta da Lucca, Guido Guinizelli of Bologna, Cino da Pistoia) but only
as predecessors whom authentically Florentine poets—Dante, Petrarch, and
Lorenzo himself—finally surpass. In recovering these texts, in correcting the re-
ception of earlier commentators on Dante and Petrarch, and in offering a com-
mentary on his own poems, Lorenzo completes the task of his predecessors.
Like the Raccolta, Lorenzo’s Comento repeatedly acknowledges the literary
language of Florence as a collective achievement, and it refers especially to the
master texts of Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio as proof of its power.36 Lorenzo
argues that political illusions lead us to attach greater value to some languages
rather than others. Linguistic or poetic hegemony, the consensus of prestige
that one language or set of poetic conventions acquires over another, resides in
the eye of the beholder: “A language’s being valued and highly celebrated in
the world consists in the opinion of those who prize and esteem it.” Latin ac-
quired its early prestige not through any intrinsic merits of its own but, rather,
through fortune and the expansion of Roman Imperium: “Such a dignity as


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

this of being prized for a felicitous event of fortune is very applicable to the
Latin language, because the expansion of the Roman Empire [Imperio Ro-
mano] not only made it common through all the world, but also almost nec-
essary” (). There is no reason to suppose the Tuscan language less capable
than ancient Latin of promoting the cultural imperium of modern Florence.
The analogy is clear to Lorenzo as he regards the beginning of Florentine lit-
erature: “And both in its youth and its adulthood, it could still easily reach ma-
jor perfection, and much more so if some propitious event and the growth of
the Florentine empire [fiorentino imperio] as well join forces with it—as one
must not only hope, but also must strive for with all one’s talent and strength
on behalf of the good citizens” (). This prospect of a fiorentino imperio sub-
tends the argument of Lorenzo’s Comento.
As the author of his own poetry, Lorenzo presents himself as best equipped
to explain its meaning to prospective readers. Petrarch’s figurations of amor
and patria issue a direct appeal to each reader.37 They elicit sympathy for the
speaker as a victim who has sacrificed everything for his beloved and for the
commune that he serves. In the prologue of his Comento Lorenzo turns to Pe-
trarch to draw sympathy from his own audience. He indicates this purpose with
a direct quotation from the first sonnet of Petrarch’s Rime sparse: “spero trovar
pietà, non che perdono” ‘I hope to find compassion, not just forgiveness’ ().
Lorenzo cites the line twice. Petrarch boldly intends to earn pity as well as
pardon. So too does Lorenzo, but with a gesture of self-abnegation in his
humble reference to a superior poet. To Lorenzo, as also to Antonio da Tempo
and Francesco Filelfo, Petrarch was a public figure. The northern Italian com-
mentators had regarded the complexity of his love for Laura as a central issue
in sonnet . Antonio questions whether it was an invented fiction, designed to
illustrate some deeper truth, or whether it depicts an actual event in the poet’s
life, “sel Petrarcha scripse come poeta fingendo esser innamorato: ouero se da
uera donna abagliato chiamata laureta” ‘whether Petrarch wrote as a poet
feigning to be in love or whether he was actually dazzled by a real woman
named Laureta.’ Although Antonio argues decisively for the latter—“& potrei
darne proue assai” ‘I could give abundant proof for it’ (Ar)—he also asserts
that poetry represents moral truth. Petrarch’s love “e fundato sopra la uirtute
& non patisse mutatione alcuna uana” ‘is based upon virtue and doesn’t un-
dergo any vain change’ (Av).
Filelfo locates his truth about Petrarch’s poetry in principles of human be-
havior and especially those that suit a public figure in service to the state. Pe-
trarch’s initial sonnet is not the first that he wrote but, rather, the last, a poem


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

that tries to set the record straight: “Non fu perho il primo che lui facesse: ma
lultimo di tutti. Il che principalmente mi par lui haver facto per puoter in
qualche parte rimediare allinfamia: ne la quale presso linsensato Vulgo era cum
varie calumnie incorso per lopinione de lamata Madonna Laura” ‘It was how-
ever not the first poem that he wrote, but the last of all. It seems to me that he
wrote it chiefly to be able in some way to repair his reputation from the in-
famy which it had incurred among the foolish populace through various
calumnies.’ Public figures such as Petrarch, or, for that matter, the leaders
whom they counsel, always run the risk of ignoring public opinion, “il non
curarci di quello ch altri di noi o extima o parla” ‘not caring about what oth-
ers think or say about us,’ and of inflating themselves with arrogance, “perche
siamo arroganti” ‘because we are arrogant.’ By using the first-person pronoun
so conspicuously, Filelfo includes himself in this dismal image of public life.
But Petrarch, he points out, avoided such peril by confessing his youthful er-
rors: “Leximio e prudentissimo nostro poeta . . . si scusa nel suo havere scritto
in amorose rime dimostrando tale errore esser proceduto da eta giovenile”
‘Our esteemed and prudent poet . . . excuses himself for having written his
amatory poetry by showing that such an error was the product of his youth’
(r). In so doing, Petrarch provides an illustrious example for those who may
abnegate themselves in order to win the confidence of others.
This approach proves useful to Lorenzo. Whereas Antonio and Filelfo pur-
sue it in relation to Petrarch’s service with the Visconti, Lorenzo applies it di-
rectly to himself. Conscious of his role as a public figure, he uses the example
of Petrarch to improve his own image. As Antonio and Filelfo had shown, Pe-
trarch made himself a sympathetic object of contemplation in the gaze of oth-
ers, securing their confidence and persuading them to his view of reality. So
does Lorenzo, with the added benefit of claiming Petrarch’s Florentine ances-
try as a precedent for his own patriotism. He begins in diffidence about the
worth of his topic. His love may not have been perfect, because perfection is
rare; it was nonetheless worthy to be celebrated in Petrarch’s style. If detractors
cite flaws in his representation, he begs sympathy from readers who know the
topic firsthand: “And if, even with all these arguments, I have not responded
to all the accusations and calumnies of those who would wish to condemn me,
at least, as our Florentine poet said in the company of those who had experi-
enced what love is, ‘I hope to find compassion, not just forgiveness’” ().
Two paragraphs later Lorenzo cites Petrarch’s verse again. Here the context
registers the speaker’s grave uneasiness about winning his audience’s approval.
He begins by referring to his well-known personal and political misfortunes at


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

the hands of enemies, tacitly identifying these misfortunes with the Pazzi con-
spiracy of  April  and the conspiracy of Giovanni Battista Frescobaldi
discovered on  June .38 Compassion ought to move his audience to pity
him: “Compassion at least should vindicate me because, having in my youth
been much persecuted by men and by fortune, some little solace ought not be
denied me, and this I have only found in loving ardently and in composing
and in commenting upon my verses.” Still, Lorenzo knows that his audience
will be divided in its political estimation: “Accordingly, I return to the above-
mentioned verse of our Florentine poet that, ‘where there may be someone
who understands love by experience’ (both this love that I have so greatly
praised, and some particular love and charity toward me), ‘I hope to find com-
passion, not just forgiveness’” (). In this stunning gesture of textual repeti-
tion, Lorenzo identifies Petrarch’s plight with his own. Some readers may not
support Lorenzo’s political goals, and others may shed no tears for his political
adversities, but all might understand his amatory misfortunes. Unlike the Pe-
trarch of Antonio da Tempo and Filelfo, who defended the Milanese Visconti
and their prestige, Lorenzo will defend himself and secure the prestige of Flo-
rence. Much of this prestige already resides in the literary language that
Lorenzo derives from Petrarch. Even though Petrarch had never lived in Flo-
rence, his poetry tapped the style of such Florentines as Dante and Guido
Cavalcanti, and it earned for Florence a cultural capital that Lorenzo can now
draw upon. Its discourse serves him while he serves it, empowering his claim
to leadership as one who gives himself over to—indeed, ritualistically sacrifices
himself for—the beloved populace.39 As Lorenzo bends this figuration to serve
his needs, he presents it to the populace in an analysis of styles processed
through Petrarch’s composite language which represent the history of Floren-
tine poetry in parvo.40 Particularly when this poetry approaches autobiograph-
ical statement, Lorenzo channels its meaning through his commentary. It is as
though in consolation he were displacing his experience onto his politics.41
Lorenzo repeats this sacrificial gesture throughout the Comento. Each time
it assumes a poetic form for which the Petrarchan lyric supplies a model. In
this self-dramatization Lorenzo attributes a spectacular victory if not to his po-
litical intelligence, at least to his rhetorical skill. Such skill is the mark of a
ruler. It distinguishes him from the ruled, the leader from the led, in a repub-
lic that frowned upon nobility of birth as the sole criterion of rule, and it fi-
nally declares Lorenzo’s link with Petrarch. In his commentary on sonnet 
Lorenzo quotes from Petrarch’s sonnet , Love’s discourse about the lover’s ex-
emption from ordinary human constraints, “che questo è privilegio degli


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

amanti, / sciolti da tutte qualitati umane” ‘that this is a privilege of lovers, re-
leased from all human qualities.’ To explain Petrarch’s poem, Filelfo and An-
tonio had imagined Petrarch’s departure from Laura on a journey away from
Avignon and her. Antonio da Tempo notes the speaker’s grief: “Partendose M.
F. da vignone dove era la sua M. L. fece questo S. dove molto se dole della par-
tita como sel core suo se levasse del suo corpo” ‘By claiming to leave Avignon
where Laura lived, Petrarch fashions this sonnet in which he deeply laments
his departure as if his heart were severed from his body’ (Bv). Filelfo specu-
lates upon the occasion as a specific visit to Italy: “Dove essendosi gia partito
da Vignone per tornare in Italia quanta fusse la sua ansieta per lamata donna
cum dolce e non falso parlare dichiara in tal modo” ‘Having already left Avi-
gnon to return to Italy, he declares the extent of his anxiety about his beloved
in sweet and heartfelt speech’ (r). In Filelfo’s narrative Petrarch goes to Mi-
lan, enters Visconti employment, and does great public service, consequently
sacrificing his private life with Laura. Laura was of course already dead when
Petrarch entered Viscontian service in , but the commentator nonetheless
turns the event into a drama about the poet’s commitment to his patrons.
Lorenzo exploits the metaphorical possibilities of this commitment. It fur-
nishes a vehicle to express not just devotion to any temporal ruler but also a
call to sacrifice one’s personal interests to a transcendent polity. In giving him-
self to the republic, the speaker symbolically enacts the Petrarchan lover’s self-
abnegation in giving himself wholly to the beloved, while she in turn encour-
ages him onward. In sonnet  the beloved’s hand draws the bow that wounds
and at the same time heals him:
La vita e morte mia tenete voi,
eburnee dita, e ’l gran disio ch’io celo,
qual mai occhio mortal vedrà, né vide.

You, ivory fingers, hold my life and death,

And hold the great desire that I conceal,
Which mortal eye has never seen nor shall.
()
The topos refers to Petrarch’s sonnet , in whose last stanza Love simultane-
ously heals and wounds. Here Petrarch evokes Plato’s figure of love as a medi-
cine that reconciles opposites in the soul: “Non sa come Amor sana e come
ancide, / chi non sa come dolce ella sospira” ‘He does not know how Love heals
and how he kills, who does not know how sweetly she sighs.’ The northern
commentators understand this figure as ennobling the beloved. Antonio writes


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

that “nota questa ultima stantia esser suavissimo pensero haver de una donna”
‘this last stanza stands out as the sweetest thought one could have about one’s
beloved’ (Fv). Squarzafico claims that its power resides in the human soul’s di-
vine origin: “Che vole lanime nostre havere la nostra prima similitudine i cielo”
‘It means that our souls have their primary models in heaven’ (Ir).
For both commentators this divine origin validates the noble soul’s virtu-
ous action. Lorenzo makes this validation more specific. Commenting on
sonnet , he traces the topos of cure to the mythic lance of Achilles which had
the power to wound and heal at the same time: “It wounds then and heals,
that is, it kindles desire and then fulfills it, as is said of the spear, that is the
javelin of Achilles son of Peleus, which had two points, one that wounded, so
the poets say, and one that healed the wounds” (). Here the figure of the
warrior blurs into that of the physician, the medicus, who functions as a proto-
type for the would-be ruler. Both figures find their apotheosis in the speaker’s
heroic self-sacrifice. Achilles faced the choice of living a long but undistin-
guished life or meeting an early death through which he would earn fame by
offering himself to the public body.42 Lorenzo ponders a similar choice, but
the actuality of his position as a ruler amplifies the Milanese commentators’
reading. Lorenzo’s Petrarchan lover is doubly a medicus, the head of a family of
Medici and a leader who dispenses a cure for his people.43
Lorenzo led Florence at a historical moment when he could identify his
personal interests with those of the republic.44 His rhetorical problem was to
explain how his private design to get and hold power might coincide, or seem
to coincide, with the civic need to build strong defenses against outside forces.
One solution is to identify the private ruler with the public ruled.45 Here the
topos of love offers a dynamic poetic vehicle that serves to reconcile opposing
forces and prepare the way for a higher form of order. Through this topos
Lorenzo represents his service to the beloved—and to his readership—as an
act of sacrifice and abnegation which makes him as worthy of the republic as
the republic is of him. When the Petrarchan mode acquires such thematic
weight, it becomes a relativized unstable barometer of a relativized unstable
history. In Lorenzo’s case it does so all the more after it has passed through the
crucible of his own personal biography, fraught with its ambiguities, uncer-
tainties, and indetermination. Lorenzo’s use of the Petrarchan mode presages
some important sixteenth-century developments—the competition with and
turn from other poets, the turn toward radical introspection, the beckoning of
stylistic semaphores that take on different shades and tones with each new per-
formance—which were raised to higher levels of problematic art by later po-


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

ets. Whatever pressures of social unrest, political survival, and cultural stabil-
ity the Comento may have charted for fifteenth-century Florence, it certainly
helped to situate Petrarch as something he barely was—a Florentine poet.
Meanwhile, not just in Florence but throughout Italy Petrarch came to ex-
emplify the values of patria. Nowhere did his citation appear more striking
than in Naples, its kingdom under Spanish domination from the beginning of
the sixteenth-century. And no poet in Naples cited Petrarch more strikingly
than the émigré diplomat Benedetto Gareth (ca. ‒), called “il Cariteo”
(in a pun on Gareth > Garetus > Garetteo > Cariteo) by fellow members of Pon-
tano’s Neapolitan Academy. Cariteo was a Spaniard who in  emigrated
from Barcelona to Naples as it was entering its Golden Age.46 He served un-
der three Aragonese kings, first as keeper of the Royal Seal (‒) for Fer-
rante I and Alfonso II, then in that position and as prime minister (‒)
for Ferrante II. Having suffered great personal losses when Charles VIII of
France invaded the kingdom in , he escaped to Rome before Louis XII
ended Aragonese rule in Naples in . After the Spanish supplanted the
French in , he returned to Naples, where he published some of his Petrar-
chan Rime in  and all of them in a sequence entitled Endimione in .47
Under Spanish rule, however, he never regained the social or political prestige
that he had enjoyed with the Aragonese kings. The promotion of Petrarch by
a Spanish émigré as a standard for Italian poetry in Naples resounds with un-
avoidably patriotic overtones associated with the poet’s patria in relation to his
local or regional adoptive milieu.48
Endimione is a carefully organized sequence of  sonnets,  canzoni, 
sestine,  ballate, and  madrigals.49 It pursues a clear narrative line more read-
ily tied to the author’s literary and biographical development than earlier se-
quences, including those of Boccaccio or Lorenzo de’ Medici. Its speaker’s
name is Endimione, and the beloved’s is Luna. Its first half (up to canzone )
narrates the lover’s frustrations in a recall of themes, motifs, and dramatic
situations from Horace, Ovid, Catullus, Tibullus, and especially Propertius.50
The next quarter (beginning at sonnet ) narrates the speaker’s loss of his
beloved, not through her death, as in Petrarch, but through her marriage to
another and her departure for Spain. Afterward the speaker becomes more and
more involved with political affairs. Stifling his regret for Luna, or just simply
forgetting about her, he soon busies himself with writing panegyrics about
Naples and its courtly society. It is as though the beloved’s departure requires
him to seek out new topics for his poetry—to become, in effect, a new kind
of poet.51 Canzone  establishes a chronology by marking  as the tenth


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

anniversary of her departure, an anniversary that occurs ten months after the
collapse of Naples’ Aragonese monarchy. The decade had seen the death of
King Ferrante I in , the abdication of the latter’s son and successor Al-
fonso II on  January , an invasion of the French in February , the
death of Alfonso’s successor Ferrante II on  October , and a second
French invasion on  August  which forced King Federigo into exile in
Anjou and the poet to asylum in Rome.52
The final quarter of Endimione (from sonnet  onward) unfolds after 
and is entirely nonamatory. The Spanish wrest Naples from the French in ,
and the speaker returns to the city. As he reenters a court whose rules have
changed with its form of government, he now addresses friends and associates
who have managed to retain their rank in the new regime.53 Cariteo’s Petrar-
chan surface, however, must have seemed strange to his Neapolitan audience,
especially after the Spanish installation, when a retreat to classical style and the
emulation of classical forms came to dominate the aristocratic culture of the
old Neapolitan nobility.54 Very much involved in the politics of the new court
and its Spanish dominators, Cariteo exercised his talent in an Italian literary
vernacular rather than Latin, despite his nonnative grasp of the former and his
humanist ease with the latter. Obviously, he could have written in an
Aragonese dialect, too, but that would not have helped the Spanish ruling
class to legitimize its relationship to a preexistent Neapolitan court culture.55
His Petrarchism performs a facilitating role, then, which enables the Spanish
viceregal government to insert itself into a new vernacular environment by ab-
sorbing what it can from a northern Italian court culture.56
Endimione carefully displays Cariteo’s resourcefulness, dramatizing the
hopes and illusions of a lover in the last troubled days of the dying monarchy.
Its classical and Petrarchan motifs converge in the poet’s use of the Roman ele-
giac models that he shares with Petrarch. In an elegy that anticipates Cariteo’s
anxiety about Luna’s marriage to a Spaniard, Propertius laments Cynthia’s
marriage to an Illyrian: “ut sine me vento quolibet ire velis” ‘without me you
sail under the first wind’ (..). For Propertius, Cynthia is a figure of the
moon, and her movement (errare) away from the speaker generates his com-
plaint. For Cariteo the name Luna recalls Propertius’ Cynthia, but its parono-
mastic identification with l’una (the one), in the manner of Petrarch’s identifi-
cation of Laura with lauro (laurel), l’aura (the breeze), and l’oro (gold), suggests
another metonymy.57 It implies Luna/l’una’s provisional opposition to the
world of the many and its ambient disorder. As L’una, the One, the beloved is
immune to change. As Luna, the Moon, however, the beloved presides over a


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

realm of change. By following her course of action “che con dolce errore / Ri-
volve la mia vita” ‘that with a sweet errancy overturns my life’ (‒), Cari-
teo’s speaker is drawn into an orbit that portends nothing but disaster. The
complete cycle of  poems divides into three parts, the first half dominated
by the amatory motif of the speaker’s Petrarchan love for Luna, the next quar-
ter narrating her departure from him, and the last quarter detailing his subse-
quent involvement in Neapolitan history. This structure adumbrates the one
that Vellutello would confer upon Petrarch’s Rime sparse when he rearranged
the order of poems into three distinct parts: poems in vita di Laura, poems in
morte di Laura, and poems in testimony of Petrarch’s public life and political
concerns. I would argue that Cariteo attempts something similar. The three
parts of Endimione constitute fictive enactments of his own private and public
life, reflecting tides of change in Naples’ historical destiny.
Sonnet , for example, expressly conflates the amatory with the political
in its double lament for the loss of Luna and the death of King Ferrante I. Its
octave contrasts the sorrow that Naples feels after Luna’s departure with the
happiness that Spain enjoys upon her arrival: “Quanto del proprio mal si
duole & lagna / . . . Tanto s’allegra la felice Hispagna” ‘As much as Naples
suffers and laments its own unhappiness, so happy Spain rejoices.’ The sestet
then affirms that the king’s recent death can hardly inflict more woe, since
Luna’s departure has already impoverished Naples:
Onde ’l signor del regno & di fortuna,
Volando al ciel, lasciò là minor gloria,
Poi ch’era Napol senza la mia Luna.
Nè tanto l’altro Re de sua vittoria
Contra gente Africana, oscura & bruna,
Quanto d’una tal luce, hoggi si gloria.
Whence the lord of this kingdom and its fortune, flying to heaven, left be-
hind a diminished glory since Naples remained without my Luna. Nor did
the other king [Ferdinand] bask in his victory [at Granada] against the dark
and swarthy Africans as much as he did in Luna’s light.
Although this encomiastic gesture celebrates Luna, its vehicle of comparison
evokes Ferdinand the Catholic’s expulsion of the Moors from Granada in ,
and it extols Spain’s sovereignty in Iberia. As it also happens, Ferdinand’s mili-
tary strategist at Granada was Gonsalvo de Córdoba, Spain’s victor over the
French at the Battle of Garigliano in  and the first viceroy of Naples in
.58 Cariteo’s nod toward Ferdinand and Granada is also a bow toward
Gonsalvo and his installation as viceroy.


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

In my view this Petrarchan turn inaugurates the poet’s testimonial to the

new regime. It affords a transitional space, allowing him, on the one hand, to
connect his poetic expression with a northern Italian literary culture and, on
the other, to proclaim his adoptive Neapolitan political identity as a Spanish
émigré.59 Before the French and Spanish invasions of Naples, Cariteo’s skill in
echoing the Petrarchan style allowed him to appropriate the literary greatness
of Tuscany and to advance Naples’ literary culture.60 After the collapse of the
Aragonese monarchy it provides him with a means to ingratiate his new mas-
ters and endorse their rule. That he shares their Spanish birth affords a paral-
lel with Petrarch. For Antonio da Tempo, Filelfo, and Squarzafico, Petrarch
was of Florentine parentage but was raised in Avignon and spent his early
adulthood as a protégé of French popes: his service to the Visconti in Milan
marked a return to his Italian heritage. So too with Cariteo, who was of Span-
ish origin but who spent his entire adulthood in Naples. His current bow to
the Spanish viceroy marks his return to Spanish political service, now in the
name of a different culture that he can link to the heritage of central and
northern Italy.61
Canzone  dramatizes Cariteo’s options by referring to a powerful politi-
cal model, Petrarch’s canzone . Although Cariteo’s poem honors the
Aragonese dynasty, it honors even more the idea of an emergent centralizing
authority that the Spanish viceregal government asserted after .62 It com-
memorates Aragonese rule as a useful but distant precedent that the viceroy
now fulfills, just as Petrarch’s canzone  had sketched an Italian history that
later commentators saw as a figural forecast of events in their lifetime. Cariteo’s
poem opens with a pastiche of words, phrases, and quotations from Petrarch’s
model, exactly replicating the latter’s stanzaic pattern (AbCBaCcDEeDDfGfG):

Quale odio, qual furor, qual ira immane,

Quai pianete maligni
Han vostre voglie, unite, hor si divise?
(‒)
What hatred, what fury, what monstrous ire, what malignant planets have
now divided your once united wills?

As in Petrarch’s poem the speaker urges unity against an aggressive foe. His
addressee is an Italian ruler who holds the fate of the peninsula in his power.
Cariteo does not name this ruler, but evidence points to Ludovico il Moro of
Milan, who on  October  summoned King Charles VIII of France to in-


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

vade Italy, precipitating later invasions against Milan in , leading to the
overthrow of Ludovico in , and then against Naples in the summer of
.63 Even after Spain’s victory over France in , the threat persisted, mo-
tivating the Holy League of Spain, Venice, England, and the papacy against
France in . Not until the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in  would French
designs end. From Cariteo’s perspective the security of Naples and the rest of
Italy depends on Spanish strength.64
The poem’s third stanza focuses on French aggression. A stunning com-
mercial metaphor questions the strength of foreign leagues and partnerships:
Quanto mal può sperarsi ogni momento
Da liga o compagnia
Di cui lo proprio honor vende & rivende.
(‒)
How poorly can we trust any moment of league or partnership with one
who sells and retails his own honor?
A brutal figure of the French monarch as an uncontrollable wolf under-
scores the dangerous game that Ludovico il Moro plays with the fortunes of
foreign powers: “Che per l’orecchi tene un lupo inico, / Che ’l lasciar nè ’l tener
non gli è securo” ‘That he holds by the ears an enemy wolf, and that neither
letting go nor holding tight is safe for him’ (‒).65 His motivation is lust for
power, “l’infinito ardore / D’imperio” ‘the infinite craving for power’ (‒),
an imperium figured in Petrarch’s canzone  as a hollow name, a word that
some have made an idol, “un nome / vano, senza soggetto” ‘an empty name
without substance’ (.‒). Filelfo comments that here Petrarch mocks
the very idea of political power: “Il Petrarca se ne ride e fassene beffe” ‘Petrarch
scoffs at it and derides it’ (v), while Antonio da Tempo describes a context
of civil strife which parallels Cariteo’s own situation: “Questa morale fece M.
F. contra li segnori de italia che in questo tempo erano tutti in guerra”
‘Petrarch fashions this moral warning against the lords of Italy who at this time
were all at war against one another’ (Cr). According to both commentators,
internal conflict proves more destructive than external invasion, and to remedy
it Petrarch urges adjustment, accommodation, and reconciliation.
Cariteo emulates this Petrarchan figure of poet and public servant as a voice
of conscience and moral authority.66 His final stanza now evokes the haunting
conclusion of Petrarch’s model, “I’ vo gridando: Pace, pace, pace” ‘I go crying:
Peace, peace, peace’ (.), expanding Petrarch’s anaphora into a hortatory
address:


Petrarch and the Site of Petrarchism in Italy

Ai, pace!, ai, ben!, di buon si desiato! . . .

Et in questo amenissimo terreno
Di Napol, dove ’l cielo è più sereno,
Ferma i tuoi piedi gravi. (, ‒)
O peace, o good so desired by the good, . . . in this most agreeable land of
Naples where heaven is most serene, plant your feet deep.
As the abstract nouns suggest, chances for peace after  no longer hinged
upon the means available against Ludovico il Moro or France’s Charles VIII in
. The Aragonese king has abdicated, both heirs have died, and the king-
dom has passed to a Spanish viceroy who was the only leader strong enough to
thwart French ambitions. Conciliation with Spain represents Naples’—and
Italy’s—best hope for stability and security. In its exalted language Petrarch’s
call to peace adumbrates Cariteo’s call for a coalition of power among Naples,
Italy, and Spain. By displacing the temporality of the poem’s action, this call
proposes an illusionary timeless view of civil order which rises above partisan
politics.
Cariteo published his Petrarchan Endimione in  as a gesture of his will-
ingness to comply with the new state. Certainly in the first printed editions of
Petrarch from  to , the northern commentators had represented Pe-
trarch as the paradigm of a loyal monarchist, not at all the Florentine republi-
can depicted in Leonardo Bruni’s Vita di Petrarca. The political pragmatism
and pan-Italian spirit of Antonio’s and Filelfo’s Petrarch are what Cariteo
would situate in his adoptive Naples. Gonsalvo de Córdoba, the viceroy, paid
some attention to the poet in March  by nominating him to serve as gov-
ernor of Nola and in July  by reinstating his pension of three hundred
ducats.67 Nothing else indicates, however, that by the time Cariteo died in 
he had received further public recognition.
Cariteo’s Petrarchism nonetheless took root in Naples as a literary language
to be cultivated in the mannerist styles of Angelo di Costanzo (‒), Luigi
Tansillo (‒), Galeazzo di Tàrsia (‒), Bernardo Tasso (‒),
and Torquato Tasso (‒), and others who succeeded them.68 It conferred
on the Neapolitan court an Italian cultural identity to which the Spanish aris-
tocracy assimilated. Because this show of patriotic spirit helped to whet
Naples’s opposition to another foreign claimant, France, who pursued its goals
in Italy until , the Spanish government even encouraged the expansion of
a pan-Italian discourse in the Neapolitan Academy.69 Cariteo’s vernacular po-
etry served the viceroy’s purposes only briefly, however. Although several in-


 Citing Petrarch in Florence and Naples

complete editions of the Rime were published at Venice in succeeding years,

no edition appeared in Naples after . Posterity can be hard on those who
serve their own times too well, and Cariteo’s work surely exemplifies the efforts
of a poet who tried to please contemporaries across the spectrum. Largely and
unfairly ignored in the canon of sixteenth-century Petrarchism, it also exem-
plifies Petrarchism’s adaptation to a new site of cultural and political engage-
ment. Broadening the site of Petrarchism, it signals the conflation of lyric dis-
course with a rise of a newly professed national sentiment.


This page intentionally left blank
  
Du Bellay and the Site of
Petrarchism in France
This page intentionally left blank
 4 Du Bellay and the
Language of Empire
The Deffence et illustration

The life of Joachim Du Bellay (ca. ?‒) was nearly coterminous with that
of Charles V’s phantom Holy Roman Empire (‒), so it is not surprising
to find overt and covert figurations of nation and empire in his poetry.1 Les Re-
grets, Les Antiquitez de Rome and Songe and the Neo-Latin Poemata, all pub-
lished in , evoke Rome’s ancient empire with haunting echoes from the
Augustan poets—from Virgil, Horace, and Ovid in particular.2 These Latin
poets projected highly conflicted, deeply compromised attitudes about Oc-
tavius’ rule. Virgil saw in Rome’s antiquity the seeds of its imperial greatness
but also signs of its decay. Horace acknowledged the olive branch of tranquil-
lity and civilization proffered by Octavius but also an inner emptiness in Au-
gustan pageantry and flourish. Ovid in a regretful exile could only ponder his
missteps as an imperial poet. Yet another poet—and for Du Bellay’s vernacu-
lar ambitions a still more significant one—confronted similar conflicts and re-
sulting compromises. It was Petrarch.
With an exilic consciousness fixated upon the totemic power of Italy and its
imperial legacy, Petrarch had shaped a version of his national identity which
fantasized grander origins and a more exalted destiny than reality allowed.
Later commentators viewed his love for Laura as a projection of this fantasy,
and Du Bellay’s poetry resonates with their speculations. His sonnets become
vehicles for expressing a national sentiment grounded in personal loyalties to
friends and associates of the same status, rank, or class. They address an audi-
ence already familiar with the Rime sparse, readers defined by their strong ties
to Italian culture and their desire for a national French culture to match the


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

latter. It is an audience of aristocratic patrons, court councillors, and rival po-

ets who as public figures often loom larger in Du Bellay’s plan than the
beloved of his Petrarchan imagination.3 The Deffence et illustration de la langue
francoyse (licensed  February ) rallies such readers, and Olive, L’Antero-
tique, and the Vers lyriques (licensed  March  and published with the
Deffence the following April) offer models for imitation. Petrarch’s figurations
leave an imprint upon Olive and Sonnets d’honneste amour (), surely, but
also upon Les Regrets, Les Antiquitez de Rome, and Songe, in which a sense of
historical destiny inhabits Petrarchan tropes. Du Bellay crafts these sequences
to affirm his social and professional allegiances, to announce a concept of ci-
vility whose spokesman he would become, to recall parallels in the past and
present, and to demonstrate a rhetorical expertise that might help to transform
an expanding monarchy into a state and this state into a nation.
The program of the Deffence focuses upon the interests of a stratified no-
bility whose precise roles in the emerging nation still lacked clear definition.4
By the end of the Hundred Years War in  the old military nobility had
suffered economic and social impoverishment.5 The Italian campaigns of
‒ enabled many noblemen to recuperate lost ground, despite ad-
vances in technology which had made chivalric warfare obsolete.6 After 
François I began to appoint princes of the blood to advisory positions in his
inner council. In turning to the great families of Montmorency, Bourbon, and
Guise, lords of territories at the nation’s military frontiers, he upgraded the
policies of Louis XII, who had staffed his council with astute commoners
trained in law and the artes dictaminis.7 The military nobility welcomed such ap-
pointments.8 Barred from commercial activities to preserve its exemption from
taxation, its members sought new routes to prosperity through court service.
So too did the lesser provincial nobility, in which Joachim Du Bellay was
born. Orphaned at an early age and chronically impoverished, the poet
emerged from the cadet branch of a prestigious Angevine family that had bred
Cardinals Guillaume and Jean du Bellay to serve as François’s trusted national
advisors.9 Throughout his career Du Bellay used these connections to gain a
foothold at court. In their new positions at regional parlements or at court,
diffuse ranks of the elite came into competition with upwardly mobile gentry
and bourgeoisie.10 The latter had acquired notarial training in the schools and
legal training in the universities, which noblemen rarely attended.11 Some
form of education for the lesser nobility might now make a difference for
those among its members who did not have access to appointments bestowed
upon the grands seigneurs. In effect, such a pursuit of learning might pit the


 The Deffence et illustration

lesser nobility against untitled competitors who had depended upon routine
schooling to rise through the ranks. A distinguishing strategy for such noble-
men would be to cultivate a special kind of education, a hypothetically supe-
rior one modeled on the humanist programs of northern Italy.
Joachim Du Bellay showed the way. In ‒ he had enrolled in judicial
studies at the University of Poitiers with the likely goal of entering diplomatic
service, and in ‒ he studied with the Limousin humanist Jean Dorat at
the Collège de Coqueret in Paris, perhaps to polish his linguistic and rhetori-
cal skills for an emissary post.12 Opportunities beckoned. The virtual annexa-
tion of the Piedmont by France between ‒ made that region of north-
ern Italy a focus of aspiration for young careerists, just as the French Crown’s
negotiations with the papacy on matters concerning Charles V and the Coun-
cil of Trent made Rome another focus.13 Upon Henri II’s ascent to the throne
in May , the new king expanded the number of prestigious offices of state
to which noblemen might aspire.14 In his preface to the second edition of
Olive Du Bellay gives every indication of planning to use his education and
family connections to best advantage: “J’ayme la poësie, . . . mais je n’y suis
tant affecté, que facilement je ne m’en retire, si la fortune me veut presenter
quelque chose, où avecques plus grand fruict je puisse occuper mon esprit” ‘I
love poetry, . . . but I am not so much enamored of it that I would not with-
draw in a moment if fortune should afford me an opportunity in which I
could engage my wit far more fruitfully.’15 He definitely sought something
more than a gimcrack appointment in the depths of Henri II’s growing
bureaucracy.
The genius of Du Bellay’s argument for a conjoined classical and vernacu-
lar education in the Deffence is that it could, and by the end of the sixteenth
century it actually did, appeal to a new courtly nobility as a means of affirm-
ing its fitness for service to the nation-state. Such an education, now construed
as a mark of culture and refinement, would set its noble recipients apart from
those whose training in the ars dictaminis imparted merely functional skills. It
was a form of education which might distinguish patrician from pedestrian at
a time of rapid social transformation.16 It would surely distinguish courtly
members of the noblesse de robe from the military caste of the noblesse de race,
whose members simply did not possess or need a formal education and who
actively scorned one.17 A sense of this distinction marks Du Bellay’s transfer
from ordinary legal studies at the University of Poitiers to exceptional classical
pursuits at the Collège de Coqueret, and it may have provided an example for
Ronsard and eventually other members of the Pléiade who joined him.18


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

The distinctive quality of this education was its dual insistence on a mas-
tery of the classical curriculum and on a broad vernacular learning. The
pedantic rigor of parsing Latin and Greek might discipline minds for skills of
management and organization, while training in modern languages could
hone rhetorical skills, impart social graces, and shape a cultural style.19 These
benefits, along with those of enabling young noblemen to forge personal ties
in schools and academies designed for them, would create networks to
enhance future opportunities and foster a sense of class solidarity. They would
also contribute to the formation of a national culture. As Du Bellay un-
derstood, the spread of a courtly culture and its vernacular might extend the
hand of the monarchy even to the margins of popular culture.20 With a long-
familiar pun on the name of the late king (François [Francis, Frenchman]) Def-
fence . links the emergence of a French literary discourse to the succession of
the monarchy, “que nostre Langue (si avecques Francoys n’est du tout en-
sevelie la Langue Francoyse) qui commence encor’ à jeter ses racines, sortira de
terre, & s’elevera en telle hauteur & grosseur” ‘when our language (if with
Francis the whole French language will not be buried), which now begins to
throw out its roots, will emerge from the ground and rise to such height and
greatness’ (/).21 Assuaging rivalries within the social order, this confluence
of language, king, and nation would confer a new sense of corporate identity
upon France.
Late medieval France had based its idea of civic collectivity upon a shared
allegiance to the French king and the Christian religion. This collectivity read-
ily acknowledged its tribal patchwork of multicultural ethnic origins, stem-
ming from mixed strands of Celts, Gauls, Bretons, non-Indo-European Aqui-
tani, Romans, Greeks, Germanic Franks, Visigoths, Burgundians, Norsemen,
and others.22 What united the French kingdom beyond its religion was a set
of common goals and the desire of its people to live together. Sixteenth-century
heterodoxy put an end to the idea that Christianity might confer a sense of
national unity as the Crown, the Gallican Church, Sorbonne conservatives,
the ultramontane Catholic nobility, and Huguenot reformers each vented sec-
tarian beliefs. Amid doctrinal chaos the single shared characteristic of French
identity was now a predominantly secular culture available to all who wished
to be or become French, regardless of ethnic origin or religious affiliation. The
subsequent Wars of Religion between  and  sealed the idea of national
identity as a secular phenomenon by raising skepticism about the nature of
God’s plan as defined by contending religious groups, investing such confi-
dence in the state and nation instead of in religion.23 Michel de l’Hôpital


 The Deffence et illustration

stated the principle succinctly when he declared the state accessible to Protes-
tants as well as Catholics, to Jews and Turks as well as Christians.24
In Du Bellay’s era the word French sported several etymologies. The late-
thirteenth-century Grandes chroniques de France asserted its derivation from
that of the “Franks,” similar to Germanic franc (ferocious, barbarous).25 In
 Bernard du Rosier repeated fanciful allegations by the seventh-century
chronicler Fredegar about franc meaning “free” (from Latin fractum [broken
off, detached], cf. Greek phragma [an independent unit, a free entity]), pro-
claiming the exemption of the ancient Franks from Roman law and hence the
immunity of medieval Francia from demands made by the Holy Roman Em-
pire.26 This idea of freedom from foreign domination fueled French national
resistance to England’s lien upon its Crown during the Hundred Years War,
just as in the sixteenth century it propelled Gallican resistance to containment
by the Roman papacy. In Du Bellay’s youth the long struggle against Charles
V’s Roman Empire encouraged even poor peasants to thinks of themselves as
“French” in opposition to the imperial Spanish, Italian, or Germanic Other.27
Embroidered around this etymology was the Hellenic myth of Francus, Hec-
tor’s imputed son, the eponymous founder of the Frankish people who con-
ferred a Greco-Trojan pedigree upon the nation’s origin, usurping its links to
Roman or Germanic history.28 In  Jean Lemaire de Belges took the further
step of suggesting a parthenogenic origin by proposing that the Greeks them-
selves were the ancient offspring of Celtic colonists who had moved eastward
from Gaul to the Aegean coast in the second millennium ... and then
backward with Francus after the Trojan War to what would become the site of
modern France.29
Other myths emphasized France’s religious preeminence in medieval Chris-
tendom. Clovis’s conversion from heathendom on the eve of his victory over
Frankish rivals, Charles Martel’s defeat of the Spanish Saracens at Tours,
Charlemagne’s campaigns against the Moors in the Pyrenees, Hugh Capet’s
millennial leadership, and St. Louis’ sponsorship of crusades to the Holy Land
secured for French monarchs the title of Rex Christianissimus (Most Christian
King), a title that Philip the Fair revived in  to wrest control of the French
Church from the papacy of Boniface VIII.30 It was a title that François I and
Henri II bore proudly, reinforcing it with yet another ancient slogan, “Le roy
est empereur en son royaume” ‘The king is emperor in his own kingdom,’
whose currency bolstered their rule over territories secured by Louis XI, in-
cluding Gascony, Burgundy, Provence, Anjou, Orleans, Brittany, Bourbon,
and Auvergne.31 Although Valois policy respected regional rights and custom-


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

ary local law, its machinery of state with a network of commissioners, public
officers, provincial courts, and semiautonomous municipal governments
helped to check the power of territorial magnates.32 This centralizing policy
represented—at least to Claude Seyssel and Etienne Pasquier—a liberating,
not a repressive force, one that countered the tyranny and autocracy of provin-
cial lords, “because with all their great authority and power [kings] are willing
to be subject to their own laws and live according to them.”33
The nomadic movement of the royal court throughout the Île-de-France
and the Loire Valley in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries helped
to fortify the Crown’s user-friendly connection with the populace. After his re-
turn from Spanish captivity in , however, François began to think about
fashioning a specifically Parisian culture, one that could sow seeds for national
accomplishment in arts and letters. In March  he established the Collège
des Lecteurs Royaux to promote the study of classical languages and culture.34
In  he licensed Robert Estienne to set up a commercial press to supersede
the Sorbonne’s academic publications. And in  he appointed Lescot to re-
design the Louvre as a permanent palace. Nor was the shadow of Charles V’s
imperial rule far from the French king’s public ambitions. To diminish the
iconic power of Charles’s empire, both François and Henri increasingly
brought imperial trappings to the rituals and ceremonies associated with their
monarchy. Each avouched the Holy Roman inheritance of Charlemagne. As
early as , François put forth his direct candidacy for imperial title, while as
late as  French agents for Henri II were conducting talks with German
princes for him to take over Metz, Toul, and Verdun as imperial vicar.35
To establish a new vernacular literature for this imperializing Valois culture,
Du Bellay found inspiration in Petrarchan poetry. Petrarch himself had
evolved his style in the waning days of the later medieval empire amid social
change and political disruption that his fifteenth- and sixteenth-century com-
mentators variously recounted. Du Bellay would promote this style under the
banner of a strong national monarch, a cohesive and supportive court aristoc-
racy, an actively mobilized professional class, and an industrious, educated
bourgeoisie. He and his associates would display it as an emblem of their loy-
alties to one another while contributing to the formation of a national senti-
ment far more effectively than any abstract allegiances to yet formative insti-
tutions of state and emblems of rule. The very title of Du Bellay’s first
collection of sonnets points to this goal. Without discounting the possibility
that the name Olive refers to the personal emblem of the king’s sister, Mar-
guerite de France, marking the poet’s aggressive bid for her patronage, or that


 The Deffence et illustration

it constitutes an anagram for the name of a real or hypothetical beloved (the

putative Mme or Mlle de Viole), the title surely evokes Athena’s sacred
branch.36 In Petrarch’s sonnet  a reference to Minerva as “l’inventrice de le
prime olive” ‘cultivator of the first olives’ summons the olive wreath as the an-
cients’ symbol for the work of human culture and imagination. Sixteenth-
century commentators on the Rime sparse extend its implications. Vellutello,
for example, recounts the origin of the poem’s “bella fronduta, e fruttifera
oliua” ‘beautiful tree bearing olives’ as an emblem for the rise of Athenian civ-
ilization and its enlargement throughout the world (v). So too does Du Bel-
lay imply the beginnings of a new French culture and its potential spread.
An important precedent existed in the rise of Spanish national identity. It
occurred with the expansion of a Iberian bureaucratic state to govern the
sprawling empire that Charles V had inherited. His realm was a complicated
patchwork of noncontiguous fiefs, which themselves were punctuated with
enclaves belonging to other lords.37 Born at Dijon in  and raised in
Ghent, the Francophone Charles V thought himself a Burgundian in senti-
ment, whence his animus against the French monarchy for its claims on that
territory. His rule extended over Castile (from his maternal grandmother),
Aragon and Naples (from his maternal grandfather), the Low Countries (from
his paternal grandmother), the Hapsburg Succession (from his paternal grand-
father), and recent Spanish conquests in the New World. To strengthen Spain,
he established the seat of his migrant administration there in . Diminish-
ing the influence of Castilian grandees, heightening the participation of
Aragonese aristocracy and conversos, and manipulating an already highly artic-
ulated sense of pure-blood Spanish ethnic identity, Charles appointed a mo-
bile Consejo de Estado (State Council) dominated by advisors with strong na-
tional feelings.38
The creation of a literary and linguistic identity also shaped a sense of
Spain. On  March  the Barcelonan printer Garles Amoros issued Las
obras de Boscán y algunas de Garcilaso de la Vega with a notice of its privilegio
imperiali on the title page. Juan Boscán (ca. ‒), its principal author,
had died a few months earlier, just after assembling three books of his own po-
etry with a fourth book by his deceased friend, Garcilaso de la Vega
(‒).39 Boscán’s selections include conventional coplas, villancicos, can-
ciones, and the epyllionic Leandro y Hero but also ninety-two sonetos and ten
Petrarchan canciones. The prologue to Boscán’s libro segundo defends his
Castilian imitations of Petrarch as augurs of a literary standard for Charles V’s
Spanish Empire. Boscán recounts his conversations in  at Granada with


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

the Venetian humanist (and translator of Castiglione) Andreas Navagero and

the latter’s encouragement “átentar este género de verso” ‘to attempt this kind
of verse’ ().40 It also recounts the decisive role of Garcilaso and “su juicio”
‘his critical judgment’ () in valuing Petrarch.41 As the author points out,
Petrarch sought models for himself in the work of Dante and the Provençal
poets, “cuyas obras, por culpa de los tiempos, andan en pocas manos” ‘whose
works, through the fault of these times, circulate through few hands.’ To
Provençal models Spanish poets may lay even stronger claims than either
Dante or Petrarch. Boscán, a bilingual Catalan and Castilian-speaking mem-
ber of Barcelona’s upper middle class, cites Provençal influence on Catalan po-
etry, and especially on the lyrics of Ausias March (ca. –ca. ): “Destos
Proenzales salieron muchos autores ecelentes Catalanes. De los quales el más
ecelente es Osias March” ‘From these Provençal poets descended many excel-
lent Catalan authors. Of them the most excellent was Ausias March’ (). Ac-
cording to this logic, Petrarch’s achievement might seem a historical accident.
Any heir to the Provençals, whether Italian, French, Catalan, or Castilian,
might have accomplished as much. In any case the Spanish poets now surpass
all others. As the future belongs to them, disenfranchised Italians may well
envy Spain: “Podrá ser que ántes de mucho se duelan los Italianos de ver lo
bueno de su poesía transferido en Espana” ‘It could be that before long the
Italians might complain about seeing the excellence of their poetry transferred
to Spain’ ().
By including Provençal poets in his genealogy, Boscán effects a translatio
studii from Italy through southern France to Aragon and Castile, shadowing
the translatio imperii of Charles V’s empire from Rome to Spain.42 To reinforce
his argument, he appends texts by Garcilaso de la Vega, a poet with whom he
competes on several grounds, including that of social status. Descended from
Castilian nobility of Toledo, Garcilaso fought with the king against the Co-
muneros and later distinguished himself against the Ottomans at Rhodes and
Tunis and against the French in northern Italy and southern France, where he
was killed near Fréjus. Regarded as an aristocrat, a soldier-scholar of great dis-
tinction, and superior in rank to Boscán, Garcilaso personified the ascendancy
of Spain’s nobility in arms and letters. Academicians at Salamanca and Alcalá
would canonize his poetry as the national equivalent of Petrarch’s, and Fran-
cisco Sánchez de la Brozas (“El Brocense”) (), Fernando de Herrera (),
and Tomás Tamayo de Vargas () would republish it with important com-
mentaries.43
Garcilaso’s sonnet , “Pensando que’l camino yva derecho” ‘Thinking that


 The Deffence et illustration

the road went straight,’ typifies his Petrarchan style with clear echoes from at
the end of the second quatrain and in the first tercet:
Y duro campo de batalla el lecho.
Del sueno, si ay alguno, aquella parte
sola ques ser imagen de la muerte
se aviene con el alma fatigada.44
And my bed a harsh battlefield. Of my dream, if there is any, that part alone
which is the image of death adapts itself to my tired soul.

Petrarch’s sonnet  corresponds exactly: “Et duro campo di battaglia il

letto. / Il sonno è veramente, qual uom dice, / parente de la morte” ‘And my
bed is a harsh battlefield. Sleep is truly, as they say, akin to death.’
In his commentary on this poem Vellutello makes three pertinent observa-
tions. The first is that its opening verse, “Passer mai solitario in alcun tetto”
‘No sparrow was ever so alone on any roof,’ echoes Psalm , “Imitando il
Propheta nel psalmo” ‘Imitating the prophet in that Psalm.’ The second is that
the figure of sleep as death echoes Virgil, Seneca, and Ovid: “Onde Vir. nel
sesto, Tum consanguineus laeti sopor, Et Seneca, Frater durae languide mortis,
Et Oui. Stulte quid est somnus gelidae nisi mortis imago” ‘Whence Virgil in
Aeneid ., “Death’s blood brother Sleep,” and Seneca, “the languid brother
of cruel death,” and Ovid, “Fool, what is sleep, if not the image of icy death?”’
The third is that its concluding tercet expresses the poet’s patriotic pride in the
region where Laura lives, “lodando le sue verdi riue, le fiorite & ombrose pi-
agge” ‘praising its green banks and its flowering and shady meadows’ (r). Pe-
trarch’s use of Scripture, the Latin classics, and patriotic sentiment casts an ir-
resistible spell upon Garcilaso, and it is no wonder that he imitates the Italian
poet, locating the model upon his own map of Spanish literary production.
Six years after the publication of Boscán’s and Garcilaso’s Obras, Du Bellay
initiated his project in France. Complicating it in my view were the structures
of class difference which marked earlier French literature. It was not sufficient
for Du Bellay to urge or even set an example for a national literature. French
literary history had already eulogized certain older texts that figured a national
standard. Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun’s alternately courtly and
clerkly portions of the Roman de la rose, Guillaume de Machaut’s virtuoso
fixed-form lyrics, Alain Chartier’s patriotic pamphlet Quadrilogue invective,
and François Villon’s earthy Testament, among other candidates, all earned
some claim to this standard, but to Du Bellay each now carried the taint of
outmoded value. To varying degrees, that is, each inscribed the vintage codes


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

of a superannuated feudal (Guillaume de Lorris), clerical (Jean de Meun),

moralizing (Machaut), military (Chartier), or demimondaine (Villon) order.
Du Bellay henceforth promotes a new literary discourse that would draw upon
a reservoir of memory and experience closer to ideas of patria and nation
evolving in his time. The Deffence et illustration announces this project, and
the poetry accompanying it in the two editions of Olive (April , October
) exemplifies it.
Paradoxically, Du Bellay’s emphasis on strengthening the national vernacu-
lar derives from his deep immersion in ancient classical culture, a legacy from
Jean Dorat, his teacher of Greek.45 Dorat composed in Greek elegiacs a com-
mendatory poem for the Deffence, an homage to Du Bellay’s knowledge of
Homeric style and to his will to apply such knowledge to the benefit of the
Crown. He develops the poem as a gloss upon Homer’s “Heis oiōnòs áristos
amúnesthai perì pátrēs” ‘One augury is best: to fight in defense of our coun-
try’ (Iliad .). His reworking of this line equates Du Bellay’s defense of the
vernacular, “amúnesthai perì glōttēs” ‘to defend a language,’ with the Home-
ric defense of the fatherland, “amúnesthai perì pátrēs” ‘to defend a fatherland.’
Du Bellay is a type of patriot, “philopátros anēr” ‘a man who loves his coun-
try,’ no less than his noble ancestors, “prógonoi philotátrides ándres” ‘progen-
itors of one who loves his country.’ The latter earned their reputation by
wielding the sword in defense of the nation, “patríēs . . . péri marnámenoi” ‘to
fight . . . on behalf of the fatherland.’ Du Bellay will earn his by wielding the
pen in defense of the nation’s language, “patríēs . . . perì glōttēs” ‘to fight . . .
on behalf of a language’ (/). In the modern bureaucratic state the pen
counts as much as the sword and proves an instrument as worthy of noble at-
tention as weaponry in the past. The poem’s grammatical parallelisms rein-
force this lesson as a putatively timeless one, enabling both Dorat and Du Bel-
lay to claim Homer for the present age. The profession of letters by an
aristocratic poet will accomplish for his generation what the profession of arms
did for an earlier age, binding the members of his elite community against for-
eign competition.46
A controversy attending the publication of the Deffence and Olive makes
visible the social dimension of Du Bellay’s argument and especially the class
structure implied in its literary preferences. The critic who addressed Du Bel-
lay in the celebrated Quintil horacien hid behind anonymity as he appended
his tract to the second edition () of Thomas Sebillet’s Art poétique français
(also published anonymously) and aligned his theoretical views with the lat-
ter’s.47 Internal references to translations of Horace’s ars poetica enable us to


 The Deffence et illustration

identify the author as Barthélemy Aneau (‒), principal of the distin-

guished Collège de la Trinité at Lyon. The title of his tract evokes the name of
Quintilius, Horace’s friend and critic who saved the poet from censurable mis-
takes. Aneau, however, is anything but friendly or supportive. He accuses Du
Bellay of hypocrisy in proclaiming a “defense” of French poetry which is
“plutôt offense et dénigration” ‘rather an offence and disparagement.’48 In-
stead of praising only five or six French poets in Deffence ., Du Bellay ought
to have praised “cinq douzaines d’autres” ‘five dozen more’ (). And, instead
of nominating Petrarch as a model for good usage, Du Bellay should have
cited the work of grands seigneurs, great councillors, and judges in Parlement,
“desquelles je voudrais mieux apprendre à parler, et écrire, et enrichir mon vul-
gaire, et ma langue illustrer” ‘from whom I would better learn how to speak,
write, enrich my vernacular, and make my language illustrious’ (). Petrarch
himself derived models from Troubadour poets in southern France: “Tu nous
fais grand déshonneur, de nous renvoyer à l’Italien, qui a pris la forme de la
Poésie des Français” ‘You do us a great dishonor to refer us to the Italian who
took the form of his poetry from the French’ ().
Aneau endorses Horatian views about poetry and language, but in fact his
assumptions support quite another set of practices and beliefs. Du Bellay as-
sociated such beliefs with a Ciceronism articulated and espoused by such six-
teenth-century humanists as Pietro Bembo and Etienne Dolet and destined to
constrict the development of Latin as well as vernacular style.49 Deffence .
represents Bembo as qualifying his own Latin Ciceronism by promoting the
vernacular style of Petrarch and Boccaccio: “Je doute si onques homme im-
mita plus curieusement Ciceron. . . . Toutesfois par ce qu’il a ecrit en Italien,
tant en vers comme en prose, il a illustré & sa Langue & son nom” ‘I doubt
whether any more carefully imitated Cicero. . . . In any case for that he wrote
in Italian both in verse and in prose, he did make both his language and his
name illustrious’ (/). Throughout the Deffence Ciceronism comes to
represent a foil to a newly revitalized Horatian poetics.50
Both Cicero and Horace had sought to endow ancient Rome with a re-
newed cultural identity based upon but also antipathetic to the glories of Hel-
lenic culture. Their question of how to use imported Greek models yielded
two answers: either to translate them directly, and even rather slavishly, into
Roman equivalents or else to transfer them through freer kinds of imitation
and emulation. Cicero had advocated the first for galvanizing old values in the
ancient republic, Horace the second in order to engineer new values for an
emerging Augustan empire.51 In  Etienne Dolet had argued in his treatise


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

on La Maniere de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre (The technique of trans-

lating well from one language to another) that Cicero’s theory of translation
could contribute to the rhetorical training of a new kind of “Orateur Françoys”
‘French Orator.’52 In Du Bellay’s treatise at the decade’s end, the Ciceronian
spokesman for republican rhetoric yields to the Horatian exponent of an im-
perialist poetics. The Deffence propounds a language not just for the nation
but for an empire.
It seems significant that no such contest between Ciceronian rhetoric and
Horatian poetics appears in Du Bellay’s major source, Sperone Speroni’s Dia-
logo delle lingue (). Its key interlocutor, Speroni’s friend and mentor, Pietro
Bembo, articulates a defense of the vernacular whose dialogic form introduces
a fair amount of disagreement, contradiction, and inconsistency.53 In an argu-
ment that actually inverts the historical Bembo’s Ciceronism, Cicero and the
other ancients come to figure the practice of a high but now outmoded style
that can only inhibit growth and expansion: “Onde quanto parlate e scrivete
latino, non è altro che Cicerone trasposto più tosto da carta a carta, che da ma-
teria a materia” ‘Whenever you would speak or write Latin in his style, it
would be nothing more than Cicero transposed from one page to another, not
from one field of ideas to another’ (/). The terror of sameness, an aver-
sion to homotextual promiscuity, a fear of différance without difference, argues
against the Ciceronian program of translation into the vernacular. At the same
time Speroni’s dialogue makes no counterreference to Horace or his alternative
precept.
The latter nonetheless appears in Du Bellay’s Deffence, in which the ideal of
a freer, more flexible kind of imitation serves the national goal of cultural le-
gitimization in France. The imitator shapes, molds, adapts, and reworks the
model to a new order, until the product bears the imitator’s stamp and an im-
press of the age. Horace’s career cannily exemplifies this outcome.54 A prag-
matist who rose to the equestrian rank in Brutus’ army, Horace accommo-
dated himself to the realities of an emerging empire after his commander’s
defeat at Philippi. A writer in the neoteric mold, comfortable with aesthetic
detachment and averse to the acclaim of the masses, he seemed to belie those
values by entering the public arena as an official poet, protégé of Maecenas,
and shaper of Augustan policy. But for all of his technical mastery of lyric me-
ters Horace regarded his odes and epodes as inferior to Virgil’s hexameter epic,
a genre held in highest esteem for its lofty ambitions: “Neque haec dicere nec
gravem . . . / conamur” ‘I am not strong enough to try such epic flights’ (Odes


 The Deffence et illustration

..‒). The specter of not rising to imperial epic could only haunt him as it
would haunt Du Bellay.
To Du Bellay, Horace becomes an emblem for the poet’s successful accom-
modation with history as well as a totem for ancient classical ideals. The son-
net sequence Olive and the Vers lyriques that accompany the Deffence both be-
gin and end with a line from Horace, “Caelo musa beat” ‘The muse confers
blessings in heaven’ (Odes ..).55 Recommendations to the aspiring poet
which Horace had made conventional in his ars poetica inform Du Bellay’s rec-
ommendations in Deffence .. They urge the “Poëte futur” to respect epic as
the noblest poetic form and to respect the ode as the noblest lyric form, “à
l’example d’Horace” ‘after the example of Horace,’ but they include the son-
net as well, “conforme de nom à l’ode, & differente d’elle seulement pource
que le sonnet a certains vers reiglez & limitez” ‘conformable in name with the
ode, and different from it only in that the sonnet has a certain number of
lines, limited and regulated’ (/).
In both theory and practice, however, such sonnets represent a compro-
mise. The preface to the second edition of Olive recounts that in  Jacques
Peletier du Mans, who a year later would publish his own French translation
of twelve of Petrarch’s sonnets, urged Du Bellay to cultivate the sonnet and
ode as forms suitable for his purposes, “encores pue usitez entre les nostres”
‘still little used among our poets.’56 As it happens, this choice reflects a second-
best option, the first being epic. Diffident about his talent, Du Bellay imagines
that he can succeed only if he sets a modest goal, “si non entre les premiers,
pour le moins entre les seconds” ‘if not among the first rank of poets, then at
least among the second’ (). Since Peletier himself viewed epic as the highest
genre in his both his verse translation of Horace’s ars poetica () and in his
prose treatise Art poétique (), we can only surmise that, by steering Du Bel-
lay toward lyric, Peletier might have doubted or disparaged his friend’s capac-
ity for epic.57
Like Horace, Du Bellay would compensate for his deficiency by theorizing
about history and the historical process and by experimenting with lyric
forms. In the former regard an implied contrast between Cicero as spokesman
for the Roman Republic and Horace as spokesman for the Roman Empire
subtends the Deffence. The idea, if not the actual institution, of Cicero’s re-
public appears as a necessary stage before the advent of Horace’s empire in this
historical dialectic. The local and regional composition of a republic allows the
polity to consolidate a language and a culture bequeathed as its past inheri-


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

tance. The transcendent scale of empire enables it to spread its language and
its culture while taking from its dependencies as much as it gives. Cultural en-
richment through translation as proposed in the Ciceronian agenda consti-
tutes an initial stage to be amplified through the work of imitation and of em-
pire in the Horatian agenda. At this point the Ciceronian precept yields to its
Horatian counterpart.
The outcome of this process is by no means predetermined, nor is Horace’s
supremacy assured. Du Bellay begins a restrained discussion of the translatio
studii from ancient Rome to modern France with a metaphrase of Horace’s
“ore rotundo loqui” ‘to speak with a rounded mouth’ (Epistles ., his ars poet-
ica, lines ‒).58 He then complicates this reference first by suppressing
Horace’s name in the formula “comme dict quelqu’un” ‘as someone said’ and
then by pointing to the failure of recent poets to follow Horace’s advice, “non
immitans la curieuse diligence des Grecz, aux quelz la Muse avoit donné la
bouche ronde (comme dict quelqu’un) . . . comme depuis aux Romains im-
mitateurs des Grecz” ‘not imitating the curious diligence of the Greeks to
whom the muse had given a rounded mouth (as some one said) . . . as after-
wards she gave to the Romans imitating the Greeks’ (.: /). It is as though
two translationes studii have intervened, a successful one in chronological time
which passed from Greece to Rome when Horace imperialized Greek models
for Roman use and an abortive one at some later interval when poets rejected
Horatian precepts. The revival of Ciceronism, historically associated with re-
publican autonomy and the civic humanism of northern Italian city-states,
further delayed its movement.
From Du Bellay’s perspective the outcome is ambiguous because cultural
transmission is neither linear nor direct. It rather participates in a cycle of rise
and fall, death and rebirth, a “loy inuiolable” ‘inviolable law’ which governs
“toute chose crée” ‘all created things’ (.: /). Like Lorenzo de’ Medici in
the Comento, Du Bellay asserts that the historicity of all languages undermines
the supremacy of any single language. In Lorenzo’s view the spread of the Ro-
man Empire had made Latin a necessary vehicle for communication, just as
current politics have allowed the Tuscan language to supplant Latin. For Du
Bellay an erratic figuration complicates this view with elements of contingency
and disturbing unpredictability. If cultural transmission were simply linear
and direct, it would leave indelible marks as it advances toward new frontiers.
It does not do so, however, because the past does not remain the past forever.
Sooner or later it becomes present again, often without warning, and asserts
its old claims, entering into competition with the cultural destinies of other


 The Deffence et illustration

peoples, themselves subject to new alteration. Medicean Florence provides

Valois France with a paradigm, just as it provides the Valois dynasty with a
royal consort in the person of Henri II’s wife, Catherine de’ Medici. History
confers upon France the ripened fruit of a Florentine patrimony as already by
 Florence had evolved from a republic into a principate with the Medici as
hereditary rulers of a Tuscan territorial state. The result acknowledges Cicero’s
humanist contribution to an earlier Florentine Republicanism but now de-
monizes it for what it represents as antithetical to the values of a supraregional
rule, the strengthening of a powerful monarchy and the rise of a French na-
tional state. The ritual and ceremonial forms of imperial self-representation al-
ready governing François I’s and Henri II’s public imagery find their comple-
ment in Du Bellay’s version of Horace’s imperial poetics.59
The public imagery of kingship in Du Bellay’s France exalted the Valois
monarch with his title Rex Christianissimus, but this title, traceable to the
eighth century, could only prove troublesome in an age of religious factional-
ism ignited by Lutheran and Calvinist reform. What, after all, is “Most Chris-
tian”? In the last decade of François’s reign the Cardinal de Chatillon, Mme
d’Etampes, Jean du Tillet, Charles Du Moulin, and other grandee advisors had
urged the king to affirm the effective power of royal patronage over the French
Church by breaking from Rome.60 This policy of Gallicanism refers to limita-
tions ordained by the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (), the Concordat of
Bologna (), and the later Council of the Gallican Church () upon pa-
pal jurisdiction over episcopal elections and dues on benefices in French terri-
tory. In questioning papal authority, François’ and Henri’s royalist advocates
were rejecting the authority of a Rome-oriented culture in social and political
as well as ecclesiastical affairs. The medieval church had assumed the ancient
empire’s role as custodian of culture, but it now seemed right for the French
monarchy to take over that role.
In this charged environment potent allusions to Horace inflect Du Bellay’s
dedication of the Deffence to his cousin, Cardinal Jean du Bellay
(‒).61 Advisor to both François I and Henri II and rival to the papal
ally Cardinal de Tournon, Jean du Bellay pursued a policy of enlightened re-
form within the Gallican Church and irenic compromise with Rome. Joachim
Du Bellay acknowledges the importance of this policy when he paraphrases
Horace’s scruples in Odes .. about poetry that distracts public officials
from their duties to the state: “Pecheroy-ie (comme dit le Pindare latin) con-
tre le bien publicque, si par longues paroles j’empeschoy le tens que tu donnes
au service de ton Prince” ‘Shall I not sin (as says the Latin Pindar) against the


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

public good if by long speech I interrupt the time thou dost give to the serv-
ice of thy prince.’ Far from diverting the cardinal, the Deffence will help him
to advance the cause of French nationalism, “au profit de la Patrie” ‘to the
profit of the country’ (/). Du Bellay conveys his excitement in a theatrical
metaphor that inscribes the plot of his cousin’s drama across all Europe and
even beyond, “veu le personnaige que tu joues au spectacle de toute l’Europe,
voyre de tout le monde, en ce grand Theatre Romain” ‘seeing the character
that you play in the spectacle of all Europe, nay of the whole world in this
great Roman theatre’ (/). With an echo of Horace’s Odes . which com-
pares Virgil’s task as an epic poet to a Herculean labor, “perrupit Acheronta
Herculeus labor” ‘so did Herculean labor burst hell’s gates’ (..), Du Bellay
compares the cardinal to the Gallic Hercules, mythic ancestor of the French
king, bearing France’s affairs upon his robust shoulders, “non moins que le
Ciel de celles du grand Hercule” ‘none less than was heaven upon those of
Hercules’ (/).62
This dedicatory figure presages a more elaborate reference to Hercules at
the end of the Deffence. There Hercules appears as a golden-tongued orator
“tirant les peuples apres luy par leurs oreilles, avecques une chesne attachée à
sa langue” ‘who drew the nations after him by their ears with a chain attached
to his tongue’ (/). Again an echo from Horace lends weight to this final
sentence. The line that Du Bellay uses as a tag for the beginning of Olive and
end of his Vers lyriques, “Caelo musa beat” ‘The muse confers blessings in
heaven,’ proceeds in Horace’s text to evoke Hercules as a recipient of these
blessings: “Sic Iovis interest / optatis epulis impiger Hercules” ‘So tireless Her-
cules sits among Jove’s favorite banqueters’ (Odes ..‒). The Vers lyriques
abridges this quotation, but the Deffence compensates by introducing the fig-
ure of a transmogrified Hercules leading the French people onward with his
persuasive eloquence. The difference between Horace’s Hercules and Du Bel-
lay’s is that the former basks in a sybaritic immortality, while the latter forges
onward with the work of nation building.
Du Bellay’s direct source for this figure is a set of parallel passages from
works by François I’s premier humanist, Guillaume Budé, the first from his
erudite Latin Commentary on Justinian’s Digest () (...), the second
from his French treatise L’institution du prince, written for François I in 
but not published until .63 In these passages Budé draws from Lucian’s
ironic oration Prolalia Herakles (Heracles: An Introduction) a striking account
of how the giant Ogmios, a Celtic prototype for the Greek Hercules, “drags af-
ter him a great crowd of men who are all tethered by the ears!”64 Budé associ-


 The Deffence et illustration

ates the tethers of this Gallic Hercules with rhetorical skills, his ability to per-
suade others through words rather than compel them by force.65 Attacking
members of the Valois court who are “ignorant of erudition,” Budé calls for a
commitment to Hercules’s oratorical skills encoded in the precepts of ancient
eloquence and available through humanistic study. Only “those who are not
tickled by any harmonic sound” will fail to find merit there.66
As a precursor of Du Bellay’s Deffence, Budé’s program turns persuasive elo-
quence into a vehicle of governance for the ruling elite. To this view Du Bel-
lay adds that the study of eloquence is not just a province of republican hu-
manism but that it can become a domain of the courtly aristocracy and lesser
nobility to which he belongs. The ideal of eloquence personified by Budé’s hu-
manism in François’s just-ended reign now gives way to a national ideal artic-
ulated in the Deffence at the beginning of Henri II’s reign. From it is expunged
all reference to Ciceronian republicanism as Du Bellay shifts his constituency
from scholars and professional men of letters to a newly Paris-based courtly
elite. Poets with an aristocratic pedigree such as Du Bellay can offer valuable
service to the king and state as educated and refined spokesmen for the latter,
as useful participants in the social division of labor rather than as aloof, free-
floating, disinterested noblemen or upwardly striving bourgeoisie. When such
poets process and absorb the best from ancient and other modern cultures,
they enrich the stock of their emergent nation in powerful and productive
ways. Among the forms that they can use for this purpose is a Petrarchism im-
ported from Italy.


 5 Totems for Defense
Du Bellay and Marot

The author of the ironically named Quintil Horatien was right to think Du
Bellay’s revisionary ars poetica a challenge to Cicero’s republican ideology and
cultural style. Adopting the imperial ideology and neoteric style of Horace,
Du Bellay’s vernacular program called for the importation into France of a
manifestly Italianate Petrarchism that could supplant the models of an indige-
nous French literature. These models include such totemic figures of French
poetry as the authors of the Roman de la rose, Guillaume de Machaut, Alain
Chartier, and François Villon, whom Aneau himself had mentioned with ad-
miration, as well as such contemporaries as Clément Marot, Jean Lemaire de
Belges, and Mellin de Saint-Gelais. The result would be nothing less than a
struggle for supremacy in the French canon and a potential setback to devel-
oping a national culture.
The situation illustrates the social psychology sketched by Freud in Totem
and Taboo. According to his argument, the totem functions as a keeper and de-
fender of the tribal horde. It projects upon the clan a bond of common ances-
try, foretelling its future and guiding its action. In return for this real or imag-
ined service, the clan’s strongest members unite to protect the totem. They do
so, however, not because of any filial reverence or altruistic motivation toward
it. Instead, they are compensating for an act of violence which they earlier in-
curred upon the totem. In fact, their original goal was to overcome the
tyranny of a father whom the totem represents. Vanquished, the totem exerts
over the clan even more power than before when its members expiate their
guilt in having opposed it.


 Du Bellay and Marot

In this light Du Bellay’s Deffence records hostile impulses toward an earlier

French literary discourse as well as emotional ambivalences that derive from
such hostility. It directs its criticism against poetry by writers who originated
in the non-noble classes and who rose to great prominence under monarchs
whom they served. Although recognizing their national contribution as a cul-
tural standard and norm, indeed as a model and paradigm for modern prac-
tice, the Deffence reveals a deeply conflicted relationship to this standard and
norm. In the name of cultural continuity it speaks against perpetuating inbred
native forms, promoting instead an exogamic conquest of such literary genres
from abroad as the Italian sonnet and canzone.
This incorporation of the foreign bears further analogies with Freud’s nar-
rative. In the shadow of the totem, members of the clan avert fratricidal com-
petition for mates by seeking wives from outside the community. As members
of the clan reestablish fraternal bonds with one another, they honor the mem-
ory of the ancestral father figure whose dominance they once resented. The
practice of exogamy becomes a conscious law: no inbreeding among commu-
nal members, no incest among blood relatives. Far from relating to any natural
or inherent impulse, the taboo effects a social and psychological resolution of
generational rivalries among men. It henceforth represents a final covenant
with the dead father who, in Freud’s words, becomes “stronger than the living
one had been” (.).
Du Bellay’s program for literary renewal in the Deffence proposes a similar
law against cultural incest and a similar covenant with the resources of an
older French poetry. To fertilize French literary discourse, to aggrandize its lit-
erary possibilities, and to illuminate its many achievements (as in the six-
teenth-century meaning of illustration [making illustrious]), Du Bellay calls
for a program of exchange with heterogeneous foreign cultures and heterotex-
tual foreign literatures. This program is manifestly exogamic as Du Bellay ad-
vises young poets to pollinate French literary discourse with models from an-
cient Greece and Rome and from Italy since the time of Petrarch onward. To
renew literary history in this way might cast older French forms into obscurity,
but it may also encourage their preservation as sacred inheritances from the
past and as emblems of national identity for the present. No incest, no in-
breeding, can be allowed to deepen actual or potential, real or imagined rival-
ries among competing cultural centers of sixteenth-century France, whether in
the royal courts at Paris, Fontainebleau, or the Loire; the courts of the provin-
cial feudal nobility in Brittany, Flanders, Burgundy, or Savoy; urban confra-
ternities at Amiens, Lille, or Rouen; and middle-class cenacles at cities such as


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Poitiers and Lyon.1 One result is to fantasize a bond that French culture might
otherwise not possess, a factitious sense of national identity rooted in a common
past. A literary heritage can so function when its inheritors preserve it as invio-
lable. For their current literary production these same heirs may turn to foreign
forms instead of duplicating native models to exhaustion. Thus in Deffence .
Du Bellay finds it “point chose vicieuse, mais grandement louable, emprunter
d’une Langue etrangere les sentences & les motz, & les approprier à la sienne”
‘no vicious thing, but praiseworthy, to borrow from a foreign tongue thoughts
and words and appropriate them to one’s own,’ just as he finds it dubious to
applaud those “qui s’estiment estre des meilleurs, quand plus ilz ressemblent
un Heroet, ou un Marot” ‘who believe themselves to be the better when they
most resemble an Antoine Héroët or a Clément Marot’ (‒/).
To consolidate past gains and stimulate future production, Du Bellay
totemizes the literary heroes of an earlier age, although some choices for in-
clusion in a new national canon might seem odd. He had pressing reasons to
modernize the canon. When François died in March , Henri II undertook
vengeful recriminations against persons and policies favored by the father
whom he hated. By  such older court poets as Hugues Salel, Jean Lemaire
de Belges, Antoine Héroët, and even the followers of Clément Marot appear
to have fallen into disfavor as casualties of changing tastes.2 In this sense the
importation of Petrarchan poetry from Italy helped to displace rivalries among
younger French poets who would compete for the recently installed king’s at-
tention. It could resolve them only in part, however, since Petrarch’s model
should necessarily inspire these same poets to compete in new forms. It re-
quired them to depart from their French forebears, including those who had
introduced Petrarch’s poetry into court circles before . They encompass
Clément Marot, Mellin de Saint-Gelais, and Maurice Scève but also Rhé-
toriqueur poets such as Jean Robertet and Jean Molinet, who had glanced at
least sideways at Petrarch’s achievement. In the Deffence these poets acquire
totemic status as forerunners who deserve recognition and admiration but not
direct imitation.
What made Petrarch especially worthy of emulation in Du Bellay’s eyes? As
the Rime sparse entered into print with commentaries celebrating the polish of
its language, its social and cultural refinement, its political vision, and its
moral amplitude, Petrarch emerged as an exemplar of virtues associated with
the new courtly administration. An example is Du Bellay’s sonnet  in Olive,
an adaptation of Petrarch’s sonnet  which reflects concerns articulated by
the commentators:


 Du Bellay and Marot

Ores je chante, et ores je lamente,

Si l’un me plaist, l’autre me plaist aussi,
Qui ne m’areste à l’effect du souci,
Mais à l’object de ce qui me tormente.
Soit bien ou mal, desespoir ou attente,
Soit que je brusle ou que je soy’ transi,
Ce m’est plaisir de demeurer ainsi:
Egalement de tout je me contente.

Madame donc, Amour, ma destinée,

Ne changent point de rigeur obstinée,
Ou hault, ou bas la Fortune me pousse.
Soit que je vive, ou bien soit que je meure,
Le plus heureux des hommes je demeure,
Tant mon amer a la racine doulce.
Now I sing, now I complain; if one pleases me, the other pleases me too, me
who does not dwell on the effect of my care but on the object of what tor-
ments me. Whether good or ill, despair or hope, whether I burn or am
frozen, it is a pleasure to remain in such a state, I am equally content with
both.
Hence let my lady, Love, my destiny yield not a bit of their stubborn sever-
ity, whether Fortune propels me high or low. Whether I live or even
whether I die, I remain the happiest of men, as long as my bitter plant has
so sweet a root.

Here is Petrarch’s original:

Cantai, or piango, et non men di dolcezza

del pianger prendo che del canto presi,
ch’ a la cagion, non a l’effetto, intesi
son i miei sensi vaghi pur d’altezza.
Indi et mansuetudine et durezza
et atti feri, et humili et cortesi,
porto egualmente, né me gravan pesi,
né l’arme mie punta di sdegni spezza.
Tengan dunque ver’ me l’usato stile
Amor, Madonna, il mondo et mia fortuna,
ch’ i’ non penso esser mai se non felice.
Viva o mora o languisca, un più gentile
stato del mio non è sotto la luna,
sì dolce è del mio amaro la radice.


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

I sang, now I weep, and I take no less sweetness from weeping than I took
from singing, for my senses, still in love with heights, are intent on the
cause, not its effects. Thence I bear equally mildness and harshness, cruel
gestures and humble and courteous; nor do any weights weigh me down,
nor does any point of disdain shatter my armor.
Let them keep toward me their accustomed style, Love, my lady, the
world, and my fortune; I think I shall never be anything but happy.
Whether I live or die or languish, there is no nobler state than mine under
the moon, so sweet is the root of the bitter.

Among the commentators Antonio da Tempo, Vellutello, and Gesualdo in-

terpret, the speaker’s military figures as metaphors. Antonio relates the
speaker’s arme to his rime as a defense against Laura’s power over him. The
lover would subdue her with his poetry: “Larme sue eran e suo rimar & poet-
izare laudando la sua donna” ‘His arms were his rhyming and his poetic com-
position in praise of his lady’ (Gv). Vellutello repeats this conjecture and adds
that Petrarch deploys humility in order to counter Laura’s disdain, as in son-
net , in which he averts her Medusa-like gaze with eyes “pien d’umiltà sì
vera / ch’a forza ogni suo sdegno indietro tira” ‘full of such true humility that
she necessarily draws back all her anger’ (r). Gesualdo iterates the social
value of Petrarch’s behavior: “Le arme del Poe. Erano defensiue, ne altro che
grande humilitade” ‘The poet’s arms were his defenses, nothing other than his
great humility’ (CCLXXXv). One result is to tame the aggression lurking in
Petrarch’s amatory complaint. Du Bellay furthers this pacification when his
speaker tames himself: “Egalement de tout je me contente.”
Du Bellay’s emphasis finds precedents in other commentaries. Petrarch cites
the attack on him by “Amor, Madonna, il mondo et la mia fortuna.” Against
them he wields the stile (sylus, pen, style) of his poetry. Antonio Brucioli ex-
plicitly associates this style with a moral outlook by linking it to a “modo di
fare” ‘a way of acting’ (v). Fausto da Longiano praises the poet for ennobling
Laura, the cause of his suffering, “la causa dicendo philosophi essere piu no-
bile de suo causato” ‘philosophers saying that the cause is more noble than the
effect’ (v). Daniello comments that Petrarch is influenced no less by the good
that Laura does than by the harm: “Il poe era molto travagliato, hora da le
buone care che ML gli facea, e hora di le cattive” ‘The poet was very vexed,
now by the good welcome that Laura gives him, now by the ill’ (v). Castel-
vetro notes that Petrarch has transformed his optimistic outlook into a source
of strength: “Ha una corazza indosso di felicita” ‘He reveals a gallantry in-
duced by felicity’ ().


 Du Bellay and Marot

In the wake of such commentaries Du Bellay directs his attention to l’object

of his lament, Olive, displaying the nobility of character which Fausto attrib-
utes to Petrarch. With equanimity (“Egalement de tout je me contente”), the
speaker inflects the verb “ne changent point” as either an indicative statement
of fact, “they yield not a bit,” or a subjunctive of wish or command, “let them
not yield a bit,” the latter an assertion of self-confidence in the face of opposi-
tion.3 Either way he expresses his independence. The figuration of Olive as a
tree sacred to Minerva, in direct response to Petrarch’s figuration of Laura as a
protective plant sacred to Apollo, brings Du Bellay to conclude with a tribute
to “la racine doulce.” The speaker’s relationship with Olive provides an oppor-
tunity for emotional growth, intellectual development, and social maturation.
For French precursors the Deffence cites a vast body of courtly poetry with
amatory themes, much of it no less accomplished than Petrarch’s. As Du Bel-
lay pushes into the past to establish a pedigree for his own style, he selects two
poets as forerunners, conjoining them with a double use of quasi into the fig-
ure of a single author. They are the poets of the Roman de la rose, and their lin-
eage has literary, linguistic, social, and cultural value:
De tous les anciens poëtes Francoys, quasi un seul, Guillaume du Lauris &
Jan de Meun, sont dignes d’estre leuz, non tant pour ce qu’il y ait en eux
beaucoup de choses qui se doyvent immiter des modernes, comme pour y
voir quasi comme une premiere imaige de la Langue Francoyse, venerable
pour son antiquité.
Of all the ancient French poets one only, as it were, Guillaume de Lorris
and Jean de Meung, are worthy to be read, not so much because there are in
them many things which should be imitated by the moderns, as for seeing
in them, as it were, a first image of the French language, venerable for its an-
tiquity. (.: /)
In canonizing both Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Du Bellay re-
sponds to two distinctively different features of their corporate poem and its
national literary authority.4 Guillaume narrates an erotic allegory in a courtly
style that fixes on a masculine desiring subject. Jean registers a series of
“clerkly” arguments as a highly educated (and unremittingly masculinist)
writer who criticizes if not Guillaume’s courtly ideology, then at least its al-
leged Ovidian paradigm. Considered separately, each points toward a different
development in French literary history. Guillaume represents a backward turn
to coterie literature. Jean represents a forward turn to a professional bourgeois
literature. Guillaume’s sonority finds echoes in the fourteenth- and fifteenth-
century fixed-form lyrics of Guillaume de Machaut, Eustache Deschamps, and


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Alain Chartier.5 Jean’s more extravagant rhyme riche finds successors among
late-fifteenth-century “Grands Rhétoriqueurs,” ultimately claiming a con-
flicted poetic authority for Du Bellay.6
The Roman’s textual history adds further layers of complexity to its national
authority. So varied was its transmission with so many deletions and interpo-
lations by still other poets and editors, especially in Guillaume’s portion, that
the result is truly a work of multiple authorship.7 Well-known debates in the
early fifteenth century already questioned the merits of Jean de Meun’s contri-
bution. Jean Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, attacked its im-
modest language and moral frivolity, while Christine de Pizan assailed Jean de
Meun’s masculinist prejudices in her poetic L’Epistre au Dieu d’Amours ()
and in an exchange of letters with Gerson (‒).8 The poet’s defenders, usu-
ally professional middle-class civil servants such as Jean de Montreuil, provost
of Lille and royal secretary, and Gontier Col, first secretary and notary to the
king, supported his efforts to shape a national language and vernacular litera-
ture. Du Bellay joins the debate by praising Guillaume and Jean as though
they were one poet, assigning equal value to their antithetical merits, so that
Guillaume’s stylistic elegance complements Jean’s rhetorical bravado. The
imaige of their old language draws Du Bellay’s attention, and it is one to which
Du Bellay relates by sharing the poets’ ancestral origins in the Loire Valley, his
downstream near Nantes, theirs upstream at its westward bend near Orléans.
Guillaume came from a village in that vicinity, and so did Jean, although the
latter had evidently studied in Paris. Like Du Bellay, both relinquished the di-
alect of their natal regions to the invented standard of a broadly homogeneous
French vernacular.
Jean de Meun refers to this standard in a passage of the Roman in which he
sketches the poem’s broader purposes. There the God of Love, commissioning
his barons to war against Jalousie to free Bel Acceuil, evaluates Guillaume’s
contribution by comparing it with poetry by Catullus, Gallus, Ovid, and
Tibullus. As fifth in their line of succession, Guillaume has revived an amatory
discourse unpracticed since antiquity. The God of Love vows to nurture Guil-
laume’s successor until his maturity:

Endoctrinez de ma sciance,
si fleütera noz paroles
par carrefors et par escoles
selonc le langage de France,
par tout le regne, en audiance.
(.‒)9


 Du Bellay and Marot

Indoctrinated with my learning, he will pipe our words in town squares and
at the schools in the language of France, throughout the kingdom, for his
listeners.
For Du Bellay this endeavor marks the patriotic apogee of an earlier culture.
Jean’s “langage de France,” a compound of forms from the Loire Valley and the
Paris basin, will transport Love’s doctrine throughout the kingdom (“par tout
le regne,” which in the mid–thirteenth century encompassed not much more
than the central region north of the Loire and a few areas south of it such as
the recently incorporated Berry, Poitou, Saintonge, and Limousin) to all who
would hear (“en audiance”), whether aristocrat, bourgeois, peasant, or aca-
demic, in assemblies both popular and learned (“par carrefors et par ecoles”).
No more is literary language in the custody of provincial patronage, but it be-
comes the heteronomic coin of burgeoning commercial centers in northern
France.
If the langage de France made the poem available to readers of many ranks
and classes, it did so because Guillaume and Jean sacrificed their provincial
Loire dialect to that of the royal court. This same language had nonetheless
changed greatly in the three centuries between Jean de Meun and Joachim Du
Bellay. By  Jean Molinet (‒) revised and moralized the poem in a
prose version dedicated to Philippe de Clèves “pour mon tresdoubte prince
qui desirez estre escolier en luniuersite damours qui est vng dur perilleux la-
borinth” ‘for my dread prince who would be a student in the university of
love, which is a hard and perilous labyrinth.’10 In  Clément Marot as sec-
retary to the king’s sister, Marguerite d’Angoulême (later Marguerite de
Navarre), lent his prestige to a new edition, “corrige suffisantement / Et cotte
bien a lauantaige / pour l’intelligence des lecteurs” ‘sufficiently corrected and
reorganized to its benefit, for the better comprehension of its readers.’11 It was
published in April  by Galliot du Pré, a Parisian printer catering to a broad
urban clientele.12 Most of Marot’s revisions entail minor changes in spelling or
syntax which allow for a more balanced and precise metrical line.13 Thus in
the lines quoted here sciance becomes science, carrefors becomes carrefours, and
selonc becomes selon. The most striking lexical change modernizes si fleütera to
il flajolera, in which the verb loses its reflexive quality, while its substantive
root flajol (pipe, flute), modern flageolet, replaces the older flaüte (from Latin
flatus [breath, wind]).
The final line, however, poses a more intriguing revision:
Endoctriné de ma science
Il flajolera noz parolles


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Par carrefours et par escolles

Selon le langaige de France
Par tout royaulme en audience.
(.‒)
The substitution of royaulme for le regne neither modernizes the diction, since
le regne is as current as royaulme, nor does it change the meter, since the line
retains its feminine caesura. The perceived advantage is semantic, as royaulme
insists upon a general domain of governance, “par tout royaulme” ‘through
every realm.’ In Jean de Meun’s “par tout le regne,” on the other hand, the par-
ticle functions in a restrictive sense (“throughout the kingdom”), limiting its
geography to a mid-thirteenth-century area bordered by Anjou to the west,
Bourbonnais to the south, and Paris and Picardy to the east and north. Marot’s
sixteenth-century revision implies that the royaulme has now spread beyond
the limits of Jean’s regne, a testimony to the power of monarchy and the effi-
cacy of the French language in helping to expand it.14
Du Bellay enthusiastically ratifies this updating, not just because linguistic
standards change and develop over time but also because political institutions
change and develop too. Jean de Meun’s small regne has long since given way
to a vast royaume, a unified constellation of territories governed by the Crown.
Marot’s semantic revision has kept pace with the historical permutation. In re-
claiming the literary status of the courtly Guillaume and the clerkly Jean, just
as that of the streetwise François Villon, whose poetry he would later mod-
ernize, in September , Marot drew from a reservoir of active memory and
varied experience in advancing the idea of a French national literature and a
canon of French national poets.15
As it happens, Marot formulated his canon of French poets in an epigram,
“Des poetes françoys,” which Du Bellay cites for naming those “assez con-
gneuz par leurs oeuvres” ‘well enough known by their works’ (.: /). Marot
wrote his poem, modeled closely on Martial’s “Ad Litianum” (Epigrams .) as
a commendatory verse for an edition of Hugues Salel’s Oeuvres published at
Paris by Pierre Roffet in February .16 It was a canon that evidently im-
pressed Jacques Peletier du Mans, for when he translated Horace’s ars poetica
into French verse in , he substituted for the names of Latin poets in the
original those of the French poets endorsed in Marot’s poem.17 Fittingly, Marot
endorses poets who, like Salel, had risen from the middle classes or lower gen-
try to acquire patronage from the royal house and upper nobility through their
canny celebration of French national destiny.18 And, fittingly too, he associates
each with a distinct region of what would become modern France:


 Du Bellay and Marot

De Jan de Meun s’enfle le cours de Loire.

En Maistre Alain, Normandie prend gloire
Et plainct encor’ mon arbre paternel.
Octovian rend Cognac eternel.
De Moulinet, de Jan le Maire & Georges,
Ceulx de Haynault chantent à peines gorges.
Villon, Cretin, ont Paris decoré
Les deux Grebans ont Le Mans honnoré
Nantes la Brette, en Meschinot se baigne.
De Coquillart s’esjouyt la Champaigne:
Quercy, Salel, de toy se vantera,
Et (comme croy) de moy ne se taira.
With Jean de Meun the course of the Loire swells with pride; in Master
Alain Chartier Normandy takes glory, and it still weeps for my paternal tree;
Octovian de Saint Gelais makes Cognac eternal; about Jean Molinet, Jean
Lemaire de Belges, and Georges Chastellain, people in Hainault sing with
full throats; François Villon and Guillaume Cretin have decorated Paris; the
two Grebans, Arnoul and Simon, have honored le Mans; Breton Nantes
bathes in the glory of Jean Meschinot; for Guillaume Coquillart, Cham-
pagne rejoices; Quercy, O Hughes Salel, will boast about you, and, as I’d
like to think, won’t be silent about me.

Apart from Jean de Meun and François Villon, whose work Marot had re-
vised, Hugues Salel (‒?), the poem’s addressee, claimed a special pur-
chase on Marot’s imagination. As a translator of books  to  of Homer’s Il-
iad and as a writer of classical epigrams, epitaphs, an eclogue marine, and
various dizains, he exemplified a new humanism with its emphasis on philo-
logical expertise, a deeper knowledge of antiquity, and the recovery of ancient
classics.19 As a native of Marot’s Quercy, Salel rose through the ranks from
gentry origins as secretary to the president of the Toulouse Parlement who be-
longed to François I’s private council. Catching the attention of the king who
appointed him royal valet de chambre and maître d’hôtel, Salel blazed a path
that Marot and Du Bellay would celebrate.
Most of the others on Marot’s list—including his father, Jean Marot, al-
luded to as “mon arbre paternel”—took some inspiration from Alain Chartier
(ca. ‒), a commoner from Normandy who parleyed his rhetorical
skills into becoming secretary for King Charles VII.20 These poets, designated
in modern literary histories as Grands Rhétoriqueurs, share a penchant for in-
tricate rhyme, elaborate internal assonance and consonance, ingenious plays
on words and figures of speech, and striking formal and metrical variation.21


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

With the exception of Meschinot and Octovien de Saint-Gelais, who were

born into the aristocracy, each rose from the conditions of a protobourgeois
middle-class birth to higher rank and esteemed recognition, and each built
upon the work of his forerunners.22 Above all, by serving the French monarch
and his dynastic interests at crucial junctures of history, each exercised consid-
erable moralist, propagandist, and historiographical talent on behalf of the
Crown.23
Du Bellay could only be struck by the coincidence of these poets’ lower-
class origins, pedagogical development, and services rendered to the Crown in
times of national formation and political consolidation.24 Each had earned
prestige and reward by subordinating his regional interests to the corporate
destiny of a unified France.25 Their collectively earned merit and spectacular
rise from humble beginnings to positions of considerable importance rein-
forced the lesson that all of them had achieved success through a systematic
training in the rhetorical arts.26 Finally, for most of these poets the Italianate
culture of Petrarch and Petrarchism loomed large in their literary imagination.
Petrarch’s reputation had set a standard for French poets to acknowledge if not
as a specific model for a particular style, at least as an icon of Italian culture
which Gallic culture must confront. The unmistakably patriotic tenor of their
verbal competence, expressive ingenuity, and stylistic virtuosity proved useful
to the Crown and beneficial to themselves.
Clément Marot carried their program further by urging an enthusiastic,
though not exactly academic, pursuit of Latin and Italian models. His classi-
cal interests, his experimentation with Petrarchistic modes and his attraction
to the Evangelical Scripture–based theology of Guillaume Briçonnet and
Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples earned favor with Marguerite d’Angoulême.27 In the
Epitaphe de Clément Marot at the end of Olive, Du Bellay associates the
grandeur of these efforts with the geographical expanse of France:

Si de celuy le tumbeau veux scavoir

Qui de Maro avoit plus que le nom,
Il te convient tous les lieux aller voir
Ou France a mis le but de son renom.
If you wish to find the tomb of him who bore more than the name of [Pub-
lius Vergilius] Maro, you should go see all the places where France has
spread his renown.

The play on Maro/Marot in line  associates the poet with Publius Virgilius
Maro as Marot himself had done in his  opuscule L’Enfer, “Maro s’appelle


 Du Bellay and Marot

et Marot je me nomme: / Marot je suis, et Maro ne suis pas” ‘He is called Maro
and I am named Marot: Marot I am and Maro I am not’ (ll. ‒), moti-
vating his detractor François Sagon to relate his name to marotte (foolscap)
and maraud (rogue, knave) as well.28 The paronymic pun implies that Marot
has mastered and appropriated Virgil’s gifts and that he has passed them on to
French writers, who would otherwise lack them. This process of subsumption
describes Du Bellay’s echoing of Marot.29 If Du Bellay were to have composed
his poem upon Marot’s death in September , it might likely be his earliest
surviving verse. Certainly its awkward rhyme (renom / nom, mort / mord ) calls at-
tention to the poet’s search for an appropriate form, a search that brings him
to repeat Marot’s devise, “La mort n’y mord” ‘Death has no sting,’ in effect
folding his own voice into that of his predecessor. To this final phrase Du Bel-
lay juxtaposes Horace’s “caelo musa beat” ‘the muse confers happiness in
heaven’ at the close of the volume, creating a polyglot hybrid text with this
Latin quotation (Odes ..).
Marot subsumed not only the Latin classics but also the work of his imme-
diate predecessors, providing Du Bellay with an important conduit back to the
Rhétoriqueurs. In such early poems as Le Temple de Cupido (), modeled
partly on Jean Lemaire de Belges’s Les Epistres de l’amant verd () and La
Concorde des deux langages (), Marot processed and absorbed the Rhé-
toriqueurs’ elocutionary techniques while refining their style and tempering
their ingenuity. His play on Marot/Maro, for example, complements his asso-
ciation of Lemaire’s name with that of Homer, Lemaire/l’Omer.30 His assimila-
tion of their invention to classical topoi recalls Lemaire’s humanist concerns.
And even his interest in Petrarch evokes Lemaire’s political imagination. The
latter’s La Concorde des deux langages had paid tribute to Louis XII’s alliance
with Florence and the Medici against the papacy and Venice by envisioning an
accommodation between French and Tuscan cultural discourse to French
advantage.31 Composed at a time when Lemaire had lost favor at Marguerite
of Austria’s Burgundian court and was seeking patronage from Anne of Brit-
tany and the French monarch, the first of two poems in Lemaire’s five-part
text situates the author in a narrative rescription of Petrarch’s exile and ama-
tory obsession.32
Here the poet introduces himself “cuydant suyvir par noble poësie / Le bon
Petrarque, en amours le vray maistre” ‘intending with noble poetry to follow
the good Petrarch, the true master in matters of love’ (‒).33 Just as Petrarch,
“né de Florence” ‘born in Florence,’ fell in love with a foreign woman, “Veu
qu’il esleut sa dame avignonnoise” ‘since he chose his Avignonese lady,’ so


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Lemaire, “né de Haynnau” ‘born in Hainault,’ falls in love with a French

woman from Lyon and naturalizes his affiliation: “Vins de bien loing querre
amour lïonnoise” ‘I came from afar to seek a Lyonnais love’ (‒). Petrarch
came from Italy, Lemaire from Hainault, and France nourished them both.
Filelfo, cited by Lemaire in his interlocutor’s defense of Italian authors, had
foregrounded Petrarch’s ambivalent relationship to his Italian fatherland: “La-
more della patria hauer forza grandissima niuno e che non intenda. Et ancho il
petrarca assai perho che essendo luy ribello & discacciato” ‘There is no one who
does not understand that love of one’s fatherland is extremely potent; and es-
pecially Petrarch, since he was a rebel and an exile’ (v). Lemaire borrows this
characterization when he shifts his own allegiance from Burgundy to France
and invents for himself a patriotic French connection to the “labeur historien”
‘historical research’ which he conducts in the Crown’s name (Concorde, ).
I used the verb subsumed to describe Marot’s requisition of Latin classics
and of Rhétoriqueur predecessors such as Lemaire, and I would repeat it to de-
scribe his capacious aesthetic. Marot enthusiastically adapted the Rhé-
toriqueurs’ patriotic, epideictic, and occasionally satiric themes and motifs to
the sensibilities of a new classical humanism, molding his materials in the
form of elegies, epigrams, epistles, eclogues, and other ancient classical pat-
terns.34 Clarifying the Rhétoriqueurs’ metrical forms, he also modulated the
often self-promotional visual effects of their poetry.35 Their large folio vol-
umes, with double-columned pages laid out in heavy Gothic type with deco-
rative rubrication often added by hand, accentuated the look and feel of their
oral-aural wordplay and their material indebtedness to patrons who had spon-
sored their work.36 The visual layouts of Marot’s Adolescence Clémentine (Au-
gust ) and La Suite de l’Adolescence Clémentine (January ) announce a
departure. Both were printed at Paris by Pierre Roffet in neat octavos with a
clear Roman typeface (emulating Italian editions of Petrarch and the ancient
Latin classics). Setting the poems into distinct groups of metrically coordi-
nated sequences, they announce the poet’s presentational awareness of his po-
etry as a body of verse unmoored from its compositional situation to be circu-
lated for a broad readership. The site of Petrarchism in France came
subsequently to inhabit the sight of the printed line as it appeared in Marot’s
poetry, and Du Bellay would claim it for his own.37
The Rhétoriqueurs had stimulated Marot, not least through their occa-
sional recall of Petrarch.38 In  Jean Robertet, secretary of three successive
Bourbon dukes and afterwards of Louis XI and Charles VIII, adapted Petrarch
into French in his drastically abridged Les six triumphes de Petrarque, com-


 Du Bellay and Marot

posed around .39 Other Rhétoriqueur poets used Petrarch’s name as a

metonym for amatory verse. In a satiric ballade bidding farewell to love, for
example, Jean Molinet evokes Petrarch as an authority, “Car Amour hait gens
vieulx comme ung aspic, / Ainsi que dit Maistre François Pétrac” ‘For love
hates old folk like a snake, as master Petrarch tells us.’40 Marot himself asks,
“Qu’est ce qu’Amour?” ‘what is love?’ in his “Epistre à son amy, en abhorrant
folle amour” published at Rouen in , and self-effacingly answers: “Voy
qu’en dit Saingelays, / Petrarque aussi” ‘See what Saint-Gelais says about it, and
also Petrarch.’41 In epigram  of the Premier Livre des epigrams published by
Dolet in  the haplessly smitten Marot reassures a certain Ysabeau that
naming her in public will not damage her reputation, for “Petrarcque a bien sa
maitresse nommée / Sans amoindrir sa bonne renommée” ‘Petrarch has indeed
named his mistress without diminishing her good name.’42 In epigram , re-
ferring to Scève’s discovery of Laura’s tomb at Avignon in , he obliquely
affirms Laura’s honor and virtue, “Car Françoys Roy sans cela n’eust prins so-
ing / De t’honnorer de tumbe somptueuse” ‘For without that, the King of
France would not have taken the trouble to honor you with a lavish tomb.’43
And in a series of rondeaux published in Adolescence Clémentine Marot echoes
Petrarch’s contrarieties, setting them in a playful style learned from the Rhé-
toriqueurs and the contemporary Italian Petrarchism of Cariteo, Serafino, and
Tebaldeo, but also returning to specifically French lyric forms developed by
Guillaume de Machaut, Eustache Deschamps, and Alain Chartier.44
In the last decade of his life Marot turned directly to Petrarch’s Rime sparse,
perhaps to ingratiate their admirer, François I. La Suite de l’Adolescence Clé-
mentine includes a translation of canzone , “Le chant des visions,” explicitly
described as “traduit par le commandement du Roy” ‘translated at the King’s
command.’ The poet soon took refuge in Italy when François denounced the
reformist movement after the Affair of the Placards in October .45 Upon
his return to the French court in  and eager to reclaim the king’s attention,
however, Marot translated six sonnets from the Rime sparse (sonnets , ,
, , , and ), published in opuscule by Gilles Corrozet in .46 And
at various times between  and  he tried his hand at four original son-
nets in French, two of which were published in  and .47
Marot’s rendering of Petrarch’s sonnet , a poem that Du Bellay would
adapt in sonnet  of Olive and sonnet  of Les Antiquites de Rome, shows his
approach. Among many other poets throughout Europe, Scève in dizain 
of Délie, Ronsard in sonnet  of Les Amours, Tyard in sonnet  of Erreurs
amoureuses, and Philip Sidney in sonnet  of Astrophil and Stella would echo


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

this poem. In anticipation of my later discussions of these poems, I quote Pe-

trarch’s original in full:

Chi vuol veder quantunque pò Natura

e ’l Ciel tra noi, venga a mirar costei,
ch’ è sola un sol, non pur a li occchi mei,
ma al mondo cieco, che vertù non cura;
et venga tosto, perchè Morte fura
prima i migliori et lascia star i rei:
questa, aspettata al regno delli dèi,
cosa bella mortal passa et non dura.
Vedrà, s’ arriva a tempo, ogni vertute,
ogni bellezza, ogni real costume
giunti in un corpo con mirabil’ tempre;
allor dirà che mie rime son mute,
l’ingegno offeso dal soverchio lume;
ma se più tarda, avrà da pianger sempre.

Whoever wishes to see how much Nature and Heaven can do among us, let
him come marvel at her, for she alone is a sun, not merely for my eyes, but
for the blind world, which does not care for virtue; and let him come soon,
for Death steals first the best and leaves the wicked: awaited in the kingdom
of the blessed, this beautiful mortal thing passes and does not endure.
He will see, if he comes in time, every virtue, every beauty, every regal
habit, joined together in one body with every marvelous tempering; then he
will say that my rhymes are mute, my wit overcome by the excess of light.
But if he delays too long he shall have reason to weep forever.

Marot’s version pointedly reduces Petrarch’s sense of wonder and miracle to

a matter of earthbound beauty. Its opening lines, for example, omit Petrarch’s
reference to ciel (heaven) and represent Laura as a product of what nature
alone can do:

Qui vouldra veoir tout ce que peult Nature,

Contempler vienne une qui en tous lieux
Est ung soleil, ung soleil à mes yeulx,
Voyre aux ruraulx qui de vertu n’ont cure.

Whoever wishes to see all that Nature can do, let him come study one who
in all places is a sun, a sun for my eyes, and indeed for the rustics who do
not care for virtue.


 Du Bellay and Marot

The vague indeterminacy of Petrarch’s quantunque (how much) gives way to

the definite tout (all). In deviating from Petrarch’s Italian text, Marot’s sense of
poetry as a material craft demystifies the imaginative process that the original
evokes. In line , for example, Marot’s contempler (look at attentively, study
carefully), attenuates the emotive wonder of Petrarch’s mirar (marvel at).
Whereas Petrarch affirms an abstract moral judgment in line  that the blind
world, “mondo cieco,” cannot appreciate Laura’s virtue, Marot interjects his
concrete social observation that a particular class of people, the “rureaulx,”
does not appreciate her excellence.
Throughout his translation Marot relates the beloved to worldly matters in
other telling ways. The connecting rhyme in the first tercet, for example, links
her beauté with aristocratic, and indeed royal manners, “moeurs de royaulté”:
S’il vient à temps, verra toute beauté,
Toute vertu & meurs de royauté
Joinctz en ung corps par merveilleux secret:
He will see, if he comes in time, every beauty, every virtue, and manners of
royalty, joined together in one body by a marvelous discretion.

The secular thrust of both rhyme words (beauté and royauté ) manages to dis-
place the spiritualizing moral emphasis of Petrarch’s rhyme words, vertute and
costume. In the final line merveilleux secret, a term for rational discernment, or
“marvelous discretion” (Latin secretum, the past participle of secernere [sift out],
from se [aside] and cernere [separate, distinguish]), takes the place of Petrarch’s
tempre, a term for the artistry or subtle finesse by which a painter tempers light
or shade with color or a musician tempers a note with contrasting sounds. Pe-
trarch had represented Laura as an imaginative participant in the artistic
process and as a pleasing result of what art can achieve. Marot represents her
as part of the social world, a paragon of discriminating manners for both rus-
tics and royalty.
Marot’s earthbound Laura picks up a representation of the courtly beloved
sketched in the commentaries. Both Squarzafico and Vellutello, for instance,
regard Laura as an emblem of Petrarch’s artistic concerns. Squarzafico associ-
ates this sonnet with the one that precedes it, whose speaker complains that
his poetry falls short of Laura’s excellence: “Lingua mortale al suo stato divino /
giunger non pote” ‘Mortal tongue cannot reach her divine state’ (.). The
commentator surmises that the poet composed sonnet  because “uedeua
messer Francesco non hauere ditto ala sufficienza fece questo altro” ‘Petrarch


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

seemed to think that he had not spoken sufficiently well about Laura’ (Kr).
Vellutello likewise foregrounds Petrarch’s confession of his insufficient talent
and his effort to compensate for it. The poet thinks that his readers “giudicher-
anno le rime fatte nelle sue lodi da lui, rispetto alla eccellentia di lei, esser mute
e sorde, Et l’ingegno dal suo troppo lume e splendor offeso” ‘would judge his
rhymes about her to be deaf and dumb with respect to her excellence, and his
imagination to be dazzled by her exceptional light and splendor.’ Measured
against Laura’s perfection, the speaker’s representation of her seems deficient,
“perche a pieno et quanto bisognerebbe non n’ha saputo ne potuto dire” ‘be-
cause he had neither insight nor skill to say fully what he should’ (v). Gesu-
aldo directly paraphrases the sestet: Laura possesses “ogni uirtute, ogni
 e dell’anima, del corpo, & ogni real  gentile, & angelico in
un ” ‘every virtue and every beauty, both of soul and body, and every
royal manner, both gentle and angelic, in her single body’ (CCXCIIIIr).
Marot’s quick and greedy gravitation to a courtly Petrarchism may have
been calculated to repair the king’s poor estimate of his reform-minded inter-
ests. The years between the dedication of Calvin’s Latin Institutes () to
François I and the rededication of his French Institutes () to the king
proved full of reversals and counter-reversals for the Evangelical movement
embraced by the king’s sister and Marot’s early patron, Marguerite de
Navarre.48 Professing his loyalty to the Crown, Calvin nonetheless regarded
the institution of monarchy as being “prone to tyranny” just as he disparaged
“popular ascendancy” for its association with mob rule and sedition.49 The op-
timum polity would be governed by a magistracy of the aristocracy and bour-
geois elite because, “owing to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more
tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct,
and admonish each other” (Institutes .; .‒).50 As the extreme impli-
cations of Calvinist doctrine for antimonarchical sentiment threatened the in-
stitution of the monarchy itself, so courtiers earlier associated with Evangeli-
cal reform (such as Marot) needed to affirm their loyalty to the Crown.
Translations of the Rime sparse afforded Marot an opportunity to sail ahead
with the cut and jib of a devoted suppliant. Petrarch, after all, was a critic of
the Avignon papacy in ways compatible with the Gallican idea of the church
espoused since the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges in  and reasserted by
François I. One need not be a Reformer to share this position. One has only
to be a good Frenchman, as Marot might attest in his versions of Petrarch.
Three years after Marot’s death, Henri’s accession to the throne with his
Italian wife, Catherine de’ Medici, afforded other reasons for poets to display


 Du Bellay and Marot

their regard for the Tuscan Petrarch.51 Amid patriotic displays of regional pride
and national sentiment, two literary efforts at rendering the Rime sparse into
French capitalized upon Petrarch’s totemic status. One was by Peletier du
Mans. Another was by Vasquin Philieul (‒). Both were published to
honor not only Henri II but also his Florentine wife and the cultural heritage
of northern Italy which she brought to France. In the words of Peletier’s deca-
syllabic ode that closes his volume, “Congratulation sur le nouveau regne de
Henri deuziesme de ce nom” ‘Congratulation on the new reign of Henry II,’
the translator foresees that France will experience a rebirth of national prestige:
“Regner Henri, France renaistre a fait” ‘With Henry ruling, France will indeed
be born anew’ (Lvr).52 The challenge of transporting Petrarch into the French
language affirms the strength and vitality of that language and its readiness to
achieve its own distinction.
Peletier’s translation of twelve sonnets from the Rime sparse appears in his
Oeuvres poétiques (privilege  September ), along with his partial renditions
from Homer (bks. ‒ of the Odyssey), Virgil (bk.  of the Georgics) Martial
(one epigram), and Horace (three odes). In an original sonnet that precedes
his translation of Petrarch, Peletier endorses a transparency that will enable the
French language to display its stamina:
QVI d’un Poëte / entend suiure la trace
En traduisant, & proprement rimer,
Ainsi qu’il faut la diction limer,
Et du François garder la bonne grace.
(Lviir)
Whoever undertakes to follow the trail of a poet and to rhyme gracefully
while translating him, must file his diction and preserve the elegant grace of
the French language.
Peletier’s careful choice of twelve sonnets from the Rime sparse concurs. It
presents the voice of a speaker whose affective contrarieties balance one an-
other in a state of moral equilibrium. Avoiding the poems that Marot had
translated, Peletier evinces a penchant for close pairings: sonnets , , , ,
, , , , , , , and , in the order of Bembo’s Aldine edi-
tion. Here, for example, is his version of the first quatrain of sonnet :
Que sens ie / en moy, s’amour ne suis sentant?
Si c’est amour, quel peut il estre/, & quoy?
Si bon, dou vient l’effet mortel de soy?
Si non, dou vient que le mal m’en plaist tant?
(Gviiir)


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

What do I feel within myself if I am not feeling love? If it is love, what can
it be, and why? If it is good, whence comes its deadly effect? If not, whence
does it come that the evil pleases me so much?

Peletier’s ideals of syntactic clarity, structural harmony, and semantic simplic-

ity redeem Petrarchan style from the decadence that earlier Rhétoriqueurs as-
sociated with it, and they afford a vehicle to express noble thought and ele-
vated sentiment. The commendatory huitain closing the volume says as much.
Signed by “I. Dubellay, à la ville du Mans,” it praises Peletier for his dignified
style and his judicious selection of texts, “qui d’inuention / N’a pas acquis
moindre perfection” ‘who in matters of invention has acquired no less perfec-
tion’ (Nviiv). If Du Bellay’s Epitaphe de Clément Marot might represent his ear-
liest French verse, his huitain commending Peletier could mark his first ap-
pearance in print.
Displaying a quite different patriotic fervor, Vasquin Philieul, the canon of
Notre Dame des Dons in Avignon, translator of Girolamo Vida’s mock-epic
Scacchia ludus (Game of chess), and author of a book of devotional exercises,
prepared his translation to honor the city of Avignon, where the poet had
spent most of his early adulthood.53 Calling attention to this regional center,
he links it to the royal family’s role in transmitting Italian culture to France by
entitling his volume Lavre d’Avignon: av nom et aduev de la Royne Catharine de
Medicis Royne de France / Extrait dv poète florentin Françoys Pétrarque. Philieul
uses Vellutello’s edition of Petrarch, with its biography of the poet and its de-
scriptions of Avignon and the topography of Vaucluse. His rendition of 
sonnets and  canzoni follows Vellutello’s reordering, and it paraphrases Vel-
lutello’s commentary with “briefz sommaires ou Argumens requis pour plus
facile intelligence du tout” ‘brief summaries or arguments needed for an easier
comprehension of the whole,’ emphasizing passages that call attention to Avi-
gnon and its environs.54 Published at the press of Iaques Gazeau in Paris that
year, it was augmented in  with a version of the Trionfi and the remaining
poems from part  of Vellutello’s edition.
For sonnets  and  (designated as sonnets  and , according to Vel-
lutello’s order) Philieul experiments with dodecasyllabic lines that celebrate the
expansiveness of Petrarch’s geographic imagination:
Ne Pau, Tesin, ne Tymbre, Arnus, le Nil, Garonne,
Tygris, Sonne, Inde, Hermus, Varus, Ganges, Rin, Seine
Taue, Alphée, Danube, Hibere, Euphrates, Meine,
Albe, Adige, Heber, Loyre, & Durennce, & le Rosne,


 Du Bellay and Marot

Ne celle mer qu’il rompt, n’auroiêt uertu si bonne,

Que hà ce gentil ruysseau contre mon feu & peine.
Neither Po, Ticino, Tiber, Arno, Nile, Garonne, Tygris, Saône, Indus, Her-
mus, Var, Ganges, Rhine, Seine, Don, Alpheus, Danube, Ebro, Euphrates,
Meine, Elbe, Adige, Hebrus, Loire, Durance, and Rhone, nor the sea that
the last breaks against, would have power so effective against my fire and
pain as this gentle stream.

In the headnote to the quoted verse Philieul writes that “il auoit plante vn pe-
tit laurier pres la Sorgue au nom de ma dame Laure” ‘the poet had planted a
small laurel near the Sorgue in the name of Mme Laura” (r), iterating the
preeminence of Avignon and Vaucluse in Petrarch’s literary experience. And,
to seal the Gallic identity of his cross-bred author, Philieul uses Clément
Marot’s sestet rhyme, repeating the latter’s versions of sonnets  and  in
place of new ones.
Philieul’s dedicatory verse to Catherine de’ Medici naturalizes Petrarch in
commemorating “comment la France ha d’une en aultre mer / Toute l’Europe
en brief temps & espace / Mise en sa main (dont sera l’oultrepasse / 
deuxieme) & les dons precieux / Qu’elle ha receus aultre fois des haultz cieulz”
‘how from one sea to the other in a short span of time France put all Europe
into her hands (a feat that Henry II will further exceed), along with precious
gifts that she has earlier received from the heavens on high’ (r–v). In this
translatio imperii the nation proves worthy of its great inheritance: “Ie croy que
n’est nation, qui dire ose, / I’excelle en biens: que France ne l’oppose” ‘I believe
that there is no nation that dares to say, “I excel in excellence,” that France
does not challenge’ (r). And a key component in this excellence is Petrarch’s
poetry, now fully French in Philieul’s punning association of “Francesco” with
François (Francis, French): “aussy Petrarque aura nouueau renom / Quand il
sera François dessoubz ton nom” ‘so Petrarch will acquire a new renown when
he becomes Francis/French under [Catherine de’ Medici’s] name’ (v).
Two years into Henri’s reign, Du Bellay enters upon this site of a natural-
ized Petrarchism. To Marot’s, Peletier’s, and Philieul’s translations of Petrarch
he brings Lemaire’s sense of a connection between the French and Tuscan lan-
guages which reaches back to the origins of French literary greatness in the
Middle Ages. Du Bellay views his cultural role as one of abetting the Franco-
Italian alliance sought by Henri while tempering the dominance of the papacy
over France in this arrangement.55 Secular Petrarchism furnishes a poetic ve-
hicle to express an incorporation of Italian values while managing a distance


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

from them as it recalls Petrarch’s own Avignonese—and hence French—at-

tachments as well as his critical distance from the Avignon papacy. In
Lemaire’s La Concorde des deux langages the austere Temple of Minerva sur-
passes in native worth the Petrarchan Temple of Venus, where “ont mis soubz
banc les gens du roy Clovis, / Leurs viesles, leurs vieulx plectres et cordes” ‘the
descendants of King Clovis have put away their ancient plectrums and strings’
(Temple de Venus ‒). For Du Bellay the totems of French cultural history
deserve equal respect as guarantors of national sentiment among the clan, hav-
ing gradually acquired the reflective varnish of patriotic devotion.


 6 Illustrations of Taboo
Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

Marot’s varied achievements earned Du Bellay’s respect, but so too did those
of Antoine Héroët, Mellin de Saint-Gelais, and Maurice Scève. Deffence .
designates them as models for a new national poetry yet not without
ambivalence. This judgment is repeated in sonnet  of Olive, echoing Pe-
trarch’s sonnet  at the sequence’s numeric midpoint.1 Here is Du Bellay’s
poem:
Qui voudra voir le plus precieux arbre,
Que l’orient ou le midy avoüe,
Vienne, où mon fleuve en ses ondes se joüe:
Il y verra l’or, l’ivoire, et le marbre.

Il y verra les perles, le cinabre

Et le crystal: et dira que je loüe
Un digne object de Florence et Mantoüe,
De Smyrne encor’, de Thebes et Calabre.

Encor’ dira que la Touvre, et la Seine,

Avec’ la Saone arriveroient à peine
A la moitié d’un si divin ouvrage:

Ne cetuy là qui naguere a faict lire

En lettres d’or gravé sur son rivage
Le vieil honneur de l’une at l’autre lire.
Whoever would like to see the most precious tree that the orient or the
south might offer, come to where my river frolics in its waves; there he


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

will see gold, ivory, marble. There he will see pearls, cinnabar, and crystal;
and he will say that I praise an object worthy of Florence and Mantua,
and moreover of Smyrna, Thebes, and Calabria. And he will say that the
Touvre and the Seine together with the Saône would hardly happen upon
half such a divine handiwork. Nor that one who has barely made us read in
golden letters engraved upon its shore the old honor of the one and the
other lyre.

By naming at the end of the octave the sites of Mantua, Smyrna, Thebes, and
Calabria, the alleged birthplaces of Virgil, Homer, Pindar, and Horace as given
in Petrarch’s sonnet , to which is added Petrarch’s Florence, Du Bellay
implies a classical standard for vernacular poetry. By referring in the sestet to
the rivers Seine, Touvre, and Saône, near the birthplaces of Héroët, Saint-
Gelais, and Scève, he implies a canon of modern French authors which he
professes to surpass. By echoing Marot’s translated “Qui vouldra veoir tout ce
que peut Nature,” Du Bellay implies the latter’s role in preparing for this
canon. And by adding in the final lines yet one more unnamed poet—Pierre
de Ronsard, a writer already famous for odes, as Du Bellay implies by alluding
to Petrarch’s sonnet , “l’una et l’altra lira” ‘the one and the other lyre’—Du
Bellay proclaims the emergence of a new professional into the arena. Three
sorts of competition occupy his imagination: that of Petrarch against the clas-
sics; that of Du Bellay’s French predecessors (Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève, and
Marot) against one another; and that of Ronsard against Du Bellay.
Sonnet  is significant because it introduces a suite of clear, unmediated
echoes from Petrarch into the sequence. Olive appeared in two separate edi-
tions, the first in April  in tandem with the Deffence as a collection of fifty
exemplary sonnets appended to the Deffence along with the Anterotique and
fourteen Vers lyriques, the second on  October  as a collection increased
by sixty-five new sonnets and accompanied by the Musagnoemachie along with
the Anterotique and Vers lyriques. Nine of the new sonnets appear interspersed
among the original fifty sonnets. The first edition had displayed a variety of
literary models.2 A few of its poems echo Greek or Latin texts (sonnets , ,
 [],  [],  [], and  [], for example, recall the Anacreontics, Lu-
cretius, Catullus, Virgil, and Horace). Most refer to Italian models other than
Petrarch. They include references to Ariosto’s Orlando furioso (sonnets  [],
 [],  [],  [],  [],  [],  [],  [], and  []), to Ar-
iosto’s lyric poetry (sonnets , , , , , , ,  [], and  []), and to
texts by Sansovino (sonnet ), Castiglione (sonnet ), Veronica Gambara (son-
net ), Molza (sonnets  and  []), Gudiccioni (sonnet ), Martinelli


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

(sonnet ), Mozzarello (sonnet ), Bentivoglio (sonnet ), Navagero (son-
net ), Battista della Torre (sonnet  []), Tomitano (sonnet  []), Coc-
cio (sonnet  []), Camillo (sonnet  []), Castellani (sonnet  []),
Capilupi (sonnet  []), Quirino (sonnet  []), Tansillo (sonnet ),
Della Casa (sonnet ), Bembo (sonnet ), and Daniello (as a creative poet
in sonnet  rather than as a Petrarchan commentator). The texts from Sanso-
vino through Quirino had all appeared in the first two of a series of eight oc-
tavo volumes of Petrarchan sonnets and canzoni published in northern Italy
between  and , the penultimate of which is devoted to poetry by fifty-
one women.3
Of Giolito’s several anthologies, his first Rime diverse () itself appeared
in some measure as a patriotic, largely northern Italian response to the Treaty
of Crépy.4 This compendium of short poems by ninety-two writers from Tus-
cany, Lombardy, the Veneto, the Marche, Umbria, and Naples projects a wide
range of social attitudes, political ideologies, religious convictions, and cultural
assumptions, all registered in a homogeneous Petrarchan style. It accommo-
dates the discordant perspectives of an old republican Florence and of the new
ducal Tuscany, of patrician and republican Venice, of ducal city-states and pa-
pal dominions, and of Spanish-occupied territories. It expresses orthodox reli-
gious beliefs as well as heterodox reformist views that circulated throughout
Italy before the Council of Trent. It includes classicizing motifs nourished by
humanist learning but also popular, patriotic, and occasionally partisan motifs
reflecting topical interests of the day. And it abounds in topographical figura-
tions with praise of rivers and streams, mountains and plains, cities and
palaces that register deep local sentiment.5
Giolito’s anthology links these distinctly different perspectives to a willed
belief in pan-Italian unity that thrives because of its diversity. Italian pride in
the multiformity of Italy, in the cellular particularism of its principalities and
municipalities, has become a principle that unites its varied peoples against
domination by larger powers. The first volume opens with a dedication (writ-
ten by Lodovico Domenichi on  November ) to Don Diego Hurtado di
Mendoza, a commander of the imperial army at Pavia in  and, since ,
Charles V’s ambassador at Venice.6 Although it hails the Treaty of Crépy, con-
cluded nine weeks earlier, as “una catena soauissima, laquale lega ogni arbitrio,
& imprigiona ogni affettione” ‘a most gentle chain that binds the will and
constrains the emotions of each party’ (Aiiiv), it also asserts a subtle noncom-
pliance with Spanish hegemony. Nominally affirming that Hurtado has done
well “ne i maneggi de i negotii importantissimi” ‘in managing these most im-


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

portant negotiations’ (Aiiiir), the dedication and the poems that follow display
counter-evidence of a resistant Italian character and style, a proclamation of
divergent interests and concerns, at the very least a prudent but proprietary
validation of Italian cultural achievements in the face of foreign dominance.
Domenichi enjoins Hurtado to applaud the literary merit “di rime diuerse
composte da i piu rari auttori della lingua nostra” ‘of diverse poems composed
by the most choice authors of our language’ (Aiiiv) and to celebrate these po-
ets “per la diuersita de i concetti, et per la uarieta degli stili” ‘for the diversity
of their ideas and for the variety of their styles’ (Aiiiiv). This injunction might
seem bizarre for an anthology dominated by normative Petrarchan figures,
tropes, and elocutionary devices, but it in fact reveals a mingling of motives that
sustain this poetry as the product of a single idiom, a recognizable Petrarchan
discourse that unites its practitioners in a shared enterprise. The homogeneity
of its style softens the individual, potentially subversive voice of patriotic sen-
timent without suppressing it, merging the idiosyncratic into the provisionally
corporate.7 Dominated by the Petrarchism of Bembo’s Prose della volgar lin-
gua, as the anthology attests with a selection of seventeen poems by Bembo
himself, this poetry offers a paradigm for all future efforts at Italian literary ex-
pression. And so too might it offer a paradigm for analogous efforts in French.
Du Bellay’s appropriation of Giolito’s Petrarchan authority in the first edi-
tion of Olive is therefore patriotic in two senses: it competes with Giolito’s Ital-
ian models for attaining new standards of poetic excellence in France, and it
adapts to a French perspective the patriotic themes and motifs celebrated by
Giolito’s Italian poets, who sing praises of their own local, regional territorial
identities in the face of Spanish domination. Du Bellay’s appropriation of Pe-
trarch in the second edition of Olive adds yet another dimension through its
direct borrowings from Petrarch. In addition to sonnet , sonnets , ‒,
, , , , , , , , , and  all recall exact models from the Rime
sparse. It is as though Du Bellay were dispensing with intermediaries and re-
turning directly to Petrarch, an act enabling him to sublimate his aggression
against French competitors for poetic glory, allowing him to retain a tribal or
familial identity with others of his profession.
In this context Du Bellay’s sonnet  is especially significant because it po-
sitions several ancient and contemporary poets in relation to Petrarch, much
the same as his Deffence . had done. There, without openly naming his
French predecessors, the author reports that some critics have faulted Marot
for being glib, Héroët for being too philosophical, Saint-Gelais for resisting
publication, and Scève for courting obscurity:


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

En l’un default ce qui est le commencement de bien ecrire, c’est le scavoir,

& auroit augmenté sa gloire de la moitié, si de la moitié il eust diminué son
livre. L’autre, outre sa ryme, qui n’est par tout bien riche, est tant denué de
tous ces delices & ornementz poëtiques, qu’il merite plus le nom de phy-
losophe que de poëte. Un autre pour n’auoir encores rien mis en lumiere
soubz son nom, ne merite qu’on luy donne le premier lieu. . . . Quelque autre
voulant trop s’eloingner du vulgaire, est tumbé en obscurité aussi difficile à
eclersir en ses ecriz aux plus scavans comme aux plus ignares. (.; ‒)
The one [Marot] is lacking in the beginning of good writing, which is
knowledge, and would have increased his fame by half if by half he had di-
minished his book. The other [Héroët], besides his rhyme, which is by no
means rich, is so denuded of all these delights and poetic ornaments that he
merits rather the name of philosopher than of poet. Another [Saint-Gelais],
since he has not yet brought to light anything under his own name, does
not deserve to be awarded first place. . . . Such another [Scève], wishing to
separate himself too far from the vulgar tongue, fell into an obscurity in his
writings as difficult to elucidate for the most learned as for the most igno-
rant. (‒)
Du Bellay contests these criticisms with a vague “ou trop iniques ou trop
severes” ‘either too unjust or too severe’ (/), but he mounts no serious ob-
jection to them.8
The Deffence, of course, focuses upon the problem of fixing a French liter-
ary language as well as of formulating a national literary canon. The four po-
ets summoned in this passage all cultivated an elite version of French spoken
at court and prized in the great regional centers of France between the Loire
and the Seine and especially in Paris and at Fontainebleau. Marot and Saint-
Gelais attended directly upon the king. So did Héroët, who also served Mar-
guerite de Navarre and spent long periods at Lyon with Scève and other Ly-
onnais intellectuals. Du Bellay associates their diverse use of “la Langue
Francoyse,” with the name of the king, “le roy Francoys,” whom they served.
Already in . he envisions a future when the linguistic roots sown during
François’s reign will spread throughout the kingdom, where the French lan-
guage “s’elevera en telle hauteur & grosseur, qu’elle se poura egaler aux mesmes
Grecz & Romains” ‘will rise to such height and greatness, that it can equal the
Greeks themselves and the Romans’ (‒/). To effect such a goal, later
poets must do more than passively reproduce the king’s language, as in Bar-
thélemy Aneau’s claim that “bon et pur langage Français” resides solely “ès
grandes cours” of the king, the nobility, and the Parlement (Goyet ed., ‒).
Du Bellay urges the poet


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

de hanter quelquesfois, non seulement les scavans, mais aussi toutes sortes
d’ouvriers & gens mecaniques, comme mariniers, fondeurs, peintres, en-
graveurs & autres, scavoir leurs inventions, les noms des matieres, des out-
ilz, & les termes usitez en leurs ars & mestiers. ()
to haunt at times, not only the learned but also all kinds of workmen and
mechanics, as mariners, founders, painters, engravers, and others, to know
their inventions, the names of their materials, their tools and the terms used
in their arts and crafts. ()
The aim is not just to enrich a poetic style but also to bring it into congruence
with the language spoken outside of court.
This proposal seems so striking because it describes more nearly what
Marot achieved than Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève, or even Du Bellay himself.9
The preface to the second edition of Olive extols the Valois court for nurtur-
ing the national vernacular, “seule escolle où voluntiers on apprent à bien pro-
prement parler” ‘the only school where one learns willingly to speak properly’
(). This is an extreme statement of what had become a commonplace opin-
ion. Robert Estienne, for example, the compiler of a Dictionaire françois-latin
(; successive editions in , , and ), identified the langue d’oeil
in its purest form as the dialect of Paris spoken by the king and the elite at
court, the Chancellery, the Treasury, and the Parisian Parlement.10 Quite apart
from facilitating these institutions of government, however, the Parisian di-
alect was a supraregional one that had assimilated a wide range of accents
brought to the capital from other parts of France over several centuries. For
political reasons the Île-de-France at the confluence of the Seine, Marne, and
Oise Rivers was a natural site for the Capetian kings to concentrate their
power. For economic reasons the fertile Parisian basin proved a prosperous site
for trade and commerce. For strategic reasons Paris became the heart of a vast
network of schools, law courts, and financial institutions that had grown
there, evolving a language and a culture that fed—and fed upon—elite con-
tributions from other regional centers throughout France.11 Insofar as its di-
alect supplied the model for a written national language, it could either bring
different groups of French people together or else remind them how different
they might be from one another.12
My distinction between written and spoken French matters, since even be-
fore Du Bellay’s time the written standard of Paris had come to prevail
throughout the kingdom, while spoken forms everywhere retained local pro-
nunciations attached to regional dialects or provincial patois. The often cited
Ordonnance of Viller-Cotterets () requiring the use of “la langue maternal


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

françois” in all civil and legal proceedings only codified what had been ac-
cepted practice throughout France for more than a century, reflecting the
steady displacement of the written langue d’oc in the south by an administra-
tive form of the langue d’oeil that few actually spoke even in the north.13
Parisian humanists themselves disagreed about a serviceable orthography for
this language as they promoted a series of reforms to bring spoken and written
forms into greater congruence. In Deffence . Du Bellay complains that the
barbarous orthography of the legal establishment, “depravée par les practi-
ciens” ‘depraved by the lawyers,’ had become the accepted norm, even though
it obscured the homophonic identities of many true rhymes “tant en voix qu’en
ecriture” ‘both in speech and writing’ (‒/). For an improved system he
refers to the work of the grammarian Louis Meigret, Traité touchant le commun
usage de l’Escriture Françoise (Paris, ), which designed a phonetic spelling
using diacritic signs and omitting all unpronounced letters.14 Meigret had
crafted it to replace haphazard practices traceable to thirteenth- to fifteenth-
century scribal conventions that added unpronounced consonants based on
Latin etymologies to improve legibility or distinguish among homophones.15
Meigret’s system was doomed to fail for assuming as a standard the least
standard component of language, its phonological element. Fourteenth- and
fifteenth-century chroniclers actually expressed pride in the diversity of spo-
ken French, since it attested to the size and greatness of the nation and to the
capacity of its people to get along with one another.16 They thought of these
forms as sharing common roots in Gaulish, Frankish, and vulgar Latin which
recalled their cultural homogeneity, while by comparison the languages of
England and Germany seemed wretched patchworks of mixed forms that sug-
gested a cultural disintegration.17 Humanists of the sixteenth century added
yet another reason for maintaining pride in the diversity of French: it evokes
the dialects of ancient Greece. In Champfleury () Geoffroy Tory compares
the variety of “la langue de Court & Parrhisienne, de la langue Picarde, de la
Lionnoise, & de la Prouensalle” ‘the language of court and of Paris, of Picardy,
of Lyon, and of Provence’ to that of Greek: “Nostre langue est aussi facile a rei-
gler et mettre en bon ordre, que fut iadis la langue Grecque, en la quelle y a
cinq diuersites de langue, qui sont la langue Attique, la Dorique, la Aeolique,
la Ionique, et la Comune” ‘Our language is easy to regulate and put into or-
der, as was Greek in which there are five dialects, namely Attic, Doric, Aeolic,
Ionic, and the koine.’18 Ronsard expressed a similar pride in his Vendômois
idiom by referring to the ancient Greek poets’ preferences for their own
dialects.19


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

The Deffence’s commendation of Meigret’s orthography suggests an effort

to contain the spread of language by fixing the conventions of writing, but, as
Aneau was quick to point out, the author’s practice in Olive contradicts his
theory. Du Bellay in fact adhered to conventional etymological standards of
writing which were becoming fixed through print transmission. Pronuncia-
tions differed throughout France according to the region, class, and status of
assorted users, but a normalized spelling could make sense to all readers, Latin
educated or not. Thus Robert Estienne, joined by a majority of humanist
printers in Paris, had advocated a standard of spelling according to word ori-
gins that stabilized the word’s semantic nucleus in its graphic form. Peletier
added another justification for etymological spelling: it would enable the
French language and French ideas to be exported to other nations that shared
Latinate learning, “de passer aux nations etranges” ‘to pass to other nations.’20
In consequence Du Bellay could only concur that France’s diversity of lin-
guistic forms would best be served by an etymological rather than phonetic
system of spelling. Such a system based upon an awareness of word origins
would allow writers to experiment with both classical and regional counter-
parts of their language. It would expand the lexical range of a shared language
by putting into active use words and phrases drawn from local occupations
and pursuits, regional activities and professions, and specialized arts and sci-
ences. French would grow from within itself as alternate expressions and forms
might spring from different and distinctive sites of origin. This irenic view of
language, dissolving antagonisms between spoken and written, regional and
standard forms, could transfer to the literary domain as well. For all its advo-
cacy of a French national style, Du Bellay’s program in the Deffence recoils
from grounding poetic practice in any totemic set of rhetorical conventions or
constraints based upon earlier French norms. It instead urges a diversity of
models drawn from classical and Italian literary history, while placing a taboo
upon any endogamic appropriation of French models alone.
In this light Du Bellay’s ambivalent commendation of Marot, Héroët,
Saint-Gelais, and Scève in Deffence ., reaffirmed in sonnet  of Olive, tight-
ens their currency. Each of these writers possessed a refined style; each used his
style to express an elevated set of topics, themes, and motifs; and each en-
riched his expression by reverting to classical and Italianate models. It is as
though each had mapped out a special territory ripe for colonization so as to
obviate direct competition with one another. Exogamic source hunting be-
comes the rule; confrontational rivalry becomes anathema. In the name of fra-
ternal camaraderie Marot appropriates a popular lexicon, Héroët a philosoph-


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

ical one, Saint-Gelais a courtly one, and Scève a scientific one, each drawing
upon classical and Italian models, none impinging upon the others. In their
common purview a shared Petrarchism charts a site of interaction.
The work of Antoine Héroët is a case in point. Born into a distinguished
family at Paris in the late fifteenth century, he benefited from a humanist ed-
ucation in Latin and perhaps Greek which set him apart from those serving
the Crown with pedestrian notarial skills.21 Héroët put this education to pub-
lic and domestic use at the court of Marguerite de Navarre and in his associa-
tions with the bourgeois intellectual elite of Lyon. His most famous poem, La
parfaicte amye de cour (), responds to the satiric L’amye de cour by Marot’s
favored disciple, Bertrand de La Borderie, and to a high-minded attack on it,
Contr’amie de cour, by Charles Fontaine.22 Condemning La Borderie’s facile
wit and Fontaine’s equally facile moralism, Héroët opts for a distant recall of
Petrarch. Appropriately, La parfaicte amye concludes with a bivalent double
negative, “Dames, je vous promete / Qu’il n’adviendra, et il n’advint jamais, /
Que vraye amour n’ayt esté reciprocque” ‘Ladies, I promise you that it will
never happen and has never happened that true love has/has not been recipro-
cated’ (‒), even as it urges, “Faictes à luy de voz coeurs sacrifice” ‘Sacri-
fice your hearts to Love’ (). In his Recueil de poésie (November ;
reprinted in March ) Du Bellay commends Héroët (addressed in a Marotic
pun, “Heroet aux vers heroiques” ‘Héroët in heroic verses’ Ode .]) for
ejecting from his poetry banal figurations of Cupid and replacing them with
elevated discourse: “Tu as rompu l’arc, et la trousse / Du jeune archer mali-
cieux” ‘You have snapped the scampish young archer’s bow and bag of tricks’
(Ode .‒). For this reason, too, “non du victorieux laurier / Mais di paci-
fique olivier” ‘not with the victorious laurel but with the pacific olive branch’
(‒), he merits the crown of wise Athena rather than the laurel of Petrarch.
Héroët’s L’androgyne de Platon () epitomizes a mode that Du Bellay ad-
mired. It constitutes a versified French paraphrase of Aristophanes’ speech on
the Hermaphrodite in Plato’s Symposium, a text whose translation from Fi-
cino’s Latin into French by Loius Le Roy in November  Du Bellay would
embellish with translations from Greek poetry. The technical polish of
Héroët’s decasyllabic couplets, each honed to brilliance and addressed person-
ally to François I, enhances the king’s image of self-generative power:
Syre, il vous fault en memoire reduire,
Ce que scavez myeulx qu’on ne peult dire;
C’est que l’amour est passion gentille,
Nous esclayrant de flamme si subtille


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Que du ciel semble en terre demys,

Pour esveiller les esprits endormys.
(‒)
Sir, you must bear in mind what you know better than anyone could say:
that love is a gentle passion illuminating us with so subtle a flame that it
seems sent from heaven to earth to awaken sleeping spirits.
The poem’s preface argues that every written word submitted to François
should be wrought to perfection: “O Roy, premier des lettres amateur, / Rien
ne lisez qui ne soit elimé” ‘O King, foremost devotee of good writing, do not
waste your time reading anything that is not finely polished’ (‒). It urges
upon the nobility, and especially upon the royal household that serves the
king, a style that would distinguish its users from those “qui de scavoir
faisoyent si peu de compte / Auparavant, qui le tenoient à honte” ‘who for-
merly put so little stock in education, who held it in shame’ (‒). In his pa-
triotic call for a style that befits the king, Héroët merits inclusion in Du Bel-
lay’s canon.
Héroët’s Neoplatonic focus would nonetheless limit his readership at a
court set upon more worldly and seductive entertainments. The glittering am-
bience of Fontainebleau which François I was conjuring under the artistic di-
rection of Giovanni Battista Rosso, Francesco Primaticcio, and Benvenuto
Cellini, brought from Italy in the s and s, had prized virtuoso gesture
and sumptuous self-display over philosophic substance.23 Here pride of place
in poetic composition went to Luigi Alamanni (‒), a Florentine exile
whom François I had supported at Fontainebleau from  to  and whose
two-volume Opere toscane the king paid to have published at Lyon in ‒.
Among his elegies, odes, satires, eclogues, and translations of Psalms—genres
favored by Marot but not by Héroët—Alamanni includes  sonnets that
narrate his exile from Florence, “l’almo terren doue infelice nacqui, / Il mio
fiorito albergo, il mio bel nido” ‘the sustaining land where I was born
wretched, my flower-strewn shelter, my lovely nest’ (sonnet , vol. , p. ),
and his refuge in France.24
Alamanni and other Italian émigrés at Fontainebleau set a standard against
which native French poets might vent their nationalist aggression. The for-
mer’s interests could not have differed more from Héroët’s. Separated from his
wife, who remains in Florence “così lontano / Della mia Flora” ‘so far from my
Flora’ (sonnet , vol. , p. ), Alamanni settles in Provence near “Valle chiusa,
alti colli, & piagge apriche, / Che del Tosco maggior fido ricetto / Fuste alcun
tempo” ‘Vaucluse, high hills and sunny shore that once were the faithful shel-


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

ter of the greater Tuscan’ (sonnet , vol. , p. ). At once the site of Pe-
trarch’s enamorment and the point of Alamanni’s arrival in François’s king-
dom, the location emblematizes the incorporation into French culture of Ital-
ian literary forms, with their accumulated Greco-Roman inheritance and their
modern stylish refinement. Here the poet meets and falls in love with a Gen-
ovese noblewoman who cruelly rebuffs his suit, “Lyguria Pianta in le cui belle
fronde / I miei dolci pensier s’han fatto nido” ‘Ligurian plant in whose beauti-
ful leafy branches my sweet thoughts have been nested’ (sonnet , vol. , p.
). Amid torrents of Petrarchan contrariety Alamanni now encounters “glo-
rioso Francesco,” the “magnanimo Re” who rewards his poetic labors: “O’ gal-
lico terren, largo ricetto / Di noi, che priui siam d’ogni altra bene” ‘O Gallican
land, generous shelter of us who are deprived of every other benefit’ (sonnet
, vol. , p. ). Loose, luxe, and un peu plumatif, Alamanni pursues his
craft without the slightest concern for any moral gravity attributed to Petrarch
by his Italian commentators.25 In this mannerist environment Héroët’s poetry
was bound to run a bit off the rails under the weight of its metaphysical con-
cerns. When Du Bellay in Deffence . faults Héroët’s philosophical style, he is
no doubt referring to its mismatch with the regnant courtly aesthetic.
Fontaineblau found a better match for Alamanni’s verse in the poetry of
Mellin de Saint-Gelais, whom Du Bellay honors in sonnet  of Olive but crit-
icizes in the Deffence . (and again in his Recueil de poésie) for his reluctance
to publish: “Pourquoy donques si longue nuit / Veulx-tu sur tes labeurs esten-
dre?” ‘Why then do you want to stretch such a long night over your labors?’
(Recueil, ode .‒).26 True, Saint-Gelais’s fame grew through the circulation
of his manuscripts at court, but he published a sizable corpus of epigrams,
sonnets, and longer poems well before the Deffence.27 Several of his poems ap-
peared in the popular anthology published by Alain Lotrian in Paris in 
and , La fleur de poesie francoyse; and sixteen of his chansons, including
“Laissez le verde couleur,” a lament of Venus for Adonis which secured Saint-
Gelais’s fame, appeared in a collective volume Deploration de Venus sur la mort
du bel Adonis, assembled by Antoine Du Moulin at the press of Jean de
Tournes in Lyon in . In  Pierre de Tours published at Lyon an unau-
thorized Saingelais. Oeuvres de luy tant en composition que translation ou allu-
sion aux auteurs Grecs et Latins. A complete edition of his work appeared
posthumously in  at Lyon.28
Like Marot, Saint-Gelais had held royal appointments, the latter preemi-
nently at Fontainebleau as royal librarian and at the Louvre as a career diplo-
mat and aumônier of the Dauphin. Both Marot and Saint-Gelais wrote a great


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

deal of occasional verse addressed to prominent members at court, and both

underwent periods of royal reprimand. Both finally imported classical and
Italian forms as no earlier court poets had done, and each could lay some
claim to having introduced the Petrarchan sonnet into France. Marot’s “Son-
net à Madame de Ferrare,” written at Venice in , appeared in Etienne Do-
let’s edition of Marot’s Oeuvres in .29 But a mediocre sonnet printed in the
 Lyon edition of Saint-Gelais’s work, “Voyant ces montz de veue ainsi
lointaine” ‘Seeing these mountains from a view so distant’ (sonnet , Stone
ed.), may lay a yet earlier claim to composition. A note in the manuscript,
“faict passant les mons” ‘written crossing the mountains,’ prompts one mod-
ern editor to speculate that it might date from Saint-Gelais’s journey to Italy
in .30 The poem offers a series of fairly stilted comparisons between the
mountains’ height and the speaker’s love with a thematic contrast that distin-
guishes its sonnet structure from the linear rhetoric of an epigram: “Et d’eulx
à moy n’a qu’une différance: / Qu’en eulx la neige, en moy la flamme dure”
‘And between them and me there is only one difference: in them the snow, in
me the flame persists.’
Under Alamanni’s allure Saint-Gelais offered one of his sonnets when he
presented a volume of Petrarch’s Rime sparse to Charles, duke of Orléans,
“Sonnet mis en le Petrarque de feu Monseigneur le duc d’Orléans” ‘A sonnet
inserted into a volume of Petrarch belonging to the late Duke of Orléans’
(sonnet , Stone ed.). Composed before Charles’s untimely death on  Sep-
tember  but after the Treaty of Crépy exactly a year earlier which had
awarded him the duchy of Milan as a dowry upon his marriage to the daugh-
ter of Spain’s Charles V, it figures Petrarch’s volume as an emblem of Italian
territory annexed to France, “de vous voir couronné / Roy d’Italie” ‘seeing you
crowned king of Italy.’ Just as Du Bellay would urge others to make the French
language illustrious by appropriating Petrarch’s work, so Saint-Gelais credits
the duke of Orléans: “Et s’on vous voit, Monsieur, tant adonné / Au vray
toscan, c’est ouvraige des dieux” ‘And if we see you, Monsieur, so devoted to
this Tuscan author, it is the work of the gods.’ The triomphes that he stages
(“Illustres tant de triomphes nostre age” ‘Make our age illustrious with so
many triumphs’) fulfill the title of Petrarch’s Trionfi inscribed in the presenta-
tion volume, so that even Petrarch now basks in French glory.
Both Saint-Gelais and Du Bellay must have regarded their work in contrast
to that of Maurice Scève, the fourth poet criticized in Deffence . and com-
mended in Olive  and one whose classical training and respect for vernacu-
lar learning and Petrarchan poetry exemplify the ideals set forth in the


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

Deffence.31 A fluent Latinist, adept in composing French epigrams, blasons,

eclogues, and prose romance but decidedly noncourtly and a spokesman for
an elite bourgeois culture in Lyon, Scève exemplified the civic autonomy of his
birthplace. As a royal city on the frontiers of France, Lyon was noted for its
confluence of native artisans, merchants, and professionals with bankers, mer-
chants, and professionals from Italy and with immigrants from Germany and
the Low Countries involved in its printing industry and trade fairs.32 With no
university to impose censorship and no permanent secular or ecclesiastical
courts to enforce restrictions, it conducted its cultural activities with the sup-
port of wealthy burghers, engaged professionals, enterprising publishers, and
various coterie intellectuals.
Scève flourished in this cosmopolitan environment, spared from pressures
that beset Du Bellay’s stratified ranks of titled nobility. Born as the son of an
affluent municipal officer, he had acquired a solid education (at least partly in
Avignon, where he proclaimed his discovery of Laura’s tomb).33 He took mi-
nor orders and received a benefice that enabled him to pursue his intellectual
interests. The result was Scève’s concentration upon figurations and motifs
with an “obscurité aussi difficile” which Du Bellay disparaged in Deffence
..(/). Scève of course honored the French Crown, notably as a principal
contributor to a volume on the death of the dauphin Charles in , pub-
lished by Etienne Dolet as Recueil de vers latins et vulgaires . . . sur le trepas du
feu Monsieur le Dauphin (his contribution included five Latin epigrams, two
French huitains, and the French eclogue Arion), and in a handful of dizains in
Délie which recall recent political events.34 But the focus of his national senti-
ment aims elsewhere.
Scève’s Délie announces the arrival of an ambitious Petrarchism in France,
one that psychologizes Petrarch’s experience and the language that renders it,
unbinding its energies in a prodigious display of verbal inventiveness. Délie
, Scève’s version of Petrarch’s sonnet , “Chi vuol veder,” signals this
effort by substituting for Petrarch’s emphasis on visual experience (veder) a new
emphasis on intellective experience (scauoir) and audial competence (ouyr):
Qui veult scauoir par commune euidence
Comme lon peult soymesmes oblyer, . . .
Vienne ouyr ceste, & ses dictz desplier
Parolle saincte en toute esiouissance.
Whoever wishes to know by evidence obvious to all how one can forget
oneself, . . . come hear her and explain what she says, holy word in every act
of pleasure.


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Significantly, the experience that Délie invites, “comment du corps l’Ame on

peult deslyer” ‘how one can detach soul from body,’ is recorded in the verb
deslyer (detach, unbind), which conjures the beloved’s name. The speaker in-
sists upon a perfect fusion of word and meaning in Délie’s speech, “Parolle
saincte,” but his own displaced speech affirms the opposite for itself. Like its
wholly human speaker, it inheres in a world of plural forms and divisible mat-
ter that resist changeless perfection, implying a ferocious, head-on, finally lib-
erating compromise with the ideal that it aims toward.35
Inevitably, Scève gestures toward the vernacular styles of the Roman de la
rose and the Rhétoriqueurs, and especially toward Clément Marot, who died a
few months after the publication of Délie in the spring of .36 In the over-
whelming majority of his dizains Scève uses Marot’s favorite rhyme scheme
(ababbccdcd).37 And he echoes Marot directly in several key poems—for ex-
ample, his first emblem poem, “Libre viuois en l’Auril de mon aage” ‘I lived
free in the April of my youth’ (Délie ), recalls Marot’s “Tant que vivrai en age
fleurissant / Je servirai Amour le dieu puissant” ‘As long as I shall live in youth
and health, I will serve the powerful god Love’ (from chanson ), as well as
other poets whom Marot had canonized, including Jean Lemaire de Belges,
Octovien de Saint-Gelais, and Jean Marot.38 Scève’s voice blends with Marot’s
and those of his predecessors, all of them readily identified with service to pa-
trons, clients, king, and nation. From this nexus of allegiances radiates a glim-
mer of national sentiment that transcends ritual, pageantry, and abstract no-
tions of patriotism.
Du Bellay evokes Scève at key points in Olive. Just as Scève opens Délie
with “mes jeunes erreurs” ‘my young wandering’ in homage to Petrarch’s
“giovenile errore” (dizain ), so Du Bellay opens his sequence disclaiming his
search for “la fameuse courrone” ‘the famous crown’ in homage to Petrarch’s
laurel (sonnet ).39 From Scève, moreover, Du Bellay learned to confront the
dark obsessional powers of eros and the abyss of memory, recalling not only
these motifs but also such formal effects as ruptured parallelism and antithet-
ical contrast. In sonnet , for example, a suite of correlative verses praising
Olive’s hair and eyes leads up to “l’heur et plaisir que ce m’est de perir” ‘the joy
and pleasure that it is for me to perish.’ Barthélémy Aneau’s complaint that
“tout ce sonnet est de connexion mal jointe” ‘this entire sonnet has a badly
composed structure’ could in fact describe such decentering effects that Scève
regularly deploys, as in dizain , in which his speaker exults in a restraint
“sinistrement esleu à mon malheur” ‘perversely chosen for my own misfor-


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

tune.’ Occasional verbal similarities between Olive and Délie based on shared
Petrarchan conventions seal this relationship.40
My claim that national sentiment begins with loyalties to individual people
and specific classes of people resonates in Du Bellay’s panegyrics to Scève,
Marot, and others. Sonnet  offers an apology for not singing Scève’s praises
more widely: “J’aime, j’admire et adore pourtant / La hault voler de ta plume
dorée” ‘I still love, admire, and worship the high flight of your golden wing.’
In the sestet he compares the Saône River and Délie to the Arno River and
Laura, implicitly contrasting Petrarch’s remote Italian ancestry with Scève’s
French national sentiment:
L’Arne superbe adore sur la rive
Du sainct Laurier la branche toujours vive,
Et ta Delie enfle ta Saone lente.
The proud Arno adores on its shore the ever-living branch of its holy laurel,
and your Délie swells your slow Saône.

Scève then disappears from the text, as Du Bellay concentrates upon his
own effort to measure up to Petrarch:
Mon Loire aussi, demy dieu par mes vers,
Bruslé d’amour etent les braz ouvers
Au tige Laureux, qu’à ses rives je plante.
My Loire, too, exalted as a demigod through my verse, burnt with love,
stretches its open arms to the happy shrub that I plant on its shores.

The lines echo a sonnet by Ercole Bentivoglio in the second volume of Gabriel
Giolito’s Rime diverse () honoring Virgil, “il famoso figliuol del gran Be-
naco” ‘the famous son of the great Benaco.’ Just as Bentivoglio acclaims a clas-
sical precursor in a nonclassical fourteen-line form, so Du Bellay acclaims his
French precursor in a form that the latter did not practice. And, although
Scève had collapsed Petrarch’s sonnet structure into ten-line epigrams using
Marot’s rhyme scheme, Du Bellay now reinstates the sonnet structure’s more
capacious dimensions. Sonnet  promotes Du Bellay’s virtuosity. If one were
to delete its second quatrain in praise of Scève, what remains would ironically
be a ten-line epigram in the manner of Délie but with a focus on Du Bellay’s
relation to Petrarch. The poem dramatizes in miniature the emergence of the
Petrarchan sonnet from the embryonic conjunction of the Marotic and the
Scèvean epigram.


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

In the implied narrative of Olive, Du Bellay’s eloge to Scève follows several

poems that divulge personal rivalries, individual corruption, and human
frailty in a corporeal as well as moral sense.41 Sonnet  recounts the speaker’s
separation from his beloved (“Ne voyant point le Soleil qui m’eclere” ‘Not see-
ing at all the sun that brightens me’), and the following poem marks the entry
of an rival suitor (“Helas! on veult la mienne devorer” ‘Alas! someone wants to
devour mine’). In sonnet  someone slanders Olive’s reputation (“S’il a dict
vray” ‘If he has spoken truly’). In sonnets  and  she appears vulnerable
to a tempter’s gifts: “Les haultz ramparts et les bandes armées / Donnent pas-
sage à l’or audacieux” ‘high ramparts, and armed bands all give way before au-
dacious gold.’ In sonnets  and  she falls prey to a “fievre hardie, / Qui fais
languir” ‘strong fever that makes me languish.’ In need of consolation the
speaker expresses admiration for the “hault voler” ‘high flight’ of virtue pro-
moted by Scève (sonnet ) and the “doulces fureurs” ‘sweet furors’ of poetry
extolled by Ronsard (sonnet ).
The amity that Du Bellay professes for Scève repairs the fraternal wrangling
projected around it. The remedy is an elevation of mind and spirit, a cultiva-
tion of personal loyalties, and a purging of the libidinal drives defined in Pe-
trarch’s sonnets.42 The poet-lover of the Rime sparse finds release from his
erotic obsessions in a turn to religious devotion. Du Bellay’s poet-lover might
hope for such release, but, in the climate of mid-sixteenth-century Reformist
controversy and doctrinal dissent, the terms of religious consolation have
changed. Sonnets  through  of Olive project a calendrical structure
reminiscent of the Rime sparse, but they submit it to a new turn as they pre-
sent the speaker’s meditation on sacred themes during the chronology of holy
week.43 Against the bleak world of frailty and oppositional strife portrayed in
sonnets  to , religion offers potential solace only if it ignores sectarian
divisions threatening the French nation. At the beginning of Olive sonnet 
reports that Love seized the speaker on Christmas night: “C’estoit la nuyt que
la Divinité / Du plus hault ciel en terre se rendit” ‘It was the night that Divin-
ity brought Himself from highest heaven to earth.’ Now, five poems from the
end of Olive, sonnet  affirms that this love has grown from winter to spring
as the poem marks Good Friday: “Voicy le jour que l’eternel amant / Fist par
sa mort vivre sa bien aimée” ‘Here is the day that the Eternal Lover through
His death made his well-beloved live.’ Sonnets  and  then broach the
topic of predestination and salvation through divine grace. By working
through its theological issues to accommodate sectarian differences, chiefly by
displaying an Evangelical perspective conformable with Gallican and Roman


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

orthodoxy, the conclusion of Olive rises above the aggressive impulses of

Calvinist conviction.
Sonnet  is modeled on Veronica Gambara’s poetic paraphrase of St.
Paul’s discourse about divine will in his Epistle to the Romans :‒, ,
“Scelse da tutta la futura gente / Gli eletti suoi l’alta bontà infinita” ‘From the
entire future race the Supreme Infinite Goodness chose his elect,’ originally
printed in Giolito’s anthology.44 Du Bellay’s poem assesses the workings of free
will and individual merit in a self-defined community:
Dedans le clos des occultes Idées,
Au grand troupeau des ames immortelles
Le Prevoyant a choisi les plus belles,
Pour estre à luy par luymesme guidées.
Within the precinct of hidden ideas, in the great throng of immortal souls,
the Foreseer has chosen the most beautiful to be guided to him by himself.

Du Bellay identifies Gambara’s foreordained eletti as “les plus belles” without

precisely specifying either their election or the reason why they are belles,
whether through God’s will or their own merit. This refinement of the model
dramatizes a reasoned difference between two sorts of divine will. The
Almighty’s antecedent will brings human beings to happiness through the
consequent agency, l’engin, of their own effort, and so the latter become re-
sponsible for their own salvation:
Lors peu à peu devers le ciel guindées
Dessus l’engin de leurs divines aeles
Vollent au seing des beautez eternelles,
Où elle’ sont de tout vice emondées.
Then little by little hoisted toward heaven upon the engine of their divine
wings, they fly to the bosom of eternal beauties, where they are pruned of
all vice.

As it reaches toward the realm of pure ideas, Du Bellay’s poem evokes Pe-
trarch’s sonnet , “Volo con l’ali de’ pensieri al Cielo” ‘I fly with the wings of
thought to Heaven.’ The latter concludes with the words either of God or of
Laura—exactly who is unclear—advising Petrarch that his long wait will seem
short in the aspect of eternity:
Responde:—Egli è ben fermo il tuo destino;
et per tardar ancor vent’anni o trenta,
parrà a te troppo, et non fia però molto.—


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

He or she replies: “Your destiny is certain, and a delay of twenty or thirty

years will seem much to you, but it will be little.”

To Fausto da Longiano, Petrarch offers a mystical vision of eternity compre-

hended “in vn medesimo momento” ‘in a single instant’ (r). For Gesualdo
the idea of predestination seems only an illusion sub specie aeternitatis. Outside
of time the very notion of foreordination loses meaning: “E non pero sara
 di spatio all’eternita del tempo” ‘However, it will not seem much of an
interval in the eternity of time’ (v). In the mind of God all that is already
has been and ever will be, honoring the scriptural ideal that we are all one in
God’s eyes, nobleman as well as commoner, king as well as courtier. From this
perspective God seems less an interventionist in day-to-day life and more a
distant, even inscrutable figure, opening space for an autonomous realm of
human action that shapes society, culture, politics, patria, economics, and ul-
timately the nation’s destiny.
Sonnet , calendrically linked with Easter Sunday in the structure of
Olive, works toward a solution that promotes art on behalf of virtue.
Daniello’s model in Giolito’s anthology, “Se ’l viver nostro è breve oscuro
giorno” ‘If our life is a short dark day,’ in turn evokes Petrarch’s sonnet , “O
tempo, O ciel volubil” ‘O time, O revolving heavens,’ proposing the same mo-
tif with the same rhyme words: mortali/strali and ali/mali. Daniello’s com-
mentary describes the poem’s situation as a reasoned debate: “Risponde hora
il Poe. dicendo, Che non se ne parte, ma ben dal , di lui medesimo, del
corpo per cagione delquale l’anima sua fiero, e crudo martire sosteneua” ‘Why
do you wish to desert my troop? Petrarch responds that he flees not from Love
but from the harm visited upon his body for which his soul sustains a fierce
and cruel martyrdom’ (v). In Daniello’s sonnet the interrogatives, “Che
fai?” “Che non ti miri?” and imperatives, “scuotile,” “le dispieghi,” convert the
speaker’s initial hypothesis, “se ’l viver nostro è breve oscuro giorno,” into an
expression of fact. To this analytical argument Gesualdo’s commentary on Pe-
trarch’s concluding verse in sonnet  adds rhetorical authority. When Pe-
trarch writes, “Non a caso è vertue, anzi è bell’arte” ‘Virtue is not by chance;
rather it is a subtle art,’ Gesualdo observes, “E quel, che no dichiamo Arte, apo
i Greci significa uirtute, che si dice da lor arete” ‘What we call “art” signifies
for the Greeks “virtue,” which they call “arete,” from which our word “art” de-
rives’ (xxxlixv). Arte reflects arete.
Du Bellay’s version offers its own self-conscious artistry as a remedy for so-
cial, professional, and religious strife:


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

Que songes-tu, mon ame emprisonnée?

Pourquoy te plaist l’obscur de nostre jour,
Si pour voler en un plus cler sejour,
Tu as au dos l’aele bien empanée?
Là, est le bien que tout esprit desire,
Là, le repos où tout le monde aspire,
Là, est l’amour, là, le plaisir encore.
What are you imagining, o my imprisoned soul? Why does the darkness of
our day please you if you have on your back a well-feathered wing to fly to
a brighter abode? There is the good that every spirit desires, there the repose
to which everyone aspires, there is love and pleasure still.
The fivefold repetition of là imposes a sense of order upon the distant world
which its speaker seeks to conquer—a world that contrasts with life here and
now while echoing the anagrammatic significance of Scève’s Délie as l’idée and
the subtitle of his Petrarchan sequence, Object de plus haulte vertu: “Là, ô mon
ame au plus hault ciel guidée! / Tu y pouras recongnoistre l’Idée / De la beauté,
qu’en ce monde j’adore” ‘There, o my soul, guided to the highest heaven you
can recognize the Idea of beauty that I adore in this world below.’45 Dark
disorder yields to the vision of a new world, but only after it evokes the
principle of vital energy instantiated in the philosophical poetry of Héroët and
the courtly poetry of Saint-Gelais: “Là, est l’amour, là, le plaisir encore.” Its
rhythm subsumes the former’s “passion gentille” and the latter’s “la flamme
dure” along with Scève’s graphemic Idée and his play on Délie as délit
(delight).46
One more contemporary belonging to this group is the Lyonnais poet Pon-
tus de Tyard (‒), a friend of Héroët and Scève who, like them, had ab-
sorbed the lessons of Saint-Gelais, Marot, and the Rhétoriqueurs.47 By the
time Du Bellay published the second edition of Olive, Tyard had published
the first of his three collections of Petrarchan sonnets, Les Erreurs amoureuses I
(in Lyon at the press of Jean de Tournes in November , seven months af-
ter the Deffence and eleven months before the second Olive).48 Tyard claims to
have begun his Erreurs before the publication of Scève’s Délie in .49 Its ap-
pearance surely certified him as an independent embodiment of the social and
cultural program set forth in the Deffence and hence as a rivalrous match for
Du Bellay on the site of his own theory and practice. Tyard’s sonnet  in Er-
reurs I, for example, appears to rework Petrarch’s sonnet , a poem about the
effect of Laura’s singing on the speaker. Tyard’s version begins with a descrip-
tion of the beloved’s performance—“Au maniment de ses deux mains mar-


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

brines / Dessus le lut ou dessous l’espinete” ‘In the fingering of her two mar-
moreal hands upon the lute or spinnet’—but it ends with a statement of the
speaker’s helplessness: “Car il n’y ha creature en ce monde / En qui rigueur ou
fierté tant abonde” ‘For there is no creature in this world in whom so much
severity or pride abounds.’50 In the next chapter I will suggest that Du Bellay
reworks Petrarch’s same sonnet to trump Ronsard in poetic competition. For
Tyard, however, it is as though the poet has embarked upon a literary divaga-
tion whose end he cannot foresee.51 Sonnet  of Erreurs I, his version of Pe-
trarch’s “Chi vuol veder,” announces his diffidence: “Qui veult savoir en
quante et quelle sorte / Amour cruel travaille les esprits . . . / Qu’il vienne voire
ma peine ardente et forte / En discourant ces miens piteux escris” ‘Whoever
wishes to know how much and what kind of cruel Love agitates my feelings . . .
should come see my sharp burning pain as I expatiate in these sad writings.’
Here the current of Petrarch’s brooding upon his insufficient art meets the rip-
tide of Tyard’s venereal obsession, and the result is an anguished Neoplatonic
reverie.
The impact of Tyard upon Du Bellay was reciprocal.52 Erreurs amoureuses I
influenced the Neoplatonism of some poems in the expanded Olive a year
later. Olive in turn influenced Tyard’s Continuation des erreurs amoureuses in
 and the Erruers amoureuses III in . Modern criticism has made too
much, however, of Du Bellay’s Neoplatonism. Certainly his version wears a
different texture from that of Tyard’s. In sonnet  of Les Regrets Du Bellay
would jocularly portray Tyard as the victim of his own rarefied impulses:
“Thiard, qui as changé en plus grave escritture / Ton doulx stile amoureux,
Thiard, qui nous as fait / D’un Petrarque un Platon” ‘Tyard, who have shifted
your sweet amatory style to a more serious form of writing, Tyard who have
made for us a Plato out of a Petrarch,’ urging at the end “Mais ne tenons les
yeux si attachez en hault” ‘But let us not hold our eyes so fixed on high.’
Du Bellay’s imagination finds the concrete material deeds of history a more
frequent and congenial topic than moral or metaphysical abstractions. His
imagination achieves its limit in the densely concrete and historically thema-
tized bipartite sonnet sequence of the poet’s later years, Les Antiquitez de Rome
and Songe (published on  March ). Here Du Bellay approaches something
of the epic grandeur and vatic intensity that Peletier urged upon French liter-
ature.53 Les Antiquitez and Songe contribute profoundly to his expression of
French national sentiment by representing the Rome of Giolito’s poets as a fig-
ure of waste, the ruins of an ancient empire which could only furnish a cau-
tionary example for Charles V’s modern empire. In both of Du Bellay’s se-


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

quences the alternation of decasyllablic sonnets (the odd-numbered poems of

Les Antiquitez and Songe, except for sonnet  of Les Antiquitez) with those
composed in alexandrines (the even-numbered poems of both and sonnet 
of Les Antiquitez) broadly recalls the alternation of hexameter and pentameter
(or incomplete hexameter) lines in classical elegy, itself construed as a form of
ruined or diminished epic.54 In Les Antiquitez this alternation depicts the fall
of ancient Rome. In Songe unmistakable references to Petrarch’s canzone 
evoke the history of Du Bellay’s own century with the impending doom of the
Roman papacy and the Hapsburg Empire. As a fused sequence, Les Antiqui-
tez and Songe provide a historical meditation on the fall of Rome and, by im-
plication, of its avatar, the Holy Roman Empire of Charles V, they justify a pa-
triotic celebration of the translationes studii et imperii thence to France.
Sonnet  of Les Antiquitez, “Qui voudra voir tout ce qu’ont peu nature”, for
example, clearly echoes Petrarch’s sonnet , its translation by Marot, and its
transposition in sonnet  of Olive.55 Although Petrarch’s beloved is still alive
and accessible to others, the speaker knows that death and time will steal her
away: “Et venga tosto, perché Morte fura / prima i migliori” ‘And let him come
soon, for Death steals first the best.’ The object of Du Bellay’s poem no longer
exists. Rome has already fallen victim to time and decay, and the speaker won-
ders whether any observer might sense its former glory:
Qui voudra voir tout ce qu’ont peu nature,
L’art, et le ciel (Rome) te vienne voir:
J’entens s’il peult ta grandeur concevoir
Par ce qui n’est que ta morte peinture.
Whoever would like to see all that nature, art, and heaven have but little of,
should come see you, Rome; I wonder whether he can conceive your
grandeur by what is only your dead image.

To Petrarch’s compound subject “Natura / e’l Ciel” Du Bellay has added a third
term, “l’art,” emphasized as the first word in the poem’s second line. A further
modification secures the emphasis on artistry by transforming the Italian verb
pò (can) into the French substantive peu (little), evidently confusing pò with
poco. The new construction forces an oxymoronic juxtaposition of peu with
tout: nature, art, and heaven have but few (peu) of all (tout) the qualities that
once abounded in Rome.
Les Antiquitez unfolds as a figural drama about the baneful effects of
Rome’s influence on the rise of modern nations. Charles had coveted Italy’s in-
corporation into his domain as the conclusive symbol of continuity between


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

the ancient Roman Empire and his own Hapsburg version of it.56 Augustus
had claimed imperial sovereignty on behalf of an order and stability needed in
a world devastated by civil war and the threat of barbarian invasions. So, with
the jutting jaw of a would-be Caesar, Charles defended his claims to Naples,
Milan, and the rest of Italy as a preemptive measure against Ottoman inva-
sions from the south and Lutheran and Calvinist rebellions in the north. The
sheer size of his empire nonetheless suggested to his enemies in France and
northern Europe that it might be only a matter of time before his rule would
collapse. As the lesson of ancient Rome had shown, imperial overreach gives
way to a contamination of moral values, the dissolution of a political culture,
and the administration’s eventual absorption into the very set of bureaucratic
institutions that it had created. The result would be a loss of identity insis-
tently figured in Les Antiquitez.
Songe engages these ideas about chaos more enigmatically, reinscribing into
startling new contexts the haunting details that Petrarch had woven into can-
zone .57 Du Bellay’s treatment suspends the apocalyptic energies of Pe-
trarch’s figurations of death in a dark allegory that traces the history of Charles
V’s phantom empire and the recent papacy. The principal targets within the
latter appear to be the laxity of Clement VII (sonnet ), the personal ambi-
tions of Paul III (sonnet ), the unscrupulous craving of Julius III which
drove this pope to ally with Charles V (sonnet ), the fragility of Marcellus II
(sonnet ), and the invidious designs of Paul IV, who detested Spain’s pres-
ence in his native Naples and sought to eliminate it at any cost, leading to the
ruin of both papacy and empire (sonnet ).58
Echoes from Petrarch’s canzone  reinforce this allegory in Songe.59 In the
alexandrine sonnet  of Songe a pack of savage fauns despoils a beautiful foun-
tain that had risen in the center of a delightful garden, where “là sembloit que
nature et l’art eussent pris peine / D’assembler en un lieu tous les plaisirs de
l’oeil” ‘it seemed that nature and art had taken pains to assemble in one place
all the delights of the eye.’ Fausto had allegorized the garden as a circle of
learned humanists whom Cardinal Giovanni Colonna had assembled at his
court: “ Cardinale non haueuan luoco gl’indotti ne vbriachi, ne buffoni,
ne giocolatori. MA nimphe e muse. Cioe dotti & I scientati” ‘the ignorant and
drunkards and fools and playboys had no contact with the cardinal, but rather
the nymphs and muses, i.e., erudite and learned people’ (v). Du Bellay
could interpret the figure in a similar vein as evoking a brigade of poets and
humanists. But he would also fold into it a general sense of political devasta-
tion as Daniello had suggested when he interpreted Petrarch’s canzone as an al-


 Du Bellay, Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève

legory of human history: “In genere l’humana vita, breue, frale, e caduca” ‘in
general, human history: short, weak, transient’ (v). Such devastation dom-
inates sonnet  of Songe in the figure of the shipwreck openly attributed to Pe-
trarch: “Plus riche assez que ne se monstroit celle / Qui apparut au triste Flo-
rentin” ‘Richer still than ever seemed the ship that appeared to the sad
Florentine.’ The fall of Western culture envisioned here—“Je vy sous l’eau per-
dre le beau thresor” ‘I saw the beautiful treasure lost underwater’—occurs as
the concomitant of misguided nationalistic policies.
Although Du Bellay did not know it, the unholy alliance of Rome with
Spain figured in Songe was at an end. In October  a tired Charles V en-
trusted the rule of the Low Countries to his son Philip II, and the following
January he entrusted to him the kingdoms of Spain and Naples and the
colonies of New Spain. Pope Paul IV, eager to expel the Spanish from south-
ern Italy, brought France back into the war. Songe hints darkly at the pope’s ag-
gressive action and links it not only to the downfall of Rome but also to the
diminution of France. By the summer of  Philip II had triumphed over
French forces and confirmed his hold on Italy. At this point Songe, published
the following spring, ends with dark portents. Bankrupt, the Valois monarchy
concluded the peace at Cateau-Cambrésis in February , abandoning two
generations of ambitions in Italy and losing Corsica, Savoy, Navarre, and other
territories in the bargain. Amid the celebrations that marked the marriage of
Du Bellay’s patroness, Marguerite de France, to Emanuel Philibert, duke of
Savoy, Henri II died from an accident in a ritual tournament, precipitating
thirty-five years of political chaos and brutal civil war in France. The Gallican
movement now met a fierce Catholic resistance from a powerful nobility with
an ultramontane allegiance to the papacy. Others yielded to Calvin’s dream of
a holy commonwealth, which in turn met bloody opposition in the Wars of
Religion. If Songe needed a mimetic alibi to warrant its dark figurae, history
would provide it. Across France itself narcissisms of minor difference fueled by
religious dispute were propelling contrary factions into civil strife.


 7 Mon semblable, mon frère
Du Bellay and Ronsard

Sonnet  of Olive, the first in a suite of fifty-six new poems added in , ad-
dresses Ronsard directly: “Divin Ronsard, qui de l’arc à sept cordes, / Tiras pre-
mier au but de la memoire” ‘Divine Ronsard, who on your bow with seven
strings aim as the first one at the target of memory.’ At that time Ronsard had
just made his debut with a Hymne de France (privilege November ; writ-
ten for the newly crowned Henri II in praise of France, “aux belles villes, / Et
son renom” ‘with its splendid cities and its renown,’ ll. ‒) and Les quatre
premiers livres des Odes (privilege  January ). Urging him to leave his
placid birthplace near Vendôme beside the lesser Loir River, the sonnet sum-
mons Ronsard southward to the site of royal chateaux such as Amboise and
Blois and, further downstream, to the site of Du Bellay’s birthplace at Liré
near Angers: “Laisse ton Loir haultain de ta victoire, / Et vien sonner au rivage
de Loire” ‘Leave your Loir, proud in your victory, and come sound your mu-
sic on the shore of the Loire.’ Sonnet  with the speaker’s address to his own
poetry (“Allez mes vers” ‘Go my verse’) and sonnet  with its national pan-
theon of French poets follow. The latter ends with an oblique commendation
of Ronsard “qui a faict lire . . . / Le vieil honneur de l’une at l’autre lire” ‘who
has barely made us read the old honor and the one and the other lyre.’ The
collective involvement of these poems with Du Bellay’s relationship to Ron-
sard and their respective Petrarchan origins raises questions of poetic identity
(just what do both poets owe to their Italian predecessor?) and of larger patri-
otic purpose (what goals does each strive for as a French poet, and how do
they differ?)1


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

Already the report that Du Bellay, echoing the formula of a pastoral invita-
tion to poetic competition, is coaxing Ronsard to leave the Loir for the Loire
and make legible a “vieil honneur” implies some difference between them.
Their likeness diverges in their public and private personae. Du Bellay fanta-
sizes for himself a social responsibility to speak on behalf of a greater corporate
entity, the emergent French nation. Ronsard fantasizes only a personal ambi-
tion to triumph as premier court poet. Du Bellay highlights these differences
most dramatically in the poems of Les Regrets which contrast his hardships
abroad with Ronsard’s ease at Henri II’s court, but he also implies them in the
new Olive, published at a stressful time in his life marked by the onset of tu-
bercular illness, his failure to secure patronage from the king’s sister Mar-
guerite de France, and adverse criticism of his Deffence by Barthélemy Aneau.2
Acknowledging Ronsard as a stupendously resourceful poet, Du Bellay finds
himself acting out conflicts where previously there seemed to be none. Sonnet
 frames this relationship with Ronsard in a Petrarchan context.
Here it would appear that personal loyalties and allegiances come undone
as a progressively corporate national sentiment overtakes Du Bellay but not
Ronsard, so that the poet of Olive begins to question his friend’s dedication to
patriotic ideals. Ronsard would encourage his own renown as a poet apart
from the fray, resistant to the fissiparous tensions of public life. Two years af-
ter the expanded Olive, Ronsard published his first collection of sonnets, Les
Amours (privilege September ), champing to respect the success of Du Bel-
lay’s Petrarchan debut. Significantly, the first poem in Ronsard’s collection
echoes Petrarch’s sonnet , “Chi Vuol veder,” and, equally significantly, it dis-
places the beloved as its object of attention, replacing her with the poet himself:

Qui voudra voyr comme un Dieu me surmonte

Comme il m’assault, . . .
Me vienne voir: il voirra ma douleur,
Et la rigeur de l’Archer qui me donte.
Whoever would see how a god overwhelms me as he attacks me, . . . should
come to see me: he will see my suffering and the rigor of the archer who
tames me.

Ronsard’s self-display emerges as exceptional when compared with Scève’s

intellectual probing (“Qui veult scauoir par commune euidence” [Délie ]),
Tyard’s quiet diffidence (“Qui veult savoir en quante et quelle sorte” [Erreurs
amoureuses ]), and Du Bellay’s full-spirited rally in Olive (). Du Bellay en-
compasses an entire poetic discourse that evokes Marot, Héroët, Saint-Gelais,


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

and Scève as well as Ronsard. But Ronsard encompasses a discourse that

evokes the merit of his own poetic achievement, an extravagant achievement
that surpasses theirs.3
Forecasting their divergent careers, the “Divin Ronsard” of Du Bellay’s son-
net  is a “fameux harpeur et prince de noz odes” ‘famous harpist and prince
of our odes,’ rival of Pindar and Horace and initiator of “les plus nouvelles
modes” in French poetry. He is also, of course, the friend who encouraged Du
Bellay to join him in an elite classical education with Dorat at the Collège de
Coquerert, the friend who sprang from the ranks of the lesser nobility eager to
improve his station in courtly service, the friend who exemplified what the
cultural program of the Deffence could best accomplish.4 When Du Bellay
compares his own poetry with Ronsard’s, he conveys a twinge of inadequacy
by echoing Petrarch’s sonnet , “ma trovo peso non da le mie braccia” ‘but I
find a weight that is not for my arms,’ and he asks Ronsard to help him:
Porte pour moy parmy le ciel des Gaulles
Le sainct honneur des nymphes Angevines,
Trop pesant pour mes foibles epaules.
Bear for me within the heaven of the Gauls the holy honor of the Angevin
nymphs, too weighty for my weak shoulders.
Du Bellay’s echo is apt. Early modern commentators on the Rime sparse sit-
uate Petrarch’s complaint in a literary crisis. Filelfo, for example, surmises that
the poet is agonizing about writing “qualche singular opra o in rima uulgare o
in uersi litterali” ‘some exceptional work either in vernacular rhyme or in
learned [i.e., Latin] verse’ (v). As the commentator explains, Laura deserves
Latin elegiacs, but Petrarch has barely the skill to celebrate her in Italian
rhymes: “Se lei fusse da quello poeta tanto amata quanto si dicea ella se ne
sarebbe aveduta per qualche bella opra scripta in sua commendatione. Il che
ne per uersi litterali: ne per rime uolgare si uedeua esser facto” ‘If she had been
loved by this poet as much as he says, this love would have been made public
in some beautiful work of poetry written to commend her; which seemed to
have been done neither in Latin verse nor in vernacular rhyme’ (r).
Just as Petrarch’s accomplishments in the vernacular jostle with his prefer-
ment of Latin, so do Du Bellay’s. In the “Ad lectorem” concluding his Neo-
Latin elegies in the Poemata (March ), the French poet compares his ver-
nacular poetry to a wife, “Gallica Musa mihi est, fateor, quod nupta marito”
‘The French muse is to me, I confess, what a wife is to a husband,’ but he as-
sociates his Latin poetry with an alluring mistress, “Pro Domina colitur Musa


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

Latina mihi” ‘As my mistress I cherish the Latin muse,’ and he declares face-
tiously that “illa quidem bella est, sed magis ista placet” ‘The former is indeed
pretty, but the latter pleases me more.’5 In Olive he confronts a more compli-
cated choice. It is not between Latin or the vernacular but between styles of
the vernacular clamoring for admission to the national canon—a high style
displayed in Ronsard’s odes and a less exalted middle style represented by Du
Bellay’s Petrarchan sonnets.
The next two poems, sonnets , “Allez, mes vers, portez dessus voz aeles,”
and sonnet , “Qui voudra voir le plus precieux arbre,” refer to Petrarch’s son-
nets  and . Gesualdo notes that the latter (“Chi vuol veder quantunque
pò natura”) logically completes the former, since there the poet summons a
broad readership to acknowledge Laura’s excellence: “Assai diceuolmente
risponde questo al Son. di sopra: pero che hauendo inuitato coloro à cui per-
auentura parea errante forse il suo stile in loder M.L. che à ueder l’andassero”
‘This sonnet responds fittingly enough to the preceding one [in which he] in-
vited those to whom his style in praise of Laura might have seemed in error,
that they should come to see her’ (v). Likewise, Du Bellay links sonnets 
and  by addressing a compliant French readership:
Mais s’il ne veult ou ne peult concevoir
Ce que je sen’, souhaitez luy de voir
L’heureux object, qui m’a faict malheureux.
But if he will not or cannot imagine what I feel, bid him look at the happy
object who has made me unhappy.
Commentators read the Petrarchan model from a similar perspective.
Squarzafico speculates that Petrarch is recounting Laura’s charms to Bernardo
Visconti, ruler of Milan. When Bernardo denies that Laura can be so beauti-
ful or virtuous, the poet assumes the burden of rhetorical proof: “Et stando il
petrarcha a milano ogni fiada diceua di questa sua madonna laura et di le sue
grande bellezze e virtude: doue il predicto signore messer Bernabo gli diceua
non poter esser cosi bella ne di tanta virtude come esso per suoi versi la faceua”
‘When he was in Milan, Petrarch spoke all the time about Laura and her great
beauty and virtue; whence Signor Bernardo said that she could not be so beau-
tiful nor of such virtue as he made her seem in his poetry’ (K5). Antonio da
Tempo also questions the efficacy of Petrarch’s rhetoric. In order to persuade
readers of Laura’s excellence, the poet heightens his Italian style: “Quello ove
questi aspira / è cosa da stancare Atene, Arpino, / Mantova et Smirna, et l’una
et l’altra lira” ‘What this man aspires to would exhaust Athens, Arpinum,


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Mantua, and Smyrna, and the one and the other lyre.’ Here the place names
metonymically evoke ancient masters of oratory, Demosthenes and Cicero,
and of epic, Virgil and Homer, assumed to have been born there, while “l’un
et l’altra lira,” the phrase that Du Bellay would apply to Ronsard, summons
ancient masters of lyric, Pindar and Horace.
Petrarch’s commentators applaud the poet’s annexation of these ancient
masters. According to Fausto, “per li poeti lirici, greci, e latini in questo stile si
dipingeno le bellezze del corpo” ‘through the Greek and Latin lyric poets her
corporeal beauties are depicted in this style’ (v). Pindar and Horace offer par-
ticularly rich resources, but as supreme archetypes they summon competitive
national sentiments: Pindar contended with Stesichorus and Simonides, while
Horace tried to surpass Pindar in his patriotic odes. Creative and professional
rivalry ought to spur literary talent, but Du Bellay’s encounter with Ronsard
threatens to derail his talent. Ronsard has achieved an excellence able to sur-
pass that of Pindar and Horace, but Du Bellay is still laboring to equal Pe-
trarch. Daniello offers some useful advice. Petrarch knew that his style could
not represent Laura in her fullness, but he also knew that every other style falls
short, too: “Non pure il suo stile non è bastante, à tanto lodarla, quanto si
conuerrebbe; ma che ne quello di tutti i piu eccellenti scrittori, che fossero gi-
amai” ‘Not only is his own style insufficient to praise her, but also that of all
the best writers who ever lived’ (r–v). As Daniello sees it, Petrarch strength-
ened his style by drawing as much as he could from powerful earlier examples,
not only from the Latin poets but from his Stilnovisti precursors as well.
The second tercet of sonnet  evokes Ronsard as “cetuy là qui naguere a
faict lire / En lettres d’or gravé sur son rivage / Le vieil honneur de l’une et
l’autre lire” ‘that one who has barely made us read in golden letters engraved
upon its shore the old honor of the one and the other lyre.’ Its classicizing fig-
ures inscribe his activity with a pun on his teacher’s name (d’or, Dorat) but also
with an echo from Petrarch’s sonnet , “Scrivi quel che vedesti in lettere
d’oro” ‘Write what you have seen in letters of gold.’ The echo of “l’una et l’al-
tra lira” which identifies Horace and Pindar in Petrarch’s sonnet  implies
that Du Bellay is taking possession of Petrarch in his own French verse, but it
also implies that Ronsard has superseded him and has already installed himself
among the latter’s ancient models. A rhyming pun upon lire (read) and lyre
(lyre) seals Ronsard’s custody. His oral-aural performance upon the lyre is re-
ally a literary performance designed to be read (“a faict lire”). In his Deffence
Du Bellay had urged his contemporaries to adapt foreign literary forms, but
even now this other, possibly greater poet is plumping to surpass him in this


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

art. Even Ronsard’s name shares the etymology of Petrarch’s, as both Pierre and
Petrarca derive from petros (stone).6
Sonnet  of Olive signals Du Bellay’s possession of Petrarch in a particular
way. Among all his poems it represents the most direct of his borrowings from
the Rime sparse as a literal translation of Petrarch’s sonnet . Here is Pe-
trarch’s first quatrain:
Quando Amor i belli occhi a terra inchina
e i vaghi spiriti in un sospiro accoglie
co le sue mani, et poi in voce gli scioglie,
chiara, soave, angelica, divina.
When Love inclines those beautiful eyes toward earth, collects her straying
breath into a sigh with his own hands, then frees them in her song, so clear,
angelic, gentle, and divine.
And here is Du Bellay’s version, in which the rhyme incline/divine reproduces
inchina/divina and assemble/desassemble renders accoglie/scioglie:
Quand voz beaux yeulx Amour en terre incline,
Et voz espriz en un soupir assemble
Avec’ ses mains, et puis les desassemble
D’une voix clere, angelique et divine.
When Love bends to the earth your beautiful eyes and gathers your spirits
in a sigh with his own hands and then unbinds them in a clear, angelic, and
divine voice.
As the poem dramatizes the beloved’s performance of a song, it shows how her
artistry (and Petrarch’s) affects the speaker, how he actively responds, and how
the event figures an act of poetic competition. For Petrarch’s commentator
Fausto da Longiano, Laura’s song has an explicitly French patriotic signifi-
cance. Fausto situates the action of Petrarch’s poem at the court of Avignon in
France, where Laura demonstrates her talent as a musician, a talent that Fausto
associates with a French national attribute: “Ancor che tutte le francese hab-
biano da natura molta harmonia nello voce, nondimeno qui pone L. haver
arte, e non solamente di musica vocale, ma anche instrumentale” ‘Even
though all the French have by nature a great vocal harmony, this poem shows
that Laura also has a special talent for instrumental as well as vocal music’
(v).7 Du Bellay might readily endorse such remarks about French musical
talent, but he would also endow them with a complex character. Olive, like
Laura, is French, and her song echoes French art too, thereby rivaling Laura
and initiating a competition within national boundaries. But the poem is not


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

just about the talents of French women. It also concerns the talent of a French
poet such as Du Bellay to surpass the Italian poet whom he imitates as well as
other French poets who will imitate him, including his friend Ronsard.
Ronsard’s assimilation to Horace and Pindar announces his own competi-
tive ambitions. In his four books of Odes he insists upon linking his technical
competence to theirs and declaring his superiority over all his contemporaries.
To Marguerite de France and her intimate circle he boasts that he sings in a
new fashion evocative of the Greeks and Romans rather than of “poëtes bar-
bares” ‘barbarian rhymsters’ (Odes ..‒).8 Alluding to such court poets as
Saint-Gelais, who had vied with him for her patronage and attention, he puts
them in competition with himself and Du Bellay in ode .. It is as a contest
of crows (“Eux égualés à nos chants beaus, / Ils sont semblables aus corbeaus”
‘Compared to our beautiful songs, they seem like crows’) against the eagles of
himself and Du Bellay at the site of royal power, “contre deus aigles, qui ague-
tent / (Portans la foudre du grand Roi)” ‘against two eagles who stand at watch
bearing the thunderbolt of their great king’ (‒).9 Nor does Marot, though
dead, escape unimpugned. Addressing François de Bourbon in ode ., Ron-
sard disparages Marot’s efforts to record the battle of Cerisoles in a poem that
“ne sufit / Pour eternizer ta gloire” ‘did not suffice to eternize your glory’ (‒).
Here Ronsard brags that he can surpass Marot’s crude effort, “attendant la
main parfaite / D’un ouvrier ingenieuz” ‘awaiting the perfect hand of an in-
spired craftsman’ (‒).10 Through the intervention of Michel de l’Hôpital
and Jean de Morel in , Ronsard would mend his quarrel with Saint-Gelais,
but his retraction exudes just a whiff of self-congratulation as he compares his
anger to that of a semidivine Achilles against Saint-Gelais’s older, hyper-
trophic, vaguely incompetent Agamemnon, “lors que plus l’ardante colere /
Achille enfloit contre son Roi” ‘when burning anger puffed up Achilles against
his king’ (A Mellin de Saint-Gelais ‒).11
Sonnet  of Les Amours () answers sonnet  of Olive, “Divin Ron-
sard,” by praising Du Bellay’s technical skills:
Divin Bellay, dont les nombreuses loix,
Par une ardeur de peuple separée,
Ont revestu l’enfant de Cytherée.12
Divine Bellay whose metrical laws, by an ardor distanced from the masses,
have reclothed the Cytherean’s babe.

Du Bellay had asked for help in spanning “le ciel des Gaulles” ‘the heaven of
the Gauls,’ but Ronsard narrows the site of his friend’s far-reaching ambition


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

to one that is “du peuple separée” ‘distanced from the masses.’ Ronsard, in
effect, describes his own goal, not Du Bellay’s. In his Odes, for example, Ron-
sard’s ambitions focus on the word race. Derived from radix (root) and signal-
ing family lineage prior to any broader ethnic or national identity, the word
registers his preeminence over Horace, who “basse & lente avoit l’audace, /
Non pas moi de franche race” ‘displayed a low-born, slow audacity; not like
me, of high-born stock’ (Odes ..‒).13 In Odes . he implies that com-
paring him to Pindar will redound to Du Bellay’s glory—“Et je sonnerai ta
louange” ‘And I will sound your praise’ ()—as he exalts the latter’s famous
kinsmen, Jean and Guillaume du Bellay: “Car il semble que nostre lire / Ta race
seulle vueille elire” ‘For it seems that our lyre would choose your stock alone’
(‒).14 In this formulation Du Bellay achieves a national recognition
through his kinship with an illustrious clan, but Ronsard earns even greater
recognition in a line of descent from ancient poets. Right from the start Ron-
sard seeks higher glory than any to which his friend has aspired.15 At this point
their parallel paths appear to diverge. Their classical education, their class-
defined goals as upwardly mobile minor nobility, their investments in an ide-
ology that identifies language, king, and nation, engender real differences.
In this light Ronsard’s designation of Du Bellay as “du peuple separée” ac-
quires an antithetical and even polemical coloration. Du Bellay’s summoning
of a broad cultural community capable of “toute vertu, tout honneur, toute
sorte / De bonne grace et de facon gentile” ‘all virtue, all honor, every sort of
good grace and gentle manners’ as he urges in sonnet , makes Ronsard’s fo-
cus on an elite readership seem dwarfish by comparison. Ronsard has bitten
into the apple of the good life at court, and he no longer craves a widespread
readership. The latter replies by making Du Bellay’s concerns seem even
smaller. In sonnet  he acknowledges that his friend is possessed by fire, but
it is a “doulx feu” ‘gentle fire,’ and his demeanor is “chaste,” in which doulx feu
echoes douteux (doubtful) and reduces his abstinence to a monochromatic re-
straint: “Si le doulx feu dont chaste tu ardoys / Enflamme encor ta poitrine
sacrée” ‘If the gentle fire in which you burn chaste, still enflames your sacred
breast.’ Ronsard imputes to himself an engagement with the fury of the real
world, in this case immersion in the rip and rancor of a hot Petrarchan desire:
“Oy ton Ronsard, qui sanglotte & lamente, / Paile, agité des flotz de la tour-
mente . . . / En fraisle nef, & sans voyle, & sans rame” ‘Hear your Ronsard,
who sobs and laments, grows pale, vexed by streams of torment . . . in a frag-
ile boat without sail or oar.’ From this perspective Du Bellay writes tame po-
etry, while Ronsard, burning for Cassandre, is charged with a greater energy.


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

Or so Ronsard would like it to appear when he uses the Petrarchan trope of

shipwreck to figure his public performance.16
Du Bellay, withdrawn in his study, experiences none of these passions, al-
though within a few years he would enter the realm of high politics when he
accompanied Cardinal Jean du Bellay to the papal court in Rome. Ronsard, in
truth, exaggerates his own public commitments. Nor would he exercise them
very much before (upon strong pressure from the crown) finally denouncing
Calvinist insurgence in his verse Discours des miseres de ce temps (), an ora-
torical poem figuring religious activism in the myth of Opinion, daughter of
Presumption.17 Sonnet  of Les Amours nonetheless implies Ronsard’s political
involvement when it addresses sonnet  of Olive. The genealogy of both po-
ems evokes a model in Giolito’s Rime diverse with a source in Petrarch as in-
terpreted with an anti-Avignonese bias by sixteenth-century commentators. It
is a sonnet by Antonio Francesco Rinieri which poses a rivalry between the ra-
diance of the beloved and the sun: “Era tranquillo il mar . . . / Scuotea l’aurora
da capegli aurati / Perle” ‘The sea was tranquil. . . . Dawn shook out pearls
from its golden hair.’ As the beloved appears, the sun spreads its “raggi da i liti
Eoi ricchi odorati” ‘rays from the rich, fragrant eastern shores.’ The sun and
stars now pale by comparison: “E impalladio l’Orientale imago” ‘And the ori-
ent image turned pale.’ In Du Bellay’s sonnet  the stars likewise fade when
the beloved appears (“Déjà la nuit en son parc amassoit / Un grand troupeau
d’etoiles vagabondes” ‘Already night was gathering into its enclosure a large
flock of vagabond stars’), and she becomes a figure for the poet’s place of birth,
the valley of the Loire evoked explicitly as “O flueve mien”:

Quand d’occident, comme une etoile vive,

Je vy sortir dessus ta verde rive
O fleuve mien! une Nymphe en rient.
Alors voyant cete nouvelle Aurore,
Le jour honteux d’un double tient colore
Et l’Angevin, et l’Indique orient.
When from the west, like a bright star, I saw emerge upon your green bank,
o my river, a Nymph all laughing. Then, seeing this new Dawn, the day,
ashamed, colors with a double hue both the Angevin and Indian east.

Here the Loire embodies the center of Du Bellay’s universe, a site that com-
mands the splendors of day and night, east and west, India and all France.
Rinieri’s poem, and ultimately Du Bellay’s and Ronsard’s, refers to Pe-
trarch’s sonnet , “In mezzo di duo amanti honesta altera / vidi una donna”


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

‘Between two lovers I saw a virtuous and haughty lady.’ Here the sun and the
speaker are rivals for Laura’s attention: “Et da l’un lato il Sole, io da l’altro era”
‘And on the one side was the sun, I on the other.’ When Laura shifts her at-
tention to the speaker, he delights in victory: “Poi che s’accorse chiusa da la
spera / de l’amico più bello, agli occhi miei / tutta lieta si volse” ‘When she saw
that she was blinded by the sphere of her more handsome friend, she turned
all happy to my eyes.’ The sun consequently hides in shame behind a rain
cloud that figures his defeat: “Un nuviletto intorno ricoverse: / cotanto l’esser
vinto li dispiacque” ‘A little cloud covered over, it so displeased him to be
vanquished.’ If we trace the filiations between Rineri’s poem and Petrarch’s
through sixteenth-century commentaries on the latter, we can see the rele-
vance of this model for Du Bellay and Ronsard at the time of reformist
perturbation.
Petrarch’s poem specifies no setting, site, or regional locality for its action,
but its fifteenth- and sixteenth-century commentators try to identify one.
With their Reformist sympathies, Fausto da Longiano, Antonio Brucioli, and
Lodovico Castelvetro note that the preceding poem, sonnet , attacks the pa-
pal curia at Avignon, “De l’empia Babilonia ond’ è fuggita / ogni vergogna”
‘From wicked Babylon, deserted of all shame.’ Echoing Luther’s roiling de-
scriptions of sixteenth-century Rome, where “the pope creates a state of affairs
that beggars description,” these commentators fashioned a narrative that links
sonnet  to the poems that precede and follow it.18 Fleeing the depravity of
papal Avignon, Petrarch finds solace at Vaucluse. Fausto recalls that in sonnet
, “Qui dove mezzo son, Sennuccio mio” ‘Here where I only half am, my
Sennuccio,’ Petrarch is telling his friend Sennuccio that he will leave Avignon:
“MEdesimamente scriue a senuccio, & dice esser mezzo” ‘Likewise he writes
to Sennuccio and says that he is only half a man’ (v). Brucioli deduces that
Petrarch is addressing his friend from his home in Vaucluse: “Scriue di Val-
clusa à Senuccio suo amico, & monstra che quando si parti di Auignone,
hebbe sempre cattiuo tempo per la uia” ‘He writes from Vaucluse to his friend
Sennuccio and claims that, after he left Avignon, he encountered foul weather
along the way’ (v). In sonnet  the poet assails papal corruption at Avi-
gnon, “rittratosi,” as Fausto claims, “in disparte alla sua valchiusa” ‘depicted at
a distance from his own Vaucluse’ (r). Castelvetro concurs in his account of
the narrative.
Petrarch’s removal to Vaucluse separates him from his beloved, who remains
at Avignon. According to Fausto, the poet spends his days at Vaucluse think-
ing about Laura. In sonnet  he recalls gazing into the windows of her house


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

at Avignon: “IL P. si trouo essere ad vna fenestra, in vna casa contigua alla sua
donna: essa medesimamente era ad vn’altra fenestra, & il sole gia coi suoi raggi
discorrendo per il cielo era peruenuto” ‘Petrarch finds himself at a window in
a house near his lady’s; she was at another window; the sun with its rays tra-
versing the sky had already come between them’ (r). According to Castel-
vetro, the poet carries these memories to Vaucluse in sonnet : “Racconta
come viene pieno di quella dolcezza medesima, che prese il primo di, che la
vide” ‘He recounts how he arrived [at Vaucluse] full of the same sweetness that
he felt the first day he saw her’ (). Sonnet  concludes the action by de-
scribing the environs at Vaucluse, “a Babel le spalle” ‘its back turned to Babel.’
Du Bellay’s evocation of his ancestral Loire develops this Petrarchan topos
with a sense of the moral discomfiture suggested by Fausto, Brucioli, and
Castelvetro. The Loire represents for him a retreat from clamorous affairs in
Paris and especially from rising pressures associated with the reform move-
ment, with Henry II’s antagonistic relationship to Rome, and with expedient
incentives for France to aid the German Protestants against Charles V. Hence
the religious trauma that Petrarch’s proto-Protestant commentators attributed
to the Avignon papacy recurs in a new, strangely potent guise for Du Bellay.
With antagonisms between the Gallican-Evangelist Montmorency faction, to
which the poet and Cardinal Jean du Bellay belonged in , and the rival Ul-
tramontane Papalist Guise faction, to which Ronsard belonged under the pa-
tronage of Cardinal de Lorraine, hostility quickly exceeded doctrinal dissent
and acquired a social and political import of crisis proportions.19 The task for
both church and crown in France was to reconcile their differences in a prag-
matic politique or resort to compromise by reason of state rather than by the
demands of conscience.20
Increasingly wary of institutional politics in Paris, Du Bellay sought a ca-
pacious representation of France honoring its regional centers and the merits
of his ancestral estate in the lower Loire Valley. Paris meant for him the his-
torical domination of the conservative Sorbonne theologians and an oppor-
tunistic locus of activity for ambitious interest groups among the nobility and
the bourgeoisie. Ronsard had prospered in this milieu and progressively ac-
quired a patronage that would enable him to continue his work. Du Bellay
found to his dismay that Ronsard could not or would not detach himself from
these narrow environs. Although Ronsard had advertised himself as native
“Vendômois” when he published his first four books of Odes with Le Bocage in
 and Les Amours in  and , he would soon throw himself into the lo-
cal intrigues at Henry’s court now situated at Paris. And, though in  Ron-


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

sard had received a degree from the University of Paris, he quickly abandoned
the city’s scholastic and academic culture for a Hellenized vision of civic
progress promoted in the Odes, seeking its literary analogue in the coterie
forms of the Greek Anthology, the formal epic, and the elegiac poetry of Im-
perial Rome.21
Certainly, sonnet  of Les Amours, a reply to Du Bellay’s sonnet , deploys
its reminiscences of classical texts in anticipation of Ronsard’s later direction.
The poem begins with Ovidian echoes that describe dawn’s glowing hair: “De
ses cheveulx la rousoyante Aurore / Eparsement les Indes remplissoyt” ‘With
her hair, rosy dawn was here and there filling the Indias.’22 Here the beloved’s
golden hair outshines her rival: “L’or, qui jaunissoit, / Le crespe honneur du
sien eblouissoit” ‘Her gold, which cast a yellow glow, dazzled dawn’s curled
honor.’ In the sestet Aurora multiplies and regenerates nature’s elements as her
sighs “enfanterent des ventz, / Sa honte un feu, & ses yeulx une pluye” ‘engen-
dered wind, her shame heat, and her eyes rain.’ All nature expands in response
to the beloved’s excellence, expressing itself in transfers of metonymy which
unfold in slow motion. Envy, it would seem, provokes nature’s sympathies in
a riot of promiscuous imitation.23 Not the least sort of promiscuity is that in
 Ronsard’s commentator Marc Antoine Muret identifies the poem’s ad-
dressee as someone other than Cassandre, possibly Marguerite de France,
whose patronage Du Bellay sought: “Quiconque soit celle, pour qui ce Son-
net, & un autre encor, qui est dans ce liure, ont esté faits, elle a nom Mar-
guerite. D’où ie collige, que les Poëtes ne sont pas tousiours si passionnez, ne
si constans en amour, comme ils se font” ‘Whoever it might be for whom this
sonnet, and one other as well, have been composed, she bears the name Mar-
guerite; whence I recall that poets are not always so impassioned nor so con-
stant as they pretend to appear.’24
A good part of Ronsard’s invention comes from a spontaneous combustion
between Petrarchan form and eros. Commentaries on the Rime sparse may
suggest its origins. Vellutello, Gesualdo, Sylvano da Venafro, and Bernardino
Daniello, for example, define Petrarch’s text as a site of literary allusiveness and
rhetorical figurations full of variety, fluidity, mutability, and diversity. Vel-
lutello links sonnet  with sonnets , , , , and  in a new order
that reenacts the myth of Daphne’s transformation into a laurel bush as nar-
rated by Ovid in book  of the Metamorphoses, “alludendo a la fauola di
Daphne, laqual fu amata dal sole, per essersi trasformata in lauro, del cui ar-
bore M.L. portaua il nome” ‘alluding to the story of Daphne who, loved by
the sun, was transformed by it into a tree of that name, i.e., laurel’ (v). Syl-


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

vano da Venafro endorses this transformation as “ingegnoso & tutto pieno di

acutissime fantasie: & con marauigliosa descrittione” ‘ingenious, full of the
most subtle imaginings and with marvelous powers of description’
(LXXXXIVv). Gesualdo notes among its literary analogues not only Ovid but
also Greek poets such as Anacreon and, as a precursor of its mythological for-
mulations, Hesiod: “Come interpreta il Minturno nel Panegirico, Dogni mor-
tal, d’ogni possente Iddio Doma la mente col suo bel disio” ‘As Minturno in-
terprets Hesiod in his Panegyric, “Of every mortal, of every powerful god,
Love dominates the mind with his beautiful desire”’ (CLVv). Daniello con-
cludes with the startling speculation that the narrative unfolds “in vna casa, e
forse in vna chiesa, ove anchora si truouò M.L.” ‘perhaps in a house, perhaps
in a church, where he again encountered Laura’ (v–r). The religion at
stake, however, is not Christianity—Roman, Reformed, or Evangelical—but
the ambivalent, esurient, forever tumultuous cult of love, whose high priest is
Ovid, cited by Daniello as Petrarch’s authority, “Regnat et in dominos ius ha-
bet ille deos” ‘Love’s throne and law are over even the gods who are lords of all’
(Heroides .).
Ronsard’s virtuoso management of classical allusion seems calculated to dis-
play his brilliant technical skill. The contest between him and Du Bellay
points less to a struggle for primacy within their brigade than to different con-
victions about addressing multiple national audiences. Du Bellay held few as-
pirations to leadership, but he did care greatly about the public effect of his
poetry. Like Ronsard, he valued his courtly readership, but he recognized the
impact that, through various intermediaries, such an elite readership could
have on a broader populace. Ronsard’s emphasis on elegance, wit, and novelty
of expression signaled a gravitation toward a more select readership than Du
Bellay had envisioned. Such exclusivity could only deepen the isolation that
Du Bellay cautioned against in the Deffence. Literary history has strangely re-
versed the flow, so that in our own time Ronsard, now valued as the finer
artist, has the greater number of editions and selections in anthologies. But in
the sixteenth century it was Du Bellay who passionately urged the widest pos-
sible circulation. His effort to equip a regenerated aristocracy with a education
in the classics insists upon the latter’s full inclusion in the public sphere.
Ronsard’s distance from the populace represents a breach of faith from Du
Bellay’s credo. Sonnet  of Olive hints at this apostasy. Addressing Ronsard,
“O noble esprit, des Graces allié” ‘O noble spirit, united with the graces,’ Du
Bellay recognizes an intense affinity with his friend, “O de mon coeur la sec-
onde moitié” ‘O second half of my own heart,’ alluding to Horace’s commen-


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

dation of Virgil in Odes .. as “animae dimidium meae” ‘half my soul.’ But
he also questions Ronsard’s hauteur. Du Bellay appears tormented and agi-
tated, hemmed in by exigencies that the other does not encounter, and so, in
an act of self-deprecation which Ronsard would duplicate in “Divin Bellay,”
he asks for comfort: “Soulage un peu le torment que j’endure” ‘Relieve a bit
the torment that I undergo.’ Ronsard calibrates a furor poeticus that inspires ec-
static visions of dynamic possibility.25 Du Bellay runs short of this furor, im-
plicitly contrasting himself as a technician-poet of modest resources with Ron-
sard as a superior poet of unbridled imagination and linguistic inventiveness:
“Inspire moy les tant doulces fureurs / Dont tu chantas celle fiere beauté”
‘Breathe into me such sweet furors with which you sing of this proud beauty.’
In his sonnet  addressed to “Divin Bellay,” Ronsard construed “le doulx feu
dont chaste tu ardoys” ‘the gentle fire with which you burn chaste’ as lacking
in passion, pointing not only to the sexual asceticism of Olive but also to Du
Bellay’s rhetorical parsimony and metric restraint. The rift between them
could only deepen as their differences multiplied.
Du Bellay pointedly expanded his range by adding to Olive poems that
reach beyond the Petrarchan mode. The first edition, for example, includes
L’Anterotique, an octosyllabic spoof on Petrarchism. Its libidinous speaker fash-
ions a parodic blazon in defiance of an old woman who schemes to estrange
him from his young beloved: “Sans cesse je l’iroy’ chantant” ‘Without stop-
ping I will go on singing about her” (). In the Vers lyriques Du Bellay, much
like the adversary in L’Anterotique, goads Ronsard to renounce his coterie
fame: “Amy, tu es tel, / Que rien, qu’immortel, / Ne te pouroit plaire” ‘Friend,
you are such that nothing but immortal fame should please you’ (.‒). In
poem  he implies that Ronsard’s growing acclaim can only diminish his
own, “Puis que je n’ay beu, / Comme toy, de l’unde sacrée” ‘Since I have not
drunk like you from the sacred stream’ (‒). Already Du Bellay hints that
Ronsard, despite his superior gifts, is not living up to his full poetic potential.
The second edition of Olive appends La Musagnoeomachie, a mock epic on
the rout of Ignorance by the Muses. Defending the muses are Marot, Salel,
Héroët, Saint-Gelais, Scève, Peletier, and Tyard, “qui en sonnez cantiques . . . /
Font revivre les antiques” ‘who in sonnets and songs . . . bring the ancients
back to life’ (‒), but also “trois flambeaux, / De Phebus heureux augure”
‘three luminaries, Apollo’s fortunate augur’ (‒). Linked by a series of puns
on the name of their teacher at the Collège de Coqueret, Jean Dorat, “qui dore /
Ses vers, que Parnasse adore” ‘who gilds their poetry which Parnassus adores’
(‒), these last three remain incognito. One may be Jean de Baif, whose


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

father Lazare de Baif precedes them. Another may be Du Bellay himself, re-
duced to an anonymous cipher. The third is Ronsard, figured as “le Pindare
François” ‘the French Pindar’ (). Awarded a stanza of hyperbolic praise, he
is surely the strongest contender in the group and one to whom the author de-
fers. But this deference only summons and defines the social and professional
distance between them.
In other poems Du Bellay collapses this distance with expressions of antag-
onism against other poets and their patrons. “Contre les Petrarquistes” (pub-
lished ), for example, is a satiric reworking of “A une Dame” (), com-
posed while Ronsard was still working on Les Amours.26 It criticizes the limited
use that poets have made of Petrarchan figures, suggesting an economic moti-
vation for peddling such Petrarchan “peintures vaines / Qui donnent plus de
plaisir aux lisants” ‘empty pictures that give more pleasure to readers’ (‒).
The goal is to secure opulent patronage and prevent the rise of “quelque nou-
veau poète à la cour” ‘whatever new poet at court’ ().27 “Le Poète courtisan”
(published in ) takes satiric aim less at writers deficient in their art than at
a readership indifferent to high standards, “partout où l’ignorance est plus au-
torisée” ‘wherever that ignorance is favorably authorized’ (). The best
strategy for poets is to flatter ignorance and to avoid “de mots durs ou nou-
veaux qui puissent amuser / Tant soit peu le lisant” ‘difficult or new words that
could distract the reader in the least possible way’ (‒). True poets never
lower the bar for excellence.
Although Ronsard had spent much of the previous decade writing Petrar-
chan lyrics for the cream of society, very rich and very thick, Du Bellay di-
rected neither “Contre les Petrarquistes” nor “Le Poète courtisan” against him.
Aumônier of the Dauphin’s bride, Mary Stuart, Ronsard found favor and pro-
tection from the royal couple and later from Charles IX. As he adjusted his po-
litical vision to suit theirs, he became too valuable an asset to suffer his friend’s
criticism. Throughout the s he experimented deftly with scores of verse
forms as his Petrarchan sonnets, Horatian odes, and Pindaric hymns gave way
to the gaietés, mignardises, mascarades, and panegyrics of the Livret de Folestries
(April ), Bocage and Meslanges (November ), and the Continuation des
Amours (August ). In the process Ronsard shaped and reshaped his identity
as a preeminent court poet, executing his family romance with a grander cast
of characters than those whom Du Bellay managed to assemble. As a corre-
spondent with Du Bellay and a critic of his verse, Ronsard remained a sympa-
thetic reader, willing coconspirator, and useful accomplice in his friend’s proj-
ect, but, when the occasion required, he would don different masks for


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

different purposes. Du Bellay continued to hone his identity as a spokesman

for allegiances larger than himself, as an interlocutor for France and its evolv-
ing nationhood. In this mobile world he might haltingly address his friend as
a Baudelairean “hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!” ‘dissem-
bling reader, my likeness, my brother!”
Nowhere does Du Bellay’s perception of Ronsard’s mercurial personality
emerge more clearly than in Les Regrets, published on  January , and
nowhere does their conflicted relationship signal more clearly Du Bellay’s aver-
sion to what court life had become at Paris.28 In it Du Bellay reverses the fig-
ure of placidity which Ronsard had assigned to him in sonnet  of Les
Amours. There Du Bellay enjoys the quiet of his study, while Ronsard suffers
the tumult of love. Here, with a Marotic wink at the irony of reversal, Du Bel-
lay complains that he suffers the tumult of Rome while Ronsard enjoys the se-
curity of court at Paris. The volume’s dedication to Seigneur Jean d’Avanson
evokes a tangle of intrigues and alliances subtending the sequence. D’Avanson,
Cardinal Jean du Bellay’s rival and replacement as papal ambassador, incar-
nates the latter’s disgrace at the hands of Carlo Carafa and the Guise faction
upon the election of Pope Paul IV in May , a disgrace stemming from his
advocacy for peace with Spain chronicled in sonnet  of Les Regrets.29 Du Bel-
lay respects d’Avanson as the king’s choice in Rome, itself now identified as a
province of France, the colony that it once governed—“sur vostre doz de-
schargea sa grandeur / Pour la porter en estrange province” ‘he puts his
grandeur on your back to bring it to a foreign province’—but he clearly can-
not warm up to the cardinal’s successor.30 The ambitions of successful poets
such as Ronsard furnish a standard against which Du Bellay measures his own
lack of success.
Self-described in sonnet  as one who is “agité d’une fureur plus basse” ‘ag-
itated by a lower sort of rage,’ Du Bellay rejects any share in the elevated furor
poeticus that Ronsard had claimed.31 Despite his call to write “simplement,” he
packs his cycle with pointed allusions not just to Petrarch and other Italian
writers but also to Horace as a model of Roman satire, to Ovid as a poet of ex-
ile, and finally to Marot as a French predecessor who suffered the sting of ban-
ishment which Ronsard never experienced.32 Sonnet , “Malheureux l’an, le
mois, le jour, l’heure, et le poinct” ‘Unhappy the year, the month, the day, the
hour, and the moment,’ parodies Petrarch’s sonnet , “Benedetto sia ’l giorno
e ’l mese et l’anno” ‘Blessed be the day and the month and the year,’ trans-
forming the latter’s benedictory topos about love into a malediction about ex-
ile. Here his bumbling—“d’un sinistre presage, / Je me blessay le pied sortant


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

de ma maison” ‘as a sinister warning I injured my foot as I left my house’—re-

calls Ovid’s Amores ..‒, in which a servant stubs her toe after delivering an
ominous message. The double allusion distances him further from Ronsard.
Like Ovid in Tomis, Petrarch had thought himself an exile in France when he
served the papacy at Avignon, and he felt at home only after returning to Italy.
Du Bellay now considers himself an outcast in Rome and regrets his absence
from France.
Du Bellay tallies the cost of this dislocation in linguistic currency.33 Just as
Petrarch sought to become known throughout Europe for his Latin poetry, so
does Du Bellay, if only for lack of a French readership in Rome, as he com-
plains in sonnet , “changeant à l’estranger mon naturel langage” ‘exchanging
my native language for a foreign one.’ The poem answers sonnet  of Ronsard’s
Continuation des Amours (), “Ce pendant que tu vois le superbe rivage / . . .
Et que l’air des Latins te fait parler latin” ‘While you see the [Tiber’s] proud
shore, and the melody of the Latin people makes you speak Latin,’ in which
Ronsard’s complaint rings hollow. On the Tiber’s shores no one appreciates
Du Bellay’s fluency in the ancient language. His Neo-Latin elegy, “Patriae
desiderium” ‘His longing for his country,’ written at Rome in  and pub-
lished in Poemata, accuses the Italians of butchering correct Latin, requiring
him “alios ritus, aliosque ediscere mores, / Fingere, & insolito uerba aliena
sono” ‘to learn other customs and other manners, and to shape foreign words
with sounds I am not used to’ (‒).34 Here Du Bellay echoes Ovid’s dis-
claimer that in exile “nec te mirari, si sint vitiosa decebit / carmina, quae faciam
paene poeta Getes / . . . structaque sunt nostris barbara verba modis” ‘you
should not wonder if my verse prove faulty, for I am almost a Getic
poet . . . setting barbarian words to our measures’ (Ex Ponto ..‒), with
the backhanded inversion that, while the Latin poet disdained the barbarian
tongue of Tomis, the French poet bemoans the barbarian Latin of papal
Rome.35
The predicament of Les Regrets enables Du Bellay to fathom what it means
to be French. Looking from the outside at French culture allows him to per-
ceive a shape, a form that it did not appear to have when viewed from within.
Against the foreign customs and provincialisms that he experiences abroad,
France might only seem the “mere des arts, des armes, et des bois” ‘mother of
the arts, of arms, and of forests’ which Italy can no longer be (sonnet ).36 In
sonnet  (“Je hay du Florentin l’usuriere avarice” ‘I hate the Florentine’s usu-
rious avarice’), a catalog of temperaments found in Italy, England, Spain, and
Germany, the speaker concludes “Bref, je hay quelque vice en chasque nation”


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

‘In brief, I hate some vice in each nation,’ even as he imputes treachery and in-
discretion to his own compatriots, “le traistre Bourguignon, et l’indiscret
François” ‘the treacherous Burgundian and the indiscreet Frenchman’ and, dis-
paragingly imputes to himself “un Sçavoir pedantesque” ‘a pedantic learn-
ing’.37 Rome inevitably earns his harshest criticism because of its malign in-
fluence on all Christian nations, “tout ce qu’on void de bien et de mal en ce
monde” ‘everything that one sees good and bad in this world’ (sonnet ). Not
only the corrupt clergy but also their illicit women (“ces vielles Alcines” ‘these
old Alcinas’ [sonnet ]) and their complete infamy (“quelque Cloaque im-
munde” ‘some deep cesspool’ [sonnet ]) dishonor the city.
Leaving Italy, Du Bellay passes through Calvinist Geneva, whose Psalm-
singing churchgoers exemplify sheer hypocrisy: “L’avarice et l’envie, / Et tout
cela qui plus tourmente notre vie, / Domine en ce lieu-là plus qu’en tout autre
lieu” ‘Avarice and envy and all that wrecks the most havoc with our lives, dom-
inate there more than anywhere else’ (sonnet ). The charges recall those of
Petrarch’s Babylonian sonnets against Avignon, the “nido di tradimenti in cui
si cova / quanto mal per lo mondo oggi si spande” ‘nest of treachery where is
hatched whatever evil is spread through the world today’ (sonnet , coinci-
dentally the same number as Du Bellay’s poem in Les Regrets). Petrarch’s com-
mentator Antonio Brucioli reaffirmed Avignon as a pit of depravity, “Ne credo
che si potesse pure imaginare corte piu scelerata . . . tanto mi piano obro-
briose” ‘I do not believe that a more shameful court can even be imagined . . .
so derogatory do [these sonnets] seem to me’ (cxxr). Du Bellay restores
national dignity to France by transferring his invective from Petrarch’s
Avignon to contemporary Geneva and to the Calvinist reform that Henri II
had outlawed. Upon his arrival in Paris and his reunion with Ronsard, he
confidently declares the French capital “sans pairs” ‘without peer,’ however
much he might contemn its “badaud populaire, / La presse des chartiers, le
procès, et les fanges’ ‘common idler, the pamphleteers’ press, the legal proceed-
ings, the filth’ (sonnet , with ironic parallels to Petrarch’s same-numbered
sonnet , “o fucina d’inganni, o pregion dira / ove ’l ben more e ’l mal si nu-
tre et cria” ‘o foundry of deceits, cruel prison where good dies and evil is cre-
ated and nourished’).
No sooner does Du Bellay settle back into life at the French court than he
decries in sonnets ‒ the vanity and mendacity that he finds there. In this
context Ronsard emerges as both exempt from and yet implicated in the petty
squabbles that poison the atmosphere. In sonnet  he protests to Ronsard
that here “nous voyons bien souvent une longue amitié / Se changer pour un


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

rien en fière inimitié” ‘we often see a long friendship turn to ferocious hatred
over a trifle,’ and in sonnet  he denounces “la feintise, / L’ignorance, l’envie,
avec la convoitise” ‘the deception, ignorance, envy, with covetousness’ which
prevail. In making these charges, Du Bellay comes full circle with respect to
Ronsard’s ambivalent success. Already at the beginning of Les Regrets Du Bel-
lay had expressed his chagrin about preferment at court by comparing his for-
tunes to his friend’s. In sonnet  Ronsard, “la moitié de mon ame” ‘the half of
my soul,’ enjoys “la saincte faveur de ton Prince et du mien” ‘the sacred trust
of your prince and mine,’ while in sonnet  Du Bellay suffers with other po-
ets in Charon’s lower depths: “En vain nous tendons les mains vers le Nau-
tonnier sourd” ‘In vain we extend our arms toward the deaf boatman.’ Even in
the afterlife depicted in sonnet , implying that the French court is a kind of
hell, Ronsard manages to corner the market as a beatified Orpheus, “Le grand
prestre de Thrace au long sourpely blanc” ‘the great priest of Thrace in his long
white robe,’ while Du Bellay in sonnet  trails behind: “Je suivray, si je puis, /
Les plus humbles chansons de ta Muse lassee” ‘I will follow, if I can, the hum-
blest songs of your exhausted muse.’
In these criticisms Du Bellay complains that Ronsard has squandered his
superb formal talent on elegant trifles.38 “Jamais ne voira-lon, que Ronsard
amoureux?” ‘Will we never see Ronsard in any mood other than amatory?’ he
laments in sonnet . Recalling his friends in sonnet , Du Bellay praises
Belleau’s pastorals and anacreontics, Peletier’s didactic verse, Jodelle’s drama,
and Ronsard’s Franciade, which thunders with “l’horrible effroy d’une estrange
armonie” ‘the horrific terror of a strange harmony.’ And yet Ronsard delays his
national epic while confecting amatory bonbons instead. In the hierarchy of
genres proposed in sonnets ‒, Du Bellay promises to memorialize his
friend in “un palais magnifique à quatre appartemens” ‘a magnificent palace
with four apartments.’ Here he situates the Greek, Latin, Italian, and French
national poets in separate wings, lending each a distinctive architectural style:
“L’appartement premier Homere aura pour marque, / Virgile le second, le
troisieme Petrarque, / Du surnom de Ronsard le quatrieme on dira” ‘The first
apartment will have Homer for its standard, Virgil the second, the third Pe-
trarch, and one will designate the fourth with the name of Ronsard.’ Partly to
incite Ronsard to complete his epic but also partly to criticize him for biding
time, this grouping puts Ronsard’s talent on the defensive. Like Petrarch, who
abandoned his epic Africa in frustration, Ronsard does not finish his epic
Franciade. But then Du Bellay himself appears close to forsaking his own po-
etic ambitions.


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

Les Regrets ends with a sober intimation of this possibility. In sonnet ,
addressed to Peletier, Du Bellay evokes a change of direction: “Je voulois,
comme toy, les vers abandonner / Pour à plus hault labeur plus sage m’addon-
ner” ‘Like you, I would like to abandon my poetry in order to give myself to a
wiser, more elevated sort of task.’ Concurrently, he would offer translation
from Greek poetry to supplement Louis Le Roy’s translation of Plato’s Sympo-
sium (published in November ); he would produce a French translation of
book  of Virgil’s Aeneid (published in February ); and he would compose
a Discours sur le sacre du très chrétien Roi François II (begun upon the death of
Henri II in July  and published posthumously, in March ) and an Am-
ple discours au roi sur le fait des quatre états du royaume de France (published in
). Here, and in sharp contrast with Ronsard at this juncture, Du Bellay
envisions a selfless turn toward public service. It is as though on the last verge
of a sad and wasteful fraternal rivalry he were ceding poetic preeminence to
Ronsard before moving on to other forms of writing and public ministration.
What provoked this change of direction? The final sonnets of Les Regrets
eulogize two women close to the heartbeat of French power, suggesting the
poet’s bid for patronage from them. They are Mary Stuart, the bride of the
Dauphin François II, whom Ronsard served as aumônier (sonnet ), and
Marguerite de France, Henry II’s sister and the future wife of Emmanuel
Philibert, duke of Savoy (sonnets ‒).39 Here Du Bellay repeats the
virtues of Petrarch’s Laura as figures of national ascendance. With Mary Stuart
he forecasts “qu’on revoie encore le beau siècle doré” ‘that one might see yet
again the beautiful golden century.” With Marguerite, however, the future ap-
pears less assured, as he perceives a decline among the arts and sciences. In
sonnet  Du Bellay hopes that she will resume her patronage as a Pallas
Athena of France:
Phoebus s’en fuit de nous, et l’antique ignorance
Sous la faveur de Mars retourne encore en France,
Si Pallas ne defend les lettres et les arts.
Phoebus takes flight from us and the ancient ignorance returns to France
under the patronage of Mars, unless Pallas defends our arts and letters.

With this somber vision of an uncertain future Du Bellay ends Les Regrets.40
The differences between Ronsard and himself turn on these figures. Mary Stu-
art, the king’s daughter-in-law and a soon-to-be queen to whom Ronsard en-
joys close access, represents youth, ease, the promise of the future; Marguerite,
the king’s sister, whose occasional attention Du Bellay has received, represents


Du Bellay and the Site of Petrarchism in France

grace, intelligence, but also an awareness of political conflicts ravaging the

present. The relationships of Ronsard and Du Bellay with these women repre-
sent the polarities of public response in sixteenth-century France. Ronsard saw
his status as an opportunity for a display of wit and luxuriant language, a site
of self-indulgence at the expense of grander poetic ambitions. Du Bellay saw
his as an opportunity for service to the nation, a site of cultural awareness,
even if he lacked the opportunity and resources to carry out his intent more
boldly.
What, then, did Ronsard represent for Du Bellay? A touch of rivalry and
even envy defines Du Bellay’s attitude toward his friend but also a sense of re-
gret for the latter’s wasted talent. Ronsard’s lassitude infuriated Du Bellay. The
exchange between them developed friction as Ronsard’s success nudged Du
Bellay to reflect from abroad upon the pretensions of social distinctions in
France. Although Du Bellay had initially addressed a literate, well-to-do, but
narrowly defined class of readers, he eventually embraced a more inclusive na-
tional population. As Deffence . shows when it commends the language of
“not only the learned, but also all kinds of workmen and mechanics” (/),
the public, interwoven, heteroglossic nature of French society fascinated him.
Not so for Ronsard. The latter withdrew from all that he saw melting into the
great national mass, and he located his energies entirely within an elite culture
that he linked to the monarchy and a compliant nobility. Like Du Bellay, he
sought to harmonize classical, foreign, and familiar forms in the name of a
French cultural genius, but, unlike Du Bellay, he associated this harmony with
a courtly style that could only alienate and exclude popular, coarse-grained, or
socially marginal elements. It was as though the goal of the Deffence to distin-
guish patrician from pedestrian through an enriched classical and vernacular
education had consumed itself. Instead of directing this education to the service
of the nation and state, Ronsard had applied it to his personal advancement.
Du Bellay was forgiving up to a point—by  he had even reconciled
with Thomas Sebillet, by then a member of the Parisian Parlement who had
provided two dedicatory poems for Du Bellay’s Oeuvres de invention in that
year and to whom he would warmly address sonnet  of Les Regrets. But he
remained skeptical about limits that Ronsard had imposed on the national
imaginary. Whereas the latter seemed content, at least in , to bask in the
honors that a literary reputation could bring, Du Bellay pressed further to re-
generate an expansive idea of nation and patrie. His active dialogue, it is true,
took place wholly among the members of a stratified nobility who sought to
reaffirm their own social and cultural prestige at a time of rapid change. But


 Du Bellay and Ronsard

what had begun as an effort to certify the fitness of the untitled nobility for
diplomatic service turned into a program soon to be emulated on a broader
scale by the urban elite, various professional classes, and all who aspired to
higher station in life. Ronsard might have sought its rewards for his personal
profit, but Du Bellay more soberly apprehended its supraregional, translocal
effects. At this point loyalties to individual people and allegiances to house-
holds, associates, patrons, and kin fired his creative imagination and energized
his patriotic identification with a larger whole.


This page intentionally left blank
  
The Sidneys and Wroth
The Site of Petrarchism in England
This page intentionally left blank
 8 Courtly and Anti-Courtly
Sidneian Identities

The last major Petrarchan sonnet sequence in English, Mary Wroth’s Pam-
philia to Amphilanthus, appeared in print with the author’s prose romance,
The Countesse of Montgomeries Urania. The date of its publication was 
(Stationers’ Register,  July), a year of political catastrophe for James I and of
crisis in the formation of English ideas about nation, state, and political lib-
erty. Nearly a century earlier Henry VIII’s Act of Appeals () had pro-
claimed that “this realme of Englond is an Impire,” a sovereign community be-
holden to the authority of no foreign ruler, including the pope.1 The trajectory
of English literary history from Henry’s proclamation of England’s sovereignty
to the publication of Wroth’s sonnets abounds in English national sentiment.
The development of the sonnet form from Philip Sidney’s Astrophil and Stella
(composed ‒?), whose pirated publication in  ignited a literary fad,
to Mary Wroth’s Pamphilia to Amphilanthus a long generation later bears traces
of sometimes conflicting, sometimes converging ideas about this sentiment.2
It is one that relativizes the differences of national status, rank, privilege, and
prestige among various classes in England in a fictional construction attuned
to the extraordinary social mobility of the period.
Mary Wroth (/‒/) participates in this process as the offspring
of a prominent family.3 The niece of Philip Sidney (‒) and of Mary Sid-
ney (‒) and the daughter of Robert Sidney (‒), she engaged
in forms of literary activity already practiced by her uncle, aunt, and father as
well as by her cousin, Mary’s son, William Herbert (‒).4 All five mem-
bers of this high-ranking family composed poetry in the Petrarchan mode.


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Philip Sidney, Robert Sidney, and Mary Wroth wrote sonnet sequences, and
William Herbert tried his hand at odes. Mary Sidney translated Petrarch’s Tri-
umph of Death into English blank verse (). Each brought to the task a
commitment to develop a specifically English literary style with a specifically
English sense of cultural identity.5
This identity was strongly Protestant. Philip Sidney reached maturity in the
late s at a time when Queen Elizabeth appeared disposed to marry the
French king’s younger brother, the Catholic duke of Anjou. Fearing that this
match would lead to a policy of French appeasement and papal despotism, a
group of Protestant nobles clustered around the earl of Leicester voiced its op-
position. Finding an eloquent spokesman in Philip Sidney, the group also de-
cried the temporizing strategies of Queen Elizabeth and Lord Burghley on
matters of international policy in the early s.6 For his role in this matter
Sidney suffered the queen’s scorn and a period of ostracism from court, during
which he wrote much of his literary work at his sister’s estate in Wilton. The
term radical Protestant associated with Sidney’s faction (whose members in-
cluded Walsingham, the earl of Pembroke, Sir Francis Knollys, and the earl of
Bedford) bears scant reference to its doctrinal beliefs, for they ranged from a
pious endorsement of Queen Elizabeth’s pragmatic via media to a qualified
embrace of severe Calvinist teaching. It refers instead to the group’s commit-
ment to a foreign policy shaped in accord with the religious divisions of Eu-
rope, in the conviction that England’s political interests would best be served
by helping the international Protestant rebellion against the Catholic powers
of Spain, France, and the papacy.7 After Philip’s death in , Mary Sidney as-
sumed a cultural leadership for the cause by publishing his belletristic writing,
by sponsoring projects modeled upon it, by finishing his translation of Psalms
(? completed by her and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth in ), and by
offering her own translation of Philippe Duplessis-Mornay’s Discourse of Life
and Death (; complementing Philip’s unfinished translation of Mornay’s
Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, , completed by Arthur Golding in ).8
The concept of nation, state, and liberty inscribed in the Sidneys’ work
affirms the legitimacy of monarchical power, the effectiveness of an opposi-
tional strategy dominated by the titled nobility, and the practical agency of the
English people as an entity opposed to the powers of Catholic Europe. In the
poetry of Philip and Mary Sidney and their niece Mary Wroth, these associa-
tions crisscross in patterns to which Petrarchan forms of thought lend striking
emphasis. The romance narratives of Philip Sidney’s Old Arcadia (written in
‒), his incomplete New Arcadia (? published by Fulke Greville in


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

), the fused new and old versions in The Countess of Pembrokes Arcadia,
published by Mary Sidney in , and Mary Wroth’s The Countess of Mont-
gomeries Urania reflect the heroism of this cause in the public realm.9 The son-
nets of Astrophil and Stella and Pamphilia to Amphilanthus reflect its conscious
dynamics in more intimate matters in which sons strive to attain what their fa-
thers could not achieve and nieces apologize for their uncles within the curi-
ous frame of Petrarchan sonnets.
A striking feature of these sonnets is that their amatory entanglements re-
flect historical tensions and cultural conflicts in the emerging national senti-
ment, even though their literary pedigree is predominantly foreign, issuing
from the Continental matrix of Italy, France, Spain, and the papacy which
Protestant England sought to define itself against.10 This contrast is odd. At a
time when England’s elite was asserting the nation’s own religious and politi-
cal sovereignty, its literary avant-garde turned to models of Petrarchism and
other cultural forms associated with the decadence, corruption, and depravity
of Catholic Europe. The peculiar fact that most Elizabethan sonneteers, in-
cluding the Sidneys, were Protestants with occasionally pronounced Calvinist
leanings implies a strain in their cultivation of aristocratic pastimes and pleasures
imported from abroad.11 Their preferences provide a stunning example for
Freud’s claim that in cultural life the totemic dead father becomes “stronger
than the living one had been” (.). Having vanquished an older order by
denouncing papal authority and destroying its vestiges in England, the new
order takes upon itself the task of reconstituting the former’s vestiges in a now
changed social and political environment.12 The principal players gesture to-
ward the totemic failure to recover something perceived as genuinely lost.13
The high cultural sophistication of Continental literary and artistic forms
proved more socially and psychologically attractive than the austerity of nascent
puritanism. Addressing its administrative needs, the formative nation-state had
long looked to the Continent for powerful examples of bureaucratic institutions
and stratagems of statecraft as it built a professionally organized civil service.14
Addressing its social and cultural needs, it shadowed the Petrarchan projects of
Bembo in Italy, Boscán in Spain, and Du Bellay in France as it codified and
consolidated its own linguistic resources.15 Each of those writers sought to reg-
ularize forms of poetic language which might shape a national cultural iden-
tity. In A Defence of Poetry Philip Sidney sought the same for England.
Although Sidney’s Defence accords less attention to literary language than
do Bembo’s Prose della volgar lingua or Du Bellay’s Deffence et illustration, it de-
fines a more pungent relationship between language and national character


The Site of Petrarchism in England

than either. A Defence notes that England appears a unified nation with regard
to its insular boundaries (though not its contested borders with Scotland or
Wales) but that its linguistic forms and ethnic composition are remarkably
mixed. Renaissance humanist philology had outlined the linguistic structure
of English from a diversity of national origins, taking pride in the mobility,
flexibility, and adaptability that enabled Celts and Romans, Angles and Sax-
ons, Danes and Normans, to interact, no matter how bloody their rivalries
might have been.16 Sidney’s Defence boldly foregrounds the Tudor version of
history which attributes temporal and ethnic primacy to the Cymric or Brit-
tanic Celts, “the true remnant of the ancient Britons” driven westward to
Cornwall—the ancestral seat of the Sidneys as well as of the Tudors—
“through all the conquests of Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Norman, some of
whom did seek to ruin all memory of learning from among them” ().17 Its
argument appeals to both the ancient and contemporary resources of a lan-
guage, a history, and a people imagined as conduits toward an awaited future.
In Sidney’s narrative wave after wave of immigration produces a rich and
varied language whose mixed forms are still growing, still unsettled, and still
attesting to cultural contradictions inside the nation’s borders.18 Contempora-
neous dialects of the North, the South and Southwest, the East Midlands, and
Kent recall the territorial divisions of successive settlements by Vikings, Sax-
ons, Frisians, Anglians, and Jutes, as each left its mark on the English vernac-
ular. Both product and sign of ancient historical struggle, these dialects re-
sisted assimilation into a monolithic cultural unity. Such humanists as Roger
Asham and John Cheke had labored to imagine the integrity of the language
as a fact, as when Cheke professed in  that “our own tung shold be written
cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borrowing of other tunges.”19
But, no matter how much religious, political, and economic unity these teach-
ers had wished for, they could not offset the relative autonomy of regional,
class, or professional divisions inscribed in the nation’s dialects.
This mixture and diversity drew Sidney’s attention in A Defence. He recog-
nizes a long-standing bifurcation in the class structure of England’s culture. It
occurs most dramatically in Chaucer, the poet of an unruly London vernacu-
lar spoken by commoners with varying degrees of cultivation, as distinct from
an increasingly exclusive Norman French spoken by the elite, “of whom, truly,
I know not whether to marvel more, either that he in that misty time could
see so clearly, or that we in this clear age go so stumblingly after him” ().20
One literary source for this understanding might have been the preface to
William Thynne’s printed edition of Chaucer in . Signed by Brian Tuke, a


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

London schoolmaster, it sketches the descent of English from ancient Latin

through a contamination of sixth-century Germanic Anglican, Saxon, Frisian,
and Jute vernaculars and eleventh-century Franco-Norman. Just as French had
stemmed from Latin, so in Tuke’s imagination had the Germanic languages,
adducing Latin and its “parent” Greek as their ultimate roots and the unifying
elements of English: “Of trouthe (whiche some shall scarsely beleue) the Ger-
mayns haue so fourmed the order of their langage . . . [in] as nere concor-
daunce to the phrase of the latyn as the French tong hath.”21 Chaucer, ac-
cording to Tuke, exploited the Latin origins of an aristocratic French patois
and a predominantly Germanic middle-class vernacular. His “English” com-
promise nonetheless strikes Sidney as leaving some “great wants, fit to be for-
given in so reverent an antiquity” (), a charge that Chaucer himself antici-
pated as owing to “so gret diversite / In Englissh and in writyng of oure tonge”
(Troilus and Criseyde .‒).22 A related criticism about the artifice of
Chaucer’s compromise motivates Thomas Wilson’s allegation in The Arte of
Rhetorique () that the contemporary “fine courtier will talk nothing but
Chaucer.”23 Whether accurate or not, Wilson’s claim registers a perception
(and an invidious sense of exclusion) which, perhaps owing to Thynne’s pub-
lication, Chaucerian affectations were used to reinforce social differences
among the elite at Whitehall.24
By  George Puttenham had confidently declared as standard “the usu-
all speach of the Court, and that of London and the shires lying about Lon-
don within lx. myles, and not much above,” a radius that includes Oxford,
Cambridge, Sussex, and Kent.25 This speech distinguishes the area from less
prosperous or influential regions to the south and north. Situated at the geo-
graphical conjunction of the Saxon and Frisian dialects in the South, the An-
glian dialect in East Midland, and Jutish remnants in Kent dialects, London
absorbs a mixed language with a predominance of Anglian forms. Its complex
social structure also nurtures a potential for betraying subtle class differences
among those with street-wise inflections, foreign or regional accents, and
punctilious grammar or hypercorrect pronunciation.26 As the seat of court and
the state bureaucracy and the focus of commercial and economic interchange,
London attracted visitors, immigrants, and relocated workers whose linguistic
forms reproduced the major divisions in that society as they entered into
mainstream discourse.
Nor did educational opportunities necessarily level out these differences. In
his treatise Elementarie () Richard Mulcaster, Edmund Spenser’s former
teacher as headmaster of the Merchant Tailors’ School, had urged a populist


The Site of Petrarchism in England

expansion of literacy with an enriched vocabulary drawn from Anglicized

borrowings of Continental words: “Theie proue the nations exercise in learn-
ing, and their practis in other dealings: so theie seme to infer no base witted
people . . . bycause it is not for foulls to be so well learned.”27 He specifically
opposed word formations on the analogy of classical Latin, however, since the
latter recalls papal or imperial domination, “the Latin tung remembring vs, of
our thraldom & bondage,” whence his celebrated peroration: “I honor the
Latin, but I worship the English” (). Although Mulcaster’s pioneering pro-
gram of elementary education for all, female as well as male, proved ultimately
unrealizable in his time, it still envisioned the benefits of drawing the nation
together through a common speech variegated with local color.28
Sidney shared Mulcaster’s sentiment about a polymorphic, polychromatic
English that reflects the nation’s diversity, but he paid no tribute to its demotic
origins. His generation routinely associated elements of Frisian and Old Saxon
in the southern and western dialects with Cade’s Sussex rebellion, Welsh in-
surgency, and the fifteenth-century barons’ revolt.29 Writers such as George
Gascoigne and Thomas Nashe allowed remnants of Viking, Gaelic, and Old
Saxon in the northern dialects for “poeticall licence” and to “drawe attentive
reading.”30 In A Defence even Sidney admits his embarrassment at thrilling to
the martial strains of an old Scottish border ballad about Percy and Douglas
despite its “rude style,” but he stiffly repudiates Northumbrian archaisms in
Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender, with such substitutions as a for o (e.g., ane for
one), u for o (e.g., gud for good), and u for l (e.g., fauce for false) which imply
“an old rustic language I dare not allow.”31
Aside from a single experiment with such archaisms in the third eclogues of
the Old Arcadia, the allegorical “As I my little flock on Ister Bank” that re-
counts the political philosophy of the Huguenot statesman Hubert Languet,
Sidney grounds his style wholly in the courtly vernacular of Whitehall.32 Such
a vernacular proves apt for “any excellent exercising” of style because it is “a
mingled language” that draws aggressively upon “the best” of its Franco-
Norman and Anglo-Saxon origins. Its compound word formations “near the
Greek, far beyond the Latin” compare favorably with those in the father
tongues of patriarchal culture, medicine and law, and the educational system
that prepares boys for the world of commerce and bureaucracy (). And in
“sweetness” and “majesty” its poetry compares more than favorably with the
Italian, French, Spanish, and Dutch verse that Sidney encountered in diplo-
matic service.33 As tokens of the author’s foreign travel, souvenirs of his pub-
lic activity, these literary remnants of “vulgar languages” abroad had little im-


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

pact upon his day-to-day uses of English at home. In compensation, however,

a pursuit of English verse and the “noble name of learning” allowed Sidney to
fantasize his social distinction through the exercise of art: “Thus doing,
though you be libertino patre natus, you shall suddenly grow Herculea proles”
(‒). The Latin quotations, proof of the writer’s education and signs of his
bid for elevation in rank, effectively convey his position as the son of an unti-
tled father (“libertino patre natus” ‘born of a freeman father,’ from Horace’s
Epodes [..] and Satires [.., ‒]) who craves the distinction of higher
lineage (to be or become a “Herculea proles” ‘descendant of Hercules,’ from
Ovid’s Fasti [.]). The Leicester faction that Sidney so dutifully serves re-
flects his maternal descent, the inheritance of his Dudley ancestry. As I will ar-
gue in chapter , the liberty that he entreats would proclaim his right to be-
queath a would-be title to posterity.
To reclaim his lost authority, Sidney mobilizes the power of language. Ac-
knowledging that English is culturally belated, he makes a virtue of its hybrid
Germanic and Romance roots, “so much the better, taking the best of both the
other” (). He also makes a virtue of its dialectical capacities to dominate
other linguistic forms. English, for example, may be imposed upon the speech
of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales while absorbing revenue from the latter. In his
Discourse on Irish Affairs () Sidney anticipates Edmund Spenser’s argument
in A Vewe of the Present State of Ireland () that the English monarchy could
subdue Ireland by setting the grid of its language upon “their manner of life
wherein they choose rather all filthiness, than any law.”34 On similar grounds
James I, in “An Schort Treatise Concerning Some Reulis and Cautelis to Ob-
servit and Eschewit in Scotis Poesie” (), urges the Scots to assimilate to
their language a more prestigious English idiom from London.35 In A Defence
Sidney deems the most valuable feature of this language its grammatical trans-
parency, its apparent freedom from inflectional restraints: “For grammar it
might have, but it needs it not, being so easy in itself, and so void of those
cumbersome differences of cases, genders, moods, and tenses which I think
was a piece of the Tower of Babylon’s curse” (). In his view its syntactical
self-evidence makes English a perfect vehicle for clarity and persuasion, a po-
litical instrument to tame and conquer the unruly passions of persons and of
nations.36 He neglects to mention that his argument may also lead to the op-
posite conclusion. The presumptive self-evidence and lack of inflectional cues in
English can also unleash ambiguity and confusion, an emptying of grammatical
relations as in Astrophil’s (and later Pamphilia’s) puzzling equivocations.
Such a language in fact typifies the aggregated give-and-take of a busy, pros-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

perous London society that Sidney disdained. In A Defence he scorns its pop-
ular poetry forged by “base men with servile wits . . . who think it enough if
they can be rewarded of the printer” () and its theater (admittedly ca.
‒, just before the efflorescence of Elizabethan drama and likely referring
to amateur performances at Inns of Court), in which tragedy observes the
rules “neither of honest civility nor skilful poetry” () and comedy of “noth-
ing but scurrility” (). He promotes instead a model of courtly eloquence in
which even “smally learned courtiers” beget “a more sound style” than profes-
sional scholars or base commoners (). His comments express the conviction
that a professional managerial class recruited chiefly from the nobility and
working with the Crown at court offers England’s best hope for national con-
solidation and the betterment of the commonwealth. The social, cultural, po-
litical, and historical influence of bourgeois London on the rest of England
could only afford an antithetical standard to which court and Crown would
provide a visionary and more refined alternative.
Still, Sidney cannot deny that as a microcosm of England, London con-
nects the whole in an evolving network of social, cultural political, economic,
and linguistic relationships.37 In the nation’s originary myth it was the site of
Troynovant (New Troy) where Aeneas’ great-grandson, Brut, founded the cap-
ital of his eponymous Britain.38 The sixteenth-century city in turn became a
primary vehicle of nationhood as a center of commerce and culture where
craft and trade companies played important roles in socializing their members
to be or become better citizens.39 Such companies provided three-quarters of
adult males in the city with citizenship rights and a limited political voice, and
their structured organization, next to that of families, afforded a model for
close personal loyalty and embryonic national identity.40 By regulating ap-
prenticeships, they taught young men the skills of a craft or trade and, most
important for national cohesion, the skills of literacy, training them to become
workers, company men, heads of productive households, citizens, Londoners,
and Englishmen. By providing constabularies, they played a regulatory politi-
cal role in resolving craft and trade conflicts, recovering debts, and handling a
wide variety of civil disputes so as to promote order throughout the realm.41
They even played a role in developing the vernacular by offering membership
to aliens and émigrés who could demonstrate competence in English and buy
a license of denizenship to become naturalized citizens.42 But all this goes un-
remarked in the Sidneys’ literary endeavors.
The writings of Philip, Mary, and Robert Sidney, William Herbert, and
Mary Wroth instead express an idealized vision of the nation which totemizes


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

noble families and their allegiance to aristocratic values.43 Philip showed the
way by acting out his romance version of Petrarchan courtiership, frustrated
though he was by being stranded in the lesser nobility without earned title.44
He either immersed himself in courtly ventures as a spokesman for forward-
looking internationalist Protestants, or he detached himself in splendid isola-
tion as a critic of the self-aggrandizement and inadequacies of court life.45
Mary Sidney, countess of Pembroke, attained noble rank through her marriage
to Henry Herbert, and, by publishing her brother’s literary work in , she
strengthened the legacy of his commitment to courtly values.46 Her “little
court” at Wilton, already in Philip’s lifetime a cultural alternative to Whitehall,
continued to function through the early Stuart period as a site of oppositional
patronage dedicated to his program.47 Mary’s son William Herbert became the
third earl of Pembroke in , and through his role as lord chamberlain and
his patronage in the House of Commons he exerted some effect on national
policy.48 Philip and Mary’s brother Robert received the baronage of Penshurst
from James I in  and the title of first earl of Leicester in , honors for
which his poetry, written in the s, may express a covetous desire. Finally,
his daughter, Lady Mary Wroth, married to one of the king’s favored hunting
companions, Sir Robert Wroth, upheld her claim to nobility and her identifi-
cation with the Sidney lineage, despite economic hardship after her husband’s
death in  and despite the censoring of her prose romance Urania upon its
publication.49 Because of the family’s often renegade status with respect to the
monarchy and the court aristocracy, its collective writings across four decades
from the completion of Astrophil and Stella to the publication of Pamphilia to
Amphilanthus offer an unusual perspective from which to assess the permeable
borders of social status and national identity in early modern England.
Sidney’s and Wroth’s Petrarchan sequences reveal their family’s preoccupa-
tion with the moral attributes of elite leadership and consequently with the
process of defining a national character resulting from that leadership. Both
sequences focus on the affective lives of their high-born speakers, and both call
for an astute readership capable of making fine moral distinctions and draw-
ing apt critical conclusions about what it has read. Full of high promise to de-
fend the nation and to protect it from its enemies, Astrophil allows his infat-
uation for Stella to sink his stock, “And by just counts my selfe a banckrout
know / Of all those goods, which heav’n to me have lent” (sonnet ). He is a
would-be courtier whose “great expectation” collapses in a “trail of shame”
(sonnet ). Pamphilia becomes queen of Morea, and her beloved becomes
king of Naples, king of the Romans, and Holy Roman Emperor, but their love


The Site of Petrarchism in England

remains unresolved while they lead their respective kingdoms.50 Against Sid-
ney’s negative representation of Astrophil’s irresponsible behavior, Wroth’s pos-
itive representation of Pamphilia’s forbearance exemplifies royal virtue. The
difference has nothing to do with any essentialized gender differences between
Astrophil’s masculine defiance and Pamphilia’s feminine compliance.51 It
rather involves a status-inflected devotion to higher causes which marks the
lover’s and beloved’s roles in Wroth’s romance as monarchs of their respective
nations.52
Pamphilia to Amphilanthus constitutes a poetic supplement to Wroth’s
prose narrative, and it begs to be read at least partly in the latter’s narrative
context.53 There, at a plausible point of its partial insertion into the story,
Pamphilia grants Amphilanthus’s request for some verses: “She that was the
discreetest fashioned woman, would not deny so small a favor . . . yet blush-
ing told him, she was ashamed, so much of her folly should present her selfe
unto his eyes.”54 Amphilanthus assures her not only of the “excellencies” of her
verse but of “her excelling virtues” as well (First Part ). Pamphilia’s name
means “a lover of all variety,” not in any promiscuous sense but in reference to
her superior caritas (First Part ), and she unites qualities associated with ex-
emplars of virginal chastity and attractive sexuality.55 Destined to marry and
beget a royal heir, she awaits a spouse who must live up to her ideals. A
paragon of moral autonomy, she exposes by contrast the weakness of the man
she loves. Amphilanthus’s name means “the lover of two,” a wicked under-
statement in view of his multiple amatory conquests over Antissa, Musalina,
Lucenia, and finally the princess of Slavonia, whom he marries in the unfin-
ished manuscript. His mishaps with Pamphilia, however, are not all willful.
Military action dictates his absence, and kingly duty requires his espousal to a
foreign princess for the good of his people.56 Amphilanthus is at least loyal to
his royal title.
Urania serves as a commentary on Philip Sidney’s unfinished pastoral ro-
mance Arcadia. Its titular character evokes a shadowy figure with the same
name in the Old Arcadia, a maiden “thought a shepherd’s daughter, but indeed
of far greater birth” (‒).57 In book , chapter , of the New Arcadia she is
associated with the celestial Venus.58 The Urania of Wroth’s romance plays a
less exalted role, in which she sometimes compromises her high ideals through
necessity. Secondary to the action of Pamphilia and Amphilanthus, she serves
as the former’s confidante and is discovered to be her long lost sister.59 In re-
sponse to Pamphilia’s predicament, she urges the heroine to relinquish severe
constancy in favor of expedience:


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

Tis pittie said Vrania, that euer that fruitlesse thing Constancy was taught
you as a vertue, since for vertues sake you will loue it, as hauing true pos-
session of your soule, but vnderstand, this vertue hath limits to hold it in,
being a vertue, but thus that it is a vice in them that breake it, but those
with whom it is broken, are by the breach free to leaue or choose againe
where more staidnes may be found. (First Part )

Pamphilia recoils from this advice. Urania’s practical counsel leavens Pam-
philia’s austerity without compromising her fidelity. She abnegates her feelings
in order to serve the nation that she rules, even as Amphilanthus serves the na-
tion that he rules.60 In the Second Part of the fiction Urania herself concedes
her admiration of Pamphilia, “the worlds glory, the honer earthe had for
worthe and constancie” (Second Part ).
Wroth’s fusion of realism with idealism in her heroine’s personal and polit-
ical governance thus contrasts with the misdirected idealism of Sidney’s ego-
tistical speakers in Astrophil and Stella and Arcadia. Certainly Pamphilia’s sober
assessment of her amatory situation and her queenly duty represents the ob-
verse of Astrophil’s erotic infatuation, and it confers a moral focus upon the
world of Astrophil’s Petrarchan desires. It performs, that is, an exegetical func-
tion like that of the commentaries on Petrarch’s poetry which attempt to de-
fine the lover’s social, cultural, moral, and political situation. In this context
Pamphilia to Amphilanthus corrects Astrophil and Stella in the name of virtue.
Both sequences participate in a discourse on sexual love which intersects with
public concerns. Just as commentaries on the Rime sparse show that the poetic
speaker’s obsessions bear public consequences in the social, cultural, political,
and economic orders, so Wroth’s commentary upon her uncle’s poetry shows
that his speaker’s obsessions have an impact on the world around him.
Astrophil distances himself from the attitudes and assumptions of his peers
even while he indulges in their worst behaviors. Being both courtly and anti-
courtly, he is simultaneously Petrarchan and anti-Petrarchan, and in these re-
spects he functions as a spokesman for his author, who could as well identify
with his persona as stand apart from it. The sequence offers Dichtung with a
basis in Wahrheit. Certainly, Sidney’s coterie readers might draw fleet, funny,
and politically pungent conclusions about the antic overlap between character
and creator.61 This intimacy matters in our assessment of the poetry. It shows
that the author has enough wit and analytical detachment to expose his own
shortcomings and hold them up to self-correction. Both pro and con, Sidney
is a critic of the very system to which he belongs as an insider. Convinced that
the nobility should assist the Crown in courtly rule, he nonetheless criticizes


The Site of Petrarchism in England

its self-indulgent factionalism. Likewise pro and con, Sidney is a critic of the
very Petrarchan poetry that he so brilliantly executes. Convinced that its re-
fined diction and elegant style can serve as models to facilitate and improve
public discourse, he nonetheless reproves its voluptuous luxuriance. Astrophil
and Stella inscribes and encodes for its elite readership a conflict between
Protestant individualism valued as a moral imperative and the corporate alle-
giances required by the emerging nation-state.
Sonnet  of Astrophil and Stella exemplifies these demands. With its direct
echo of Petrarch’s sonnet , “Chi vuol veder quantunque pò Natura” ‘Who-
ever wishes to see how much Nature,’ it inverts and deflates the latter’s argu-
ment with a new moral and ideological turn. Its opening lines designate a
readership with moral responsibility:
Who will in fairest booke of Nature know,
How Vertue may best lodg’d in beautie be,
Let him but learne of Love to reade in thee
Stella, those faire lines, which true goodnesse show.

As we have seen in chapters , , and , Italian commentators such as Vel-

lutello and French translators and imitators such as Marot, Tyard, Ronsard,
and Du Bellay had responded to Petrarch’s sonnet as a self-reflexive statement
of the writer’s purpose. Sidney’s poem takes a contrastive approach by empha-
sizing the reader’s response “in fairest booke of Nature.” Astrophil designates
his audience as those who are receptive to certain aristocratic forms of
“Vertue” and “beautie,” and he sets out to improve their receptivity to a cer-
tain manner of interpreting words in relation to these forms, “to reade in thee /
Stella, those faire lines, which true goodnesse show.” He advocates, that is, not
just a style of writing for the courtly elite but also a style of reading useful to
its leadership. Appealing to readers drawn from titled ranks of the nobility as
well as from untitled sectors of the bureaucratic and professional class, he
would challenge them to share his vision and will and a sense of corporate
identity if not national purposiveness. The ability to read and to write in more
sophisticated ways would provide a foundation for active leadership by this
elite. Hermeneutic skill and expressive dexterity constitute the prerequisites.
Unfortunately, Astrophil fails the test. In the second quatrain he presents
Stella as an ideal worthy of emulation:
There shall he find all vices overthrow,
Not by rude force, but sweetest soveraigntie
Of reason, from whose light those night-birds flie.


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

In the sestet he asserts that she plays this role consciously, not as a passive ob-
ject of admiration but as an active agent that “does strive all minds to move.”
Her impact on him, however, disproves these very claims and diminishes his
credibility: “But ah, Desire still cries, give me some food.” The infatuated lover
only profanes the ideal as he directs it toward his carnal satisfaction. As usual,
Astrophil manages to miss the larger point of his own argument.62
Understood from this perspective, Sidney’s poem evokes a strain of criti-
cism pursued by earlier commentaries on the Rime sparse. In discussing Pe-
trarch’s sonnet , Gesualdo points to the moral flaws of an all too frail, all
too human lover such as Petrarch. In the penultimate lines, “allor dirà che mie
rime son mute, / l’ingegno offeso dal soverchio lume” ‘then he will say that my
rhymes are mute, my wit overcome by the excess of light,’ he compares
Petrarch to “augelli notturni, la cui uista è tanto offesa dal chiaro splendore del
sole, ch’elli non possono d’altro tempo, che di notte uolare” ‘nightbirds whose
eyesight is so assaulted by the bright splendor of the sun that they can fly at no
other time but night’ (CCXCIIIIr). The speaker of Sidney’s poem veers in this
direction when he figures reason as an “inward” sun “from whose light those
nightbirds flie,” unwittingly correlating himself with those birds in the final
line, “give me some food.”63 The aviary figure, absent from Petrarch but
echoing from Gesualdo’s gloss, suggests that Sidney, like Gesualdo, is exposing
the speaker’s folly. Astrophil sinks under the weight of his incomprehension.
The Italian commentator emphasizes Petrarch’s careful coupling of Laura’s
spiritual and temporal excellence, “ quanto alle cose humane, & il
 quanto alle cose celesti diuine” ‘nature in relation to human concerns
and heaven in relation to divine concerns,’ and his condemnation of the ob-
server “che non discerne il buono dal reo” ‘who does not distinguish good
from bad’ (CCXCIIIIr). But these are associations that Astrophil does not
make when he cries for hedonistic nourishment. He belongs entirely to Pe-
trarch’s “mondo cieco” ‘blind world.’
Astrophil has seriously misread Petrarch. Even the poem’s formal effects dis-
play his misreading and summon the bystander to critical judgment. In the
octave, for example, the meter shifts almost imperceptibly from iambic to
trochaic and requires the reader’s mental adjustment just at the point at which
Astrophil challenges his listeners to “reade” Stella as a text—“Lét him but
leárne of Lóve to reáde in thée / Stélla, those fáire lines, which trúe goódnesse
shów”—and again when Astrophil speaks of “all víces óverthrów, / Nót by rúde
fórce, but swéetest sóveraigntie.” In the sestet Astrophil’s verse limps from off-
rhymes in move/love and “good/food.64 Although it is true that we can never ex-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

actly know Elizabethan pronunciation, the orthography of flie in line  evokes

fly (concurring with Gesualdo’s uolare) as another off-rhyme and visual pun
that clashes with the sound of flee specified by soveraignty. Under the spell of
its forward rhythm some readers—perhaps most—might apprehend the text
visually as one set of signs while hearing or understanding it as quite another.
For these readers the text could profit from some helpful commentary.
Still, Astrophil spurns the very idea of such commentary. He scoffs at those
who “with allegories curious frame, / Of others children changlings use to
make,” associating their criticism with foreign intervention: “The raines of
Love I love, though never slake, / And joy therein, though Nations count it
shame” (sonnet ). Against those who would cite his Petrarchan echoes, he
famously proclaims his literary independence that “I am no pick-purse of an-
others wit,” though he prides himself upon his poetic reception at court,
where, despite a forceful enjambment that interrupts the flow, he brags that
“what I speake doth flow / In verse, and that my verse best wits doth please”
(sonnet ).
In his jeremiad against literary theft and critical commentary, Astrophil de-
rides two sorts of Petrarchan verse and commentary available in late-sixteenth-
century England. The first is represented by Thomas Watson, who in the hun-
dred poems of his Hecatompathia () translated whole passages from
Petrarch and Continental Petrarchists and framed them with elaborate head-
notes in the manner of Italian commentators.65 Circulating in manuscript be-
fore its publication and appearing in print when Astrophil and Stella was near-
ing completion, the Hekatompathia had an impact on Sidney’s conception of
lyric. Watson’s sequence fashions the persona of a speaker different from that
of the poet. Its suggestion of a narrative structure introduces techniques that
Sidney and other poets would later refine. And its precise headnotes cite texts
from ancient Greek and Latin as well as more recent French and Italian au-
thors in the Petrarchan mode.
In their citation of foreign sources, influences, and analogues, these head-
notes evoke a sense of national awareness with regard to English culture. Wat-
son’s volume opens with commendatory verses in Latin by “C. Downhalus”
which remark sourly upon the perceived excellence of French and Italian po-
etry and which passionately proclaim the need for a countervailing English
poetry: “Sola qui[d] interea nullum paris Anglia vatem? / Versifices multi,
nemo poeta tibi est” ‘Why does England alone beget no poet? You possess
many versifiers, but no poet.” In sonnets that follow, Watson proposes to en-
rich England’s poetry with models from other nations. But Astrophil refuses


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

to emulate this approach as he abjures “inventions fine” of other poets (sonnet

), precedents of “daintie wits” and “Pindares Apes” in other texts (sonnet ),
the “wot not what” of amatory convention, “Aganippe Well,” and “shade of
Tempe” (sonnet ), and of course the model of “poore Petrarchs long deceased
woes” (sonnet ). Even his view toward literary and linguistic models affirms
his peculiar sense of both courtly and anti-courtly styles. The joke is that As-
trophil unavoidably asserts ready-made Petrarchan figurations and contrari-
eties in the teeth of his own denials.66
The second sort of commentary that Astrophil derides is represented by the
most famous and successful anthology of Elizabethan verse. Richard Tottel’s
miscellany of Songes and Sonnettes, written by the ryght honorable Lorde Henry
Haward the late Earle of Surrey, and others () includes translations and
adaptations of Petrarch by Thomas Wyatt as well as Surrey. To these poems
Tottel appends headnotes that contextualize the implied action in real or
imagined dramas of passion, intrigue, foolish preoccupation, and cruel be-
trayal. Such formulations as “the louer being made thrall by loue, perceieth
how great a losse is libertye” (poem ) and “The abused Louer seeth his folly,
and enthendeth to trust no more” (poem ) offer reflective appraisals and
practical lessons to admonish and instruct readers.67 In desperate need of ap-
plying this commentary to his own situation, Astrophil casts it aside. Instead
of proving himself to be wiser, more prudent, and better adjusted than his Pe-
trarchan predecessors, he shows himself to be fatuous, self-centered, and im-
pervious to constructive criticism.
In the preface to Thomas Newman’s pirated first quarto edition of Astrophil
and Stella (), Thomas Nashe located the outcome upon a “scene of idiots”
in which “the tragicomedy of love is performed by starlight. . . . The argument
cruel chastity, the prologue hope, the epilogue dispair.”68 Sidney no doubt
counts upon the perspicacity of his readers to make the same assessment. He
composed his poetry for an elite readership and likely for a coterie so inti-
mately acquainted with him that it could laugh at the semblance between As-
trophil’s follies and his own affairs. Certainly he exercised a tighter control
over the manuscript circulation of Astrophil and Stella than he did over that of
his Old Arcadia and political writings, as though to guard its intimate, even
scandalous, revelations and perhaps to withhold such “toys and trifles” because
of doubt about their ultimate value.69 The great irony is that its piracy in 
ignited enormous curiosity beyond court, and its authorized publication in
 made a sensational impact upon a wide readership whose members had
no direct dealings with its author. Not the least consequence of its circulation


The Site of Petrarchism in England

in London households and the estates of provincial gentry was that it legiti-
mated a certain level of style and a particular form of language, connecting
powerfully with a sense of national cultural identity at the end of Elizabeth’s
reign.
As an inheritor of such style in her own sonnet sequence and pastoral ro-
mance, Mary Wroth appropriates some of the ideological underpinnings of
her uncle’s poetry but rejects others. Just as his poetry stages a conflict between
courtly and anti-courtly values, so hers manages a conflict between old-family
Sidney values and her loyalty to the new social status conferred upon her as
Lady Wroth. Her Pamphilia does not distance herself willfully from others as
Astrophil does, but she certainly exists apart from them. The reason is that she
is a queen and is therefore distinguished absolutely from those of lesser rank.
That was Wroth’s fantasy, just as Sidney’s fantasy was his aspiration to a titled
nobility that he did not possess by birth. The keyword liberty which figures so
prominently in the poetry of both conveys the sense of a right to title or inher-
itance which nobility entails but also a right to freedom and self-determination
associated with family lineage.70 Whereas Sidney found himself defending his
private rights and public liberties against policies of the Crown and Elizabeth’s
advisors, Wroth came to project at best a noble indifference to the Crown as
she pursued her own affairs independently of king and court.
Wroth’s conflict mirrors a linguistic disorder in the public realm when the
first part of Urania and Pamphilia to Amphilanthus appeared in print in .
That year saw a breakdown in James I’s relations with Parliament, a crisis that
both parties interpreted as the result of failures in verbal communication. The
early victories of the Catholic League in the Thirty Years War had sent James’s
daughter Elizabeth and her husband, Frederick, the recently crowned king of
Bohemia, into exile from Prague in . Deepening economic depression, ris-
ing inflation, and popular discontent spawned criticism of the king’s profli-
gacy. When James summoned Parliament in January , his lord chancellor,
Francis Bacon, warned of dissolution through “the general licentious speaking
of state matters.”71 The House of Commons nonetheless proved conciliatory
in agreeing to the king’s financial requests, and on  March it received from
him a commendation of its goodwill: “Wee were like the Builders of Babell . . .
But hereafter I hope all things wilbe soe cleare betwixt us.”72 On  May, how-
ever, the House of Lords removed from office James’s most eloquent defender
of royal prerogative, the same Francis Bacon, who had lobbied to regulate
public speech toward a standard of order and clarity which would exemplify
royal control.


 Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

James’s faith in the possibility of a discourse purged of refractory syntax and

contentious semantics gave way the following December, when the Lower
House petitioned for a war on Spain. To the king’s veto the Commons re-
sponded by reasserting “the ancient liberty of Parliament for freedom of
speech . . . , the same being our ancient and undoubted right and inheritance
received from our ancestors,” iterating its protestation nine days later by claim-
ing “freedom of speech” as “an ancient and undoubted birthright and inheri-
tance of the subjects of England.”73 James subsequently attacked Parliament’s
exercise of “ambiguous and general words” against his right to adjudicate
“deep matters” and “mysteries of state.” From a contemporaneous perspective
this conflict might have appeared a war of words, a polarization of rival lin-
guistic claims between a rhetoric of plainness and transparency, on the one
hand, and a rhetoric of wonder and astonishment, on the other. Nowhere did
the polarization appear more acute than in the language of James I himself,
who upbraided Parliament for its failure to avoid ambiguities while taking his
own refuge in the privilege of arcana imperii.
James could execute his sovereign authority by heeding Francis Bacon’s call
for linguistic clarity only insofar as he might also retain certain strategic ex-
emptions from it. In the eyes of the aristocracy such exceptions are admissible
when the king directs his power against foreigners or commoners or the law-
lessness of mob rule but not when he uses it to violate prerogatives of the ti-
tled nobility. Against royal infringement and populist encroachment, the no-
bility hostile to James insisted upon an older feudalist discourse of privilege.
But in so doing it found itself entrapped in the same rhetorical tensions be-
tween wonder and transparency which had bedeviled the king in .
The characters of Urania exemplify this tension. Their external actions in
the name of love and communal obligations are those of a courtly aristocracy
not entirely sure of its destiny. In the end a vacillation between clarity and ob-
scurity in their language and rhetoric bedevils the characters as they sacrifice
their clear-sighted declaration of love to the needs—usually undetermined
and indeterminate—of a populace dependent upon them. Wroth’s equation of
aristocratic values with a commitment to the common good confers upon the
monarch a power and authority to express and amplify a supraregional, even
national, voice. But it also identifies the nobility as guardians of the nation’s
interests against those of a potentially overly powerful and authoritarian
monarch. It finally requires that these guardians of the nation support their
monarch as long the latter’s policy remains just and wise.74 At a time when the
concept of the “nation” was increasingly associated with that of the “people,”


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Wroth’s narrative strongly contests the idea that mob rule takes priority over
the rule of a monarch strengthened by a supportive nobility.
In Plato’s Statesman Socrates had argued on behalf of “full authority for a
man who understands the art of kingship and has kingly ability” (a). The
latter can compensate with equity for the rigidity of an impersonal and inflex-
ible law by assigning rewards and punishments to fit individual cases. Wroth’s
poetry and fiction follows the precedent of her Sidneian forebears in urging
noble magistrates to guide the king toward such equity. Her speaker’s voice
models that of the nation as it offers examples to imitate. It values knowledge
and wisdom as prerequisites for practice and action. Virtue becomes a matter
of knowing what is good so that one may then act upon it. But such knowl-
edge and its consequences were never so simple as Bacon, the House of Com-
mons, the king, or the nobility imagined—or pretended to imagine. Like the
poetry and fiction of Philip Sidney, that of Wroth uncovers complexity and
obliquity at the heart of knowing and doing.
Wroth’s Petrarchism exemplifies her speaker’s conflict in a particularly pow-
erful way. Unconcerned about the culpability of her desires and confident
about being able to subdue her erotic urges, Pamphilia represses her instinct
for revenge upon the unfaithful Amphilanthus when she realizes that her jeal-
ousy threatens the social order. She then tempers her emotional responses even
to the point of self-abnegation and self-denial. The foolish hero of Astrophil
and Stella presents a negative social example to which the unrequited heroine
of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus offers a positive response, but the resolution
takes place not without conflict. The courtly values endorsed in Wroth’s se-
quence represent the nobility as guardians of the people. But what happens
when the discipline to which these values exhort those guardians propels them
upon an independent course of action? What happens when the interior illu-
mination that they promote generates a merely prosthetic sense of worth, lead-
ing successive generations to view their inherited status with revisionary dis-
comfort or despair? What happens to the growing sense of individual
autonomy and private interiority when it is displaced from networks of house-
hold and kin which formerly nourished it, to be redirected toward an uncer-
tain future invested in the idea of nationhood? Pamphilia to Amphilanthus
poses these questions and works toward answers in the light of a Petrarchism
made ever more complex by the commentaries that addressed it.


 9 Family Narratives
The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

Astrophil and Stella likely dates from a period just after the eighteen-year-old
Penelope Devereux’s marriage to Lord Rich on  November .1 Mindful of
the peerage to which he aspired, the author imagines an adulterous affair with
this young woman, a daughter of the first earl of Essex, considered for mar-
riage with him in  to end their fathers’ rivalry.2 In  her mother, Lettice
Knollys, widow of the first earl of Essex, married Sidney’s uncle and the queen’s
favorite, the earl of Leicester, in a scandalous secrecy that incurred the queen’s
disfavor. Sidney’s modern biographers concur that Philip, long avid for a pres-
tigious match, no doubt regretted his decision not to marry into this family
when he later realized how powerful such a union of the Leicester-Essex lines
could have been.3 The later marriage of his widow, Frances Walsingham, to
Robert Devereux, the second earl of Essex, and Devereux’s naming of his own
sister, the same Penelope, as an instigator of his rebellion against the Crown in
 confirm the inbred loyalties and personal allegiances of this circle.
Lady Mary Wroth belongs to this circle. As a niece of Philip and Mary, she
bore the Sidney-Dudley-Leicester heritage on her father’s and paternal grand-
mother’s side, along with its devotion to family and the cause of preserving
Philip’s memory as a Protestant martyr. James I named her father baron of
Penshurst in May , thereby fulfilling the dream of his father Henry Sid-
ney, who refused that honor for financial reasons in .4 Robert Sidney sub-
sequently advanced in estate in August , when he inherited the title of his
uncle, the earl of Leicester, thus reclaiming the fortunes of his mother, Mary
Dudley, daughter of the duke of Northumberland.5 Mary Sidney had mean-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

while acquired the title of countess through her marriage to the earl of Pem-
broke in .
Mary Sidney’s interest in national affairs followed upon her marriage to
Pembroke, and it bears directly upon her subsequent literary activity, including
her translations of Petrarch’s Triumph of Death (); Robert Garnier’s Senecan
drama Marc-Antoine, which she published as Antonius in  and again as The
Tragedie of Antonie in ; and Psalms, completing the work begun by Philip
Sidney (published ). Her translation of Marc-Antoine as “closet drama” has
direct political implications.6 Robert Garnier (‒), a Gallican royalist who
served both Charles IX and Henry III as chief judicial magistrate for the Maine
province at Le Mans, wrote several historical plays on Greco-Roman and bibli-
cal themes, mindful of dramatic parallels between their troubled times and his
own after the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre which Philip Sidney directly
witnessed ( August ). Designed to be read or recited rather than per-
formed as theater, Marc-Antoine (published in Paris in ) recounts the civil
war between Antony and Octavius amid Cleopatra’s efforts to save her crown.
Its contemporary relevance seems clear. If dissolute Antonius almost certainly
figures the debauched Henri III, the sober Octavius might figure the king’s
younger, more competent brother, François duc d’Anjou, currently on a cam-
paign to free the Netherlands from Spain and, since , a candidate for mar-
riage to Elizabeth I.7 The conflict pits the protagonists’ amatory loyalties against
their political allegiances and patriotic sentiments: “For her have I forgone my
Country,” Antony admits in the play’s first scene (‒), while in act  Cleopa-
tra laments the humiliation of “loosing my Realme, loosing my libertie” ().8
How might Mary Sidney relate the play’s action to the predicament of her
own nation in ? Cleopatra is a vulnerable female monarch (Elizabeth?)
pressed between a besotted lover (Essex?) and an efficient rival ruler (Philip
II?). Octavius might be seen both in malo and in bono as either a threat to or
a salvation for Cleopatra and her kingdom.9 The duc d’Anjou no longer
counted as a suitor for Elizabeth in the s, but, since the imperial might of
Spain and the papacy continued to imperil England and Protestant Europe, a
portrayal of Octavius in malo might evoke the threat of the Spanish Empire
and of Rome. A different portrayal of Octavius in bono might evoke Leicester’s
Protestant League intent upon ending England’s isolation by forging an al-
liance with Protestant powers on the Continent, a sort of Protestant Empire
designed to counter Philip’s Spanish Empire.
The complicating factor is Antony’s and Cleopatra’s love for each other,
represented in the play as the shameful product of “errour and obstinacie”


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

which “with so strong charmes doth love bewitch our witts” (, ). Fol-
lowing Garnier, Mary Sidney incorporates Petrarchan figures and tropes into
the play’s rhetorical set pieces to signal the lovers’ helpless passion and debili-
tating surrender to it.10 In the turning point of act , when Cleopatra con-
ceives her disastrous plan to manipulate Antony with a false report of her
death, her messenger describes her allure in a fourteen-line set piece that ap-
proximates a Petrarchan sonnet subdivided into an octave (her physical charms)
and a sestet (her affective charms).11 Mary Sidney accentuates the Petrarchan
figurations with a teasing off-rhyme that yields to a strong alliterative couplet:

Her beamie eies, two Sunnes of this our world,

Of hir faire haire the fine and flaming golde,
Her brave streight stature, and hir winning partes
Are nothing else but fiers, fetters, dartes.
La clairté de ses yeux, deux soleils de ce monde,
Le fin or rayonnant dessur sa tresse blonde,
Sa belle taille droitte, et ses frians attraits,
Ne sont que feux ordans, que cordes, et que traits.
(‒)12

Not only does the translation of faire haire catch the hint of Garnier’s internal
rhyme (yeux/deux), but its syntactic parallels in the final line correlate with the
original figures in exact precision. With chameleonic skill Sidney adapts Pe-
trarchan forms to a variety of genres that initially diverge from one another:
biblical, dramatic, lyrical, meditational, philosophical, and discursive.
Mary Wroth likewise adapts Petrarchan forms to alien genres that seem ini-
tially to resist them. Her pastoral drama Love’s Victory (s?), for example, es-
chews obvious Petrarchan figurations despite its focus on the amatory tribula-
tions of four pairs of lovers and their several rivals.13 In the crisis of its fifth act,
however, the hero Philisses laments the plan of his beloved Musella’s mother to
thwart their marriage. His fourteen-line set piece resembles a Petrarchan son-
net cast in couplets. In what corresponds to the octave Philisses urges Musella
to suppress her grief: “Then heape nott now more sorrows on my hart, / By
thes deere tears which tast of endles smart” (..‒).14 In the sestet portion
he encourages her to remain true to him in spirit: “Yett lett your love in mee
still steddy rest, / And in that I sufficiently am blest” (‒). Although not the
complaint of an unrequited Petrarchan lover, Philisses’ lament approximates
the structural order of a Petrarchan sonnet.
Mary Sidney’s most durable contribution to English national sentiment is


The Site of Petrarchism in England

her completion of Philip’s translation of Psalms. By  he had rendered forty-

three Psalms from the Vulgate and possibly Septuagint texts in a variety of me-
ters and rhyme schemes designed to improve upon the poetic qualities of ear-
lier translations by Sternhold and Hopkins (), Coverdale’s Great Bible (;
used in the Book of Common Prayer after ), the Geneva Bible (), and
the Bishop’s Bible of Matthew Parker ().15 After Philip’s death Mary took
over, distributing her work across sixteen manuscripts with countless revisions
that reflect her own independence in metrical forms, figurative structures, and
rhetorical voice.16 Although only two of her translations deploy the sonnet
rhyme scheme (for the strategically placed Psalms  and ), the texture of
the whole bears the imprint of Petrarchism.17 Not the least of its Petrarchan
markers is its mise-en-scène. Like the poetry of sixteenth-century sonneteers,
that of Psalms unfolds in a courtly setting that brims with issues of sex, poli-
tics, and national destiny. Or so it might seem to readers who referred it to the
life of its assumed composer, David, as recounted in the Books of Samuel.18
In France the Psalms had become battle cries for militant Protestant ac-
tivists after having been interpreted as responses to events in the troubled
times of the shepherd king David by such translators as Clément Marot
(‒) and such commentators as Martin Bucer (‒), Jean Calvin
(; English version by Arthur Golding in ), and Théodore Beza (;
English version by Anthony Gilby in ).19 At the end of the century Henri
de Navarre could figure in the Huguenot imagination as a modern David
slandered, persecuted, and oppressed by his political enemies. This figuration
likewise befits the Protestant queen of England, to whom Mary Sidney dedi-
cated her translation in .20 Elizabeth’s own youthful rendition of Psalm 
provides a model in its call for help against ungodly foes, allowing later read-
ers to identify Goliath with the pope and Saul with her Catholic predecessor,
Mary Tudor, or her Catholic rival for the throne, Mary Stuart. In this highly
charged atmosphere Psalms provides a nationalistic anthem that depicts the
cohesion of a beleaguered people united by a threatened monarch in the
strength of their religious faith. In Psalm .‒, for example, the first poem
in Mary’s continuation of her brother’s project, Jerusalem figures as the one
true city and Israel as the one true nation where “proverb-like our name is
worne, / O how fast in foraine places.”21 The analogues of London and Eng-
land (or, as it would appear in the Stuart era, an amalgamated Britain with its
scripturally evocative northern and southern kingdoms, Scotland and Eng-
land) as a united new Jerusalem and Israel proved irresistible, however much
politicized by doctrinal dispute amid the birth pangs of reform.22


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

To Protestant believers the exemplary, propaedeutic destiny of Britain as an

example for other nations might have seemed foreordained.23 Elizabeth’s soon-
to-be successor, James I, capitalized upon this national sentiment at the start
of his reign. At the Hampton Court Conference of bishops and Puritan lead-
ers in January  he proposed a new translation of the Bible, and at his first
Parliament in March  he proposed a Union of England and Scotland in
the United Kingdoms of Great Britain.24 The two proposals were connected
in James’s imagination. The English Church, anchored in the authority of its
bishops and their interpretation of Scripture, would be or become a national-
izing force that might seal and sustain this union.25 Such ecclesiastical politics
proved agreeable to the nobility and the lower classes, especially as it promised
to exercise control over a confused church and provide a secular counter to the
disturbingly theocratic impulses of a growing Puritan bourgeoisie. It appealed
to the clergy as well by promoting them as instruments for the king’s vision of
a corporate nation.
The translation of Psalms in the King James Bible registers just such a vi-
sion in which the local and regional idea of nation in the Geneva text gives
way to an expansive idea of it as a large-scale, translocal, supraregional politi-
cal entity. Philip and Mary Sidney’s translation of Psalms, with its modified
Petrarchan diction and Petrarchan figuration, appears as a transition between
these ideas. In the King James version of Psalm ., for example, the con-
nective and implies that the nation and its people are one, united under a king
in a centralized system of rule: “Blessed is the nation [to ethnos / gens] whose
God is the ; and the people [to laos / populus] whome he hath chosen for
his own.” In the Geneva version, however, the word euen implies a disjunction
between the nation and its people, undercutting kingly power so as to suggest
that God directs both king and people independently of each other: “Blessed
is that nacion whose God is the Lord: euen the people that he hathe chosen for
his own inheritance.” The Geneva commentary reinforces this idea of God’s
absolute governance: “Kings and the mightie of the worlde can not be saued
by worldelie meanes, but onely by Gods prouidence.” Philip Sidney’s transla-
tion retains the connective even, but for nation it substitutes Realme, literally
“the king’s estate” (French royaume) which noblemen protect by serving as the
king’s warriors. In this way Sidney implies the contribution of the military no-
bility to public policy:
That Realme indeede hath blisse
Whose God he is,
Who him for their Lord take:


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Even people that, ev’n those,

Whom this Lord chose
His heritage to make.
(.‒)
In the King James version of Psalm . the concrete verb fall down before
expresses the self-abasement of foreign kings before the divinely anointed
monarch of a mighty nation: “Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all na-
tions [ta ethnē / gentes] shall serve him.” In the Geneva version the abstract
worship lends a liturgical significance to the action, reflecting God’s will: “Yea,
all Kings shal worship him: all nations shall serue him.” Of “this godlie King”
(identified as Solomon, the son and heir of psalmic David) the Geneva com-
mentary instructs that “God wil bothe prosper his life, & also make the people
willing to obeie him,” as though the subjects’ compliance were wholly in God’s
hands. Mary Sidney’s translation likewise associates the nation with the most
prominent members of such a polity, those who “stand / At [kings’] command,”
not all the common people or even all the gentry and nobility but only those of
the very highest rank who assist the king in carrying out God’s will:
Nay all, ev’n all
Shall prostrate fall,
That crownes and scepters weare:
And all that stand
At their command,
That crownes and scepters beare.
(.‒)
The Psalmist’s idea of a threatened nation protected by its warrior class
would have meant a great deal to Mary Wroth as daughter of the baron of
Penshurst and second earl of Leicester. Such titles were esteemed by a family
that had been denied them by Elizabeth. By the time James awarded them, the
family perhaps overvalued these symbolic associations, though it did not suc-
cumb to their allure as many Stuart appointees did. Even after Wroth’s mar-
riage in  and her absorption into Queen Anne’s circle at court, she took
pains to preserve the legacy of her Sidneian independence. Echoes of her fa-
ther’s, aunt’s, and uncle’s texts abound in her work. In all these forebears Pe-
trarchism plays an important role, not least for its power to adapt and to
merge with scriptural verse, dramatic monologue, meditational poetry, and
Ovidian elegy.
Wroth’s father provided her link to the past. Like Philip Sidney, Robert de-
voted his talents to public service, talents that, like those of his brother, in-


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

cluded poetic composition. Just as Philip likely wrote his sonnets in the frus-
tration of being ostracized, so Robert likely wrote his about  when, as gov-
ernor of Flushing, he sought but was denied a return to court and an office in
England.26 And, just as Philip’s sequence refers to the courtly world in which
a sovereign object of desire manipulates her subjects with feigned love, so does
Robert’s. The latter’s songs and sonnets (‒?) narrate a lover’s response to
his beloved’s betrayals in which the names of the speaker and beloved are iden-
tified as Rosis (bert dney) and Lysa (beth) in Pastoral Song .27 Not
simply disdainful or unyielding, she has been actively untruthful and repeat-
edly injurious. He responds with self-pity and indignation. In sonnet , “Ah
deerest lims my lifes best ioy and stay / how must I thus let yow bee cutt from
mee,” for example, he renounces his unfaithful beloved and compares himself
as to a sick man who bids farewell to his amputated limbs, “full of dead Gan-
greins.” He sees very clearly that he must give up part of himself in order to
preserve the rest, “whose death of part health of the rest must bee.” He must
either relinquish Lysa or putrefy: “Alas my loue from no infections free, / like
law doth giue of it or my decay.” The figure takes on a macabre resonance in
light of the gangrenous demise of the author’s brother at Zutphen. Within the
bounds of the Sidney family, Robert amputates from his own poetry his
brother’s witty, sly, ironies about the lover’s complicity in the beloved’s fault or
his blindness to her deceit.
Repeating the conventions of adulterous love established in Astrophil and
Stella, Robert Sidney’s sonnets offer at least in part a critique of the sexual li-
cense allowed to a libidinous male in the upper reaches of Elizabethan society.
This license, one sanctioned laterally among a polycentric international aris-
tocracy, might seem a hypothetical compensation for other sorts of discipline
urged upon the ruling class at school, at court, in war, and in administrative
service to the state and nation.28 Still, its real consequences might well jeopar-
dize the vertical benefits of such service at home and abroad. Robert Sidney’s
sonnets show the depth of this crisis. In sonnet  the lover reproaches Lysa for
appearing to “take pleasure in your cruelty,” but he nonetheless submits to her
domination “Since that there is all inequality . . . / Between my bands and your
sovereignty.” Like the amatory tribulations of Astrophil or long-deceased Pe-
trarch, his come to figure as the just desserts of a self-indulgence that is drain-
ing vitality from the nation’s elite. In sonnet , for example, Rosis anticipates
“a safe thogh homely rest” when he renounces Lysa, but he does not in fact re-
turn “home.” No sooner does he declare his leave-taking than she repents, and
he slips back into his “old bonds.” And, after making “for amends, large


The Site of Petrarchism in England

promises,” she reverts to her old devices. Rosis is foolish for complaining,
“trusting on so fayre words, yowr word yow brake,” in which the strategically
misplaced participial phrase can refer either to him as a deceived lover or to
Lysa as a deceiving beloved. Betrayer and betrayed bleed into one as a symp-
tom of their self-absorption.
Mary Wroth’s sonnets register the overcoming of such pain through re-
course to elevated constancy. As her father excised from his poetry the mis-
chievous gaiety of Astrophil and Stella, she eliminates from hers the cynical
gloom and overripe weariness of his. Although Pamphilia to Amphilanthus
deals with the beloved’s repeated infidelities, its speaker refuses to revile him.
As in Petrarch’s Rime sparse, but from the conflicted perspective of her role as
queen, Pamphilia idealizes her beloved. Her turn toward Petrarchism plays out
possibilities of sublimating the erotic drive just as Petrarch’s Rime sparse had
done, so that her amatory experiences stake out a positive site to exemplify
virtue. Wroth looks to her father’s and uncle’s representations of adulterous
love, and she recoils from their negative implications.
Toward the end of the sequence one striking example of inversion occurs in
Wroth’s series of fourteen poems constructed as a “Crowne of Sonnets Dedi-
cated to Love” (P‒), in which the last line of each sonnet becomes the
first line of the next and the final line of the entire group repeats its opening
line. In relational terms the series recalls a similarly structured “crown” begun
by Robert Sidney. There the topic that unites his series of four poems (sonnets
 to , with the fragment of a fifth, poem ) is the speaker’s confession of in-
constancy and his plea of having willed it for the best: “Ah let not mee, for
changing blame indure / whoe onely changd, by chang to finde the best” (son-
net ). While this crown dramatizes the spiraling descent of a carnal love,
Wroth’s dramatizes her speaker’s effort to elevate her love.29 His describes a
sensual labyrinth with the raging Minotaur at its center, but hers describes a
spiritual one, though with an outcome not self-evidently resolved. The custo-
dians of the labyrinth were, after all, lustful women, the unchaste Pasiphae and
the passionate Ariadne, problematic models for Wroth’s Pamphilia.
Wroth’s “Crowne of Sonnets” appropriately evokes Petrarch’s figure of the
labyrinth in its first and last lines, supplying a frame for the series: “In this
strang labourinth how shall I turne?”30 The model derives from Petrarch’s son-
net , “Voglia mi sprona, Amor mi guida et scorge” ‘Desire spurs me, Love
guides and escorts me,’ whose speaker finds himself unwilling or unable to ex-
tricate himself: “Nel laberinto intrai, né veggio ond’esca” ‘I entered the
labyrinth, nor do I see where I may get out of it.’ Entered on the historical


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

date of  April , the site affords a concrete emblem of the lover’s personal
and poetic predicament.31 In at least one commentary, however, the figure
evokes positive and productive features of love’s possibilities. Gesualdo
stretches the context of Petrarch’s poem when he refers to an unpublished
Neoplatonic discourse on love by Minturno: “Ma il laberintho d’amore, é di
magisterio diuino come dal Minturno dipinto sia” ‘But the labyrinth of love is
part of divine teaching, as it is portrayed by Minturno’ (cclxiir). Unlike decep-
tive labyrinths, this one opens new paths for the lover to progress toward tran-
scendent love, thereby countering the maze of sensuality contemned in the
Rime sparse.
Wroth’s “Crowne of Sonnets” exploits these conflicting interpretations. It
narrates a series of transactions between perceiving the labyrinth in malo as a
site of amatory doubt, suspicion, and turmoil and experiencing it in bono as a
site of wholly sublimated, fully achieved love.32 When the series opens, its
speaker sees perils that could impede her progress: “Wayes are on all sids while
the way I miss” (sonnet  [P]). As she proceeds, she takes hold of a “thread
of love / Which line straite leads unto the soules content” (sonnet  [P]), and
she arrives at the interior, where “content of lovers wittniseth true love” (son-
net  [P]).33 As Pamphilia follows this thread, she takes on the part of The-
seus, inverting gendered expectations that might conventionally assign this
heroic role to Amphilanthus and the hapless role of Ariadne to her. The in-
version works two ways. On the one hand, it confers upon Pamphilia a degree
of masculine-identified boldness that signals her willingness to confront Love’s
challenge head on. On the other, it exposes her liability to the usually mascu-
line-identified spasms of jealousy and suspicion which might afflict her male
counterpart.34 Sonnet  sets up this conflict as the speaker ponders the direc-
tion she should take: “If to the right hand, there in love I burn; / . . . If to the
left, suspicion hinders bliss.” In the end Pamphilia adduces a heightened sense
of fulfillment for having crossed the labyrinth, though not without professing
a genuine confusion: “Soe though in Love I fervently doe burne, / In this
strange labourinth how shall I turne?” (sonnet  [P]).
Wroth’s preference for an affirmative model of the labyrinth owes much to
alternative accounts of Petrarchan love registered in the commentaries. The
Petrarchan model there provides Wroth a holding pattern, an emotional pro-
totype, and a transitional space for her own development, enabling her to
fashion her public voice while sharing a poetic form with members of her
family. In his “Family Romance” Freud remarks that such bonds of affection
constitute “an expression of the child’s longing for the happy, vanished days


The Site of Petrarchism in England

when his father seemed . . . the noblest and strongest of men and his mother
the dearest and lovliest of women” (Works .). I would argue that Wroth’s
Petrarchism revisits the source of her father’s and her uncle’s poetic achieve-
ments in the Petrarchan mode and confers a sublimated value upon their ex-
pressions of affect and longing.
With its expansive sense of interior time and recovered space Wroth’s son-
net , first series (P), “The weary traveller who tired sought,” affords an in-
structive contrast to Robert Sidney’s sonnet , “The endless Alchymist, with
blinded will.” Both evoke a Petrarchan model with important sixteenth-
century commentaries. Sidney’s Rosis compares himself to an alchemist who
tirelessly “feeds his thoughts with hopes, his hopes on shows / And more his
worke proves vain, more eager grows.” The object of his quest, “dreams of
gold,” proves “false trust of wealth,” but yet he admits to “sail on still, / While
my corrupted sense doth think it sees / The long-sought land of rest.” By con-
trast, Wroth’s Pamphilia compares herself to a “weary traveller” (male, in a
conscious negation of her own gender) who seeks an end “of paine, or labour”
and finally attains it when “with joy” he is “to his home back brought.” Ac-
cording to the terms of this comparison, Pamphilia attains the “greatest hap-
ines” when she comes upon “beleef for fayth.” The apparent cause of her un-
ease has been some “wrong conseite” of rumor or malicious gossip against her.
In the opening lines of sonnet , first series (P), “Led by the powre of griefe,
to waylings brought,” the speaker hints darkly that she has been slandered “by
faulce consiete of change fall’ne on my part.” Now in the concluding couplet
of sonnet  she announces that “wrong conseite” has given way to the “ac-
knowledg’d” truth of her constancy: “Truth saith t’was wrong conseite bred
my despite / Which once acknowledg’d, brings my harts delight.”
A model for this topos of the traveler comes from Petrarch’s sonnet ,
“Movesi il vecchierel canuto et bianco / Del dolce loco ov’à sua età fornita”
‘The little white-haired pale old man leaves the sweet place where he has filled
out his age.’ At first sight the parallel might seem dubious. Petrarch uses the
figure to compare the speaker’s longing for Laura to a pilgrim’s pursuit of
Christ’s image on Veronica’s veil. The long slow rhythm of Petrarch’s opening
lines, the weight of m and n sounds in its second quatrain (“indi trahendo poi
l’antico fianco / Per l’extreme giornate di sua vita” ‘thence dragging his ancient
flanks through the last days of his life’), and the quickening pace in its first ter-
cet as the old man approaches Rome and the sacred object of his pilgrimage
(“Et viene a Roma, seguendo ’l desio” ‘And he comes to Rome following his
desire’) echo the protagonist’s arduous movement. The word desio connects


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

this old man and Petrarch’s speaker. Both are haunted by a profound desire to
capture and reclaim what remains absent—Christ’s presence for the old man,
the beloved Laura for the speaker.
The sole support for each is hope, a virtue rendered by the active verb spera
in the simile’s final line. The old man might transfer the fulfillment of his hope
to the afterlife. The speaker, however, can relieve his anxiety only by encoun-
tering Laura in this life. Because of Laura’s resistance to him and, more espe-
cially, because of the geographical distance between them while he is in Rome,
he compensates by seeking the beloved’s likeness among other women:
Così, lasso, talor vo cerchand’io,
Donna, quanto è possibile in altrui
La disiata vostra forma vera.
Thus, alas, at times I go searching in others, Lady, as much as is possible, for
your longed-for true form.

What he finds, of course, is not Laura but competing versions of her, a re-
minder of her physical beauty without its real substance. The poem’s careful
juxtaposition of Laura’s face with the Savior’s, its deliberate blurring of sacred
and profane, its scandalous slippage of the human into the divine, startled at
least some sixteenth-century readers. Sylvano da Venafro, for example, remarks
negatively that “la comparatione e odiosa, [el Sonetto e chiaro]” ‘the compar-
ison is odious, [the sonnet is self-explanatory]’ (xvv).
In Wroth’s poem the distance that separates the lover from the beloved
causes some misunderstanding and “wrong conseite” that alienates the lover
from the beloved. A similar misunderstanding occurs in Petrarch’s poem as a
result of spatial distance. For most of the commentators Petrarch is in Italy on
diplomatic business for the Avignon papacy, whereupon he discovers a sense
of his own Italian national identity and the charms of Italian women. Filelfo
notes that, although Petrarch addresses Laura as his “Donna” as if she were
present, the locative in “viene a Roma” ‘he comes to Rome’ specifies that he is
writing this poem at his desk in Rome: “Era il petrarcha gia in Italia gionto e
fermatosi qui . . . scripse allamata sua madonna Laura” ‘Petrarch had already
arrived in Italy and, established here, . . . he wrote to his beloved Laura’ (v).
Lonely in a distant land and surrounded by charming women, the speaker has
good reason to search for a reminder of Laura’s beauty. As Filelfo explains, “vo
cerchand’io . . . in altrui” ‘I go searching in others’ means that the speaker
seeks in other women an approximation of Laura, a pale shadow “in qualche
altra donna. Il che e cosi possibile come chel sudario si risomiglia al uiso de


The Site of Petrarchism in England

yhesu” ‘in some other woman. This is possible just as Veronica’s veil resembles
the face of Jesus’ (v).
Other commentators emphasize moral differences. Fausto writes that Pe-
trarch’s speaker takes no satisfaction in other women because their beauties are
only physical, whereas Laura’s are spiritual: “L’una ragione e che se considera
la bellezza dell’anima, forma par non fu mai da’l di che Adamo aperse gl’occhi”
‘The one reason is that if he considers her soul’s beauty, no equal form ever ex-
isted since the day that Adam opened his eyes” (v). For Bernardino Daniello
the speaker has already passed through Rome en route to a farther destination
in Naples: “Era gia giunto in Napoli il Po. quando il presente Son. compuose”
‘The poet had already arrived in Naples when he composed the present son-
net’ (r). Having resisted the seductive allure of Roman women, the speaker
writes to the beloved and proclaims his fidelity to her.
Gesualdo articulates the consequences. During his visit to Rome the
speaker has undergone a severe test in his constancy to Laura: “E possiamo sti-
mare ch’egli si ritrouasse peruentura in parte, ou’eran molte e belle donne, e
quelle intentamente mirasse ciascuna fiso guardando” ‘And we can imagine
that perhaps again he found himself in places where there were many beauti-
ful women; and that looking fixedly at each one, he intently admired them’
(xvr). His behavior prompts rumors. Upon returning to Avignon, he must
now convince Laura that he has indeed been faithful to her. Focusing upon
the vocative Donna in line , Gesualdo situates the speaker in Laura’s presence
as he attempts to persuade her of his devotion: “Per dimostrare altrui, che non
per loro amore le riguardaua, Ma per la detta cagione, s’alcuno era che dubi-
tato n’hauesse, a lei le parole indrizzi dicendo” ‘To show that he would gaze
upon others not because of love for them, but for the expressed reason that if
there were any who doubted him, he might address these words to her’ (xvir).
Admitting that in Rome he cast eyes upon other women, he nonetheless ar-
gues that he did so only because they reminded him of Laura.
Gesualdo’s narrative provides an analogue for Mary Wroth’s sonnet . It
concerns Pamphilia’s need to verify her absolute fidelity to Amphilanthus
against malicious rumors that would allege otherwise. Petrarch’s journey to far-
off places offers apparent grounds to substantiate the slanderous charges
against him. In Pamphilia’s case the hazards of journey offer a metaphoric ve-
hicle to describe her situation. Because of society’s double standard, the
charges brought against her carry more serious consequences than those
against Petrarch. This resolution brings a release from fear: “When past is
feare, content like soules assend.” Just as a traveler feels relief after having


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

passed through the hazards of a journey, so does Pamphilia after having dis-
proved the threat to her reputation:

Hee tired with his paines, I, with my mind;

Hee all content receaves by ease of limms;
I, greatest hapines that I doe find
Beeleefe for fayth, while hope in pleasure swimms.

Wroth’s speaker breaks the Petrarchan mold even as she reconstitutes it.
Her equanimity seems a counter to the unrestrained egotism of such lovers as
her father’s Rosis or her uncle’s Astrophil, and she offers a positive example of
Petrarchan love. Philip Sidney provides a narrative antitype for her in sonnet
 of his Astrophil and Stella. There Astrophil complains about absence from
his beloved, incurred “by honour’s cruell might,” quite possibly during some
sort of service to the state that has taken him abroad. Wishing to refute ru-
mors that have reached her about his infidelity, he reinvents the Petrarchan de-
fense that Stella’s rivals remind him of her: “They please I do confesse, they
please mine eyes, / But why? Because of you they models be.” No matter what
she hears about them, he deems them secondary to her: “If you heare that they
seeme my hart to move, / Not them, O no, but you in them I love.” The argu-
ment, blunted by the off-rhyme move/love, actually affirms that, when he is not
near the woman he loves, he loves the women he’s near. Astrophil is a witty
speaker who abuses speech, everywhere signaling his imposition as a lover, his
disappointment as an ambitious young gentleman, and his impending politi-
cal failure in consequence of both.35
Pamphilia’s constancy and integrity are wholly different. As Wroth directs
Pamphilia’s concerns to her active agency, she effects a subtle shift in rhetori-
cal dynamics. One of the important conventions of sonnet discourse since the
Italian stil nuovo is that a lover’s constancy, and hence changelessness, has the
power to effect great change—and a corresponding constancy—in collective
behavior. It does so for the better when it inspires human beings to virtuous
action and for the worse when it drives them to reckless deeds. Such poets as
Lorenzo de’ Medici used this motif to reflect upon the possibility that a ruler’s
devotion to a worthy beloved underpins the effective operation of an entire
polity. Du Bellay and the Pléiade addressed this motif to the conduct of the
aristocracy. Philip Sidney did the reverse by showing how Astrophil’s inappro-
priate behavior drives him to emotional bankruptcy and professional ruin,
“unable quite to pay even Natures rent, / Which unto it by birthright I do ow”
(sonnet ). Mary Wroth by contrast revives the Continental precedent that


The Site of Petrarchism in England

envisions moral benefits in society through transformations in the lover’s and

beloved’s characters. As Cesare Gonzaga argues in book  of Castiglione’s Book
of the Courtier, lovers make each other better persons, their mutual improve-
ment benefiting the community to which they belong: “For he that loveth, al-
waie coveteth to make himselfe as lovely as he can, and evermore dreadeth fears
that he take no foile, that shoulde make him little set by” (Hoby, trans., ).
In the light of Philip Sidney’s negative example in Astrophil and Stella, I
construe the Petrarchism of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus as a positive site for
Wroth. It affords a transitional space and a locus for interplay between herself
and her illustrious family, on the one hand, and between them and the nega-
tive world of courtly life, on the other. Its poetic conventions transcend the
writer’s fantasies and subjective imagination as well as the legacy of her family’s
earlier achievement. They extend backward to the inheritance of a cumulative
Sidneian poetics, and they project forward to the author’s autonomous literary
production. The scope of her inheritance enables Wroth to develop as a poet
who explores a variety of modes that incorporate scriptural imitation, verse
drama, and pastoral romance as her family developed them.
A final shaping force upon her poetry was Mary Sidney’s son William Her-
bert, Wroth’s first cousin, adulterous lover, and the father of her two illegitimate
children. Like Amphilanthus, for whom he provided a real-life prototype, and
like his uncles Philip and Robert Sidney, the third earl of Pembroke labored to
serve as a leader of his nation, and, like them, he punctuated his public career
with fashionable love poetry.36 Here, however, the Petrarchan current cedes to
a more self-consciously classical and witty—and largely apolitical—Ovidian-
ism. In , thirty years after Herbert’s death, John Donne Jr. published Po-
ems, Written by the Right Honorable William Earl of Pembroke, Lord Steward of
his Majesties Houshold. The volume includes replies “answered by way of
Repartee” by Sir Benjamin Rudyard and other poems by such earlier and later
contemporaries as Walter Ralegh, Edward Dyer, and Michael Drayton in the
Elizabethan style; Henry Wotton in the Jacobean style; and Thomas Carew,
Henry King, and William Strode in the Caroline style, all ripe for musical set-
tings by such distinguished composers as John Dowland, Nicholas Lanyer, and
Henry Lawes to whom the Sidneys had given patronage.37 The Ovidian vari-
ety that Herbert prefers, and in which he excels, sports lightly lascivious, self-
consciously charming, wholly unregenerate verse about the travails of an adul-
terous lover who runs like a stag, chest first, a little cruelly, in pursuit of his
sometimes fickle mistress, herself much the better for being a little bad.
In this frankly libidinous verse Herbert’s persona flaunts his profligacy. A


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

song poem entitled “That he will still persevere in his Love” juxtaposes the
speaker’s feeble declaration of constancy against his vigorously shifting, ro-
bustly inconstant free verse form, a technique intimating the sophisticated
forms of the writer’s famous poet-cousin, George Herbert (). A nine-stanza
pastoral ode entitled “A Sonnet” (, in which sonnet is used in the extended
sense of a short poem rather than a specific fourteen-line form) promises the
mistress a treasure of flora and fauna in exchange for her attention:

DEar leave thy home and come with me,

That scorn the world for love of thee:
Here we will live within this Park,
A Court of joy and pleasures Ark.

Here we will hunt, here we will range,

Constant in Love, our sports wee’l change:
Of hearts if any change we make,
I will have thine, thou mine shalt take.

The speaker acknowledges his voracious sexual appetite and emotional volatil-
ity, but only rarely does he appear to recognize his beloved’s feelings. The “De-
scription of a wisht Mistris” in fourteen quatrains outdoes any classified ad-
vertisement for a midtown escort service:

And I would have her full of wit,

So she know how to huswife it;
But she whose insolence makes her dare
To cry her wit, wil sell more ware.
()

Specifying exactly what he wants, he leaves his prospective partner little space
for her own voluptuary wish list.
Mary Wroth’s heroine in Pamphilia to Amphilanthus aims to counter exactly
such emotional poverty tolerated in William Herbert’s poetry. In sonnet  (P
) she disdains “pleasant witts” (Herbert and his buddies?) who enjoy their
own “fram’d words, which I account the dross / Of purer thoughts” and avers
(of those wits? or their words?) that “your plenty shews your want.” The topos,
echoing Ovid’s “inopem me copia fecit” ‘my riches beggars me’ (Metamor-
phoses .), refers to Narcissus, whose abundant beauty eluded his own
grasp. Pamphilia imputes to poets such as Herbert a narcissistic discourse
trapped in its own self-admiring excess. In sonnet  (P) she explicitly re-
bukes the trumpery of her beloved’s show of affection:


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Itt is nott love which you poore fooles do deeme

That doth apeare by fond, and outward showes
Of kissing, toying, or by swearings glose,
O noe thes are farr off from loves esteeme.
Pamphilia appears determined to counteract such niggling indifference.
As a young man, Amphilanthus’s historical counterpart experienced the
finest tutelage available to any nobleman of his class and generation, and in at
least one prominent instance it included some explicit instruction in steeling
himself against the debilitating effects of intemperate pastimes. In January 
Dr. Thomas Moffett, a learned member of the Royal College of Physicians
and a beneficiary of Mary Sidney’s largess at Wilton, composed a Latin oration
on the life of Philip Sidney as a New Year’s gift for the twelve-year-old William
Herbert. Entitled Nobilis sive vitae mortisque Sydniadis Synopsis ‘The Noble
Man or a View of a Sidney’s Life and Death,’ it presents Sidney’s life as a fit
paradigm for Herbert’s.38 Nobilis situates love poetry among the pursuits that
Sidney abandoned when he embraced public service on behalf of the nation:
“Later, when he had begun to enter into the deliberations of the common-
wealth [in cogitationem reipub.], he did not cling to his own pleasures, but gave
up love, poetry, sport, . . . and other clogs upon the mind” (fols. v–r and
pp. ‒). Freed from these passions, Sidney turned to “the fatherland [pa-
tria] and affairs of state [Totus patriae commodis invigilavit]” as sites worthy of
serious commitment (fol. r and p. ).
Despite Moffett’s claims, Herbert might have deduced that his uncle had
gained something valuable from pursuing a literary career, since the study of
ancient and modern foreign languages enabled him freely to converse in other
tongues when visiting abroad: “Entertained by people of various nationality
[varijs gentibus]—Greeks, Romans, Italians, Frenchmen, Germans—he re-
sponded to each man in his own tongue” (fol. v and p. ). Public service
identified the Sidneys so much with the tenor of the nation that to malign the
former was to impugn the latter: “For no one ever wished ill to the honor of
the Sidneys except him who wished ill to the commonwealth [publico]” (fol.
r and p. ). This example shaped family mythology. After assuming his ti-
tle as third earl of Pembroke in  and following a brief banishment from
court for impregnating one of the queen’s ladies in waiting, William Herbert
entered political life in the shadow of his illustrious forebears. Attaining
prominence in  by helping the earl of Buckingham to supplant Somerset
in the king’s favor, he often worked against royal policies, though never in ac-
tive opposition to them.39 Like others of the nobility, he pushed for measures


 The Transitional Space of Petrarchism

beneficial to his propertied interests by sponsoring key members of the House

of Commons such as Sir Benjamin Rudyard. In  he was appointed lord
chancellor with responsibilities for appointing and controlling James’s personal
servants and for managing royal banquets and entertainments.40 One of his
most notable public efforts was his colonizing investment in the Virginia
Company and his involvement in preventing its dissolution at the king’s com-
mand in ‒.
Evidence suggests that Herbert’s surviving poetry was the product of his
youth, so that by abandoning it after  he appears to have followed
Moffett’s antipoetic advice. One compelling motivation for Mary Wroth to
write Urania and Pamphilia to Amphilanthus might well have been an effort in
the poetic modes of her uncle, aunt, and father to persuade her cousin and her
lover otherwise. In the second part of Urania Wroth gestures toward Herbert’s
poetic talent by incorporating into the narrative one of his lyrics, “Had I loved
butt att that rate.” Amphilanthus composed the verse “when hee made a shew
of love” to one of Pamphilia’s rivals. Pamphilia nonetheless appropriates it,
singing “by the eare” in a voice that flattens Amphilanthus when it “makes the
roome rattle” (Second Part ). Not one to shy away from public confronta-
tion, nor to be debased by grudging affect, Wroth’s heroine demonstrates the
empowering effect of a deeply felt love and its expression in verse.41
Wroth’s literary production argues that, far from undermining the work-
ings of the state or interfering with the conduct of the nation, the pursuit of
poetry and romance enhances both. Urania and Pamphilia to Amphilanthus
demonstrate that an extended debate about virtue and a lover’s behavior in the
transitional space of Petrarchism can deepen and expand the range of options
available to a public discourse. By rewriting her family’s texts from this per-
spective, Wroth shows that readers like Moffett misunderstood her uncle’s fo-
cus on love when they interpreted it as detrimental to the commonweal, or
“nation,” as one might translate Moffett’s Latin phrase res publica. As in As-
trophil and Stella, the workings of Petrarchan love in Pamphilia to Amphilan-
thus initiate a debate about alternative possibilities of behavior and response.
Petrarchan commentaries provide insight into these possibilities, and such
commentaries include ones on an already emerging English poetry. Among
them pride of place belongs to Philip Sidney’s A Defence of Poetry.


 10 An Apology for Uncles
Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

As Mary Wroth understood, Philip Sidney’s imitation of Petrarch’s amatory

woes allowed her uncle wide scope to represent Astrophil’s self-defeating be-
havior and his own prospects to mend his ways. As a self-reflexive text, As-
trophil and Stella consequently inscribes not just an instance of the Petrarchan
mode but also a critical attitude toward it. Sidney’s remarks about love poetry
in A Defence of Poetry (‒?) suggest that it is a conflicted attitude. Cele-
brating the “golden world” of Greek poetry and the “vatic” world of Roman
poetry while bracketing as privileged models the divinely inspired Psalms,
Song of Songs, and scriptural hymns, A Defence contends that modern Italian
forms such as the sonnet and canzone can supplement the former. Among
English works suitable for the national canon, Sidney mentions those of
Gower and of Chaucer, in general (), and the Italian-inspired The Knight’s
Tale () and Troilus and Criseyde (), in particular. Among recent texts he
mentions (though with qualifications) Gorboduc, the Mirror for Magistrates, and
The Sheapherdes Calender, and he commends the earl of Surrey’s Petrarchan
sonnets, which befit “a noble birth, and are worthy of a noble mind” ().1
Such “passionate sonnets” as those emulating Petrarch’s Rime sparse none-
theless run the risk that, like corrupting “comedies” whose actions “abuseth
men’s wit, training it to wanton sinfulness and lustful love,” they might “rather
teach than reprehend amorous conceits” (). But, if abusive poetry has cor-
rosive power, the converse may also be true. Insisting that good poetry should
move the reader to a persuasive end, Sidney argues that “it is not gnosis but
praxis must be the fruit” (). This praxis or capacity for action requires as


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

much a defense of the reader’s immanent response as of the text’s contingent

merit.2 Among competing genres, amatory poetry affords a testing ground to
assess a lover’s ethos, to detect the latter’s flaws, and to consider one’s like or
unlike behavior. The protests of “poore Petrarchs long deceased woes” should
move wise readers to question the grounds of such utterances (sonnet ). A
prudent response might prompt derision, “for the representing of so strange a
power in love procureth delight, and the scornfulness of the action stirreth
laughter.” The complaints of “a busy loving courtier” such as Astrophil ought
to stimulate reflective judgment and moral discrimination ().
Reflective judgment and moral discrimination are cognitive acts, matters of
gnosis rather than praxis, and their psychological complexity thwarts any
simple understanding of praxis as an imitation of virtue or vice in lived expe-
rience: “And however praxis cannot be, without being moued to practise, is no
hard matter to consider” (). Supremely overdetermined by its triple negative,
this sentence could mean, “It is not difficult to fathom how praxis follows
from understanding.” But, because Elizabethan usage sometimes construed
the double negative as an intensive negation, the sentence could also mean the
opposite, “It is indeed difficult to fathom how praxis follows from under-
standing.” Praxis can and must result from deep persuasion—in Plato’s Pro-
tagoras c and c–d, for example, Socrates argues that to know the good
is to be compelled to do the good—but the precise relationship of stimulus to
response eludes definition. It surely encompasses more than any bland coun-
sel to imitate virtuous deeds, despite the allure, some say, of such strange bed-
fellows as William Bennett’s Book of Virtues and Oscar Wilde’s dictum that life
imitates art. Literature may be an imitative art, but it does not necessarily
compel an imitative response. Its effect may be gnosis that leads to persuasion,
but how persuasion leads to action invites countless possibilities.
Support for unbalancing these relations between gnosis and praxis comes
from the earliest known commentary upon A Defence. Written probably in
 by William Temple (‒), a Cambridge graduate who became Sid-
ney’s secretary in November of that year, the Latin Analysis tractationis de Poesi
contextae a nobilissimo viro Philippe Sidneio equite aurato ‘An Analysis of the
Treatise on Poetry Written by the Most Noble Philip Sidney, Knight,’ at-
tempts a rigorous cross-examination of the text. As a logician trained in
Ramist method, Temple had earlier published P. Rami Dialecticae libri duo
‘Two Books Concerning Ramus’s Dialectic’ ().3 When he explicates A De-
fence he draws minute attention to the technical procedures of its argument,
both clarifying and complicating its half-hidden syllogisms. Ramism as em-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

braced by Temple limits rhetoric to the use of figures, tropes, and other elocu-
tionary devices, achieving “its proper purpose as long as it is spoken well.” Per-
suasion has little to do with logic, since logic properly concerns only the par-
tition of abstract relationships: “For while persuasion may be brought about
by the force of sound thought, logical invention does not consider sound
thoughts, but rather the parts of a sound thought, divorced from all consider-
ations of disposition” (). Concurring with Protestant belief in the priority of
faith over works and the conviction that virtuous agency, indifferent to reason
or persuasion, occurs only through God’s grace, Temple privileges gnosis over
praxis as a component of heroic action. Because success is the unmerited result
of a foreordained providence, heroes never truly earn any victory but can only
learn what it signifies in relation to God’s will. Their task is not so much to de-
feat the enemy as to recognize the enemy’s strength and have faith in God’s
providence.4
In subordinating praxis to gnosis, Temple considers its relation to forces
other than persuasion. If praxis were simply an effect of knowledge, it would
not be greater than knowledge: “Since an effect is itself produced by a cause, it
will in fact be either inferior to its cause, or equal at best.” Temple’s denial of
praxis as a superior effect leads him to disparage persuasion through rhetoric
while exalting the power of illumination through gnosis: “We are only taught
by that which brings about some sort of knowledge in the mind; yet this does
not happen by any ‘moving,’ but only by the force and illumination of an ar-
gument, ordered through the rules of judgment. . . . Thus it will follow that
teaching is of a higher degree than moving” (). Hence, gnosis and the illu-
mination that results from it are the primary goals of literary art and the ma-
jor ones that writers achieve when they aim to serve the nation. Literature does
not so much rouse citizens to perform virtuous deeds as it challenges them to
examine and evaluate the possibilities of virtuous action.
One consequence is that heroic stature no longer depends upon feats of
physical prowess, gendered as masculine and classed as noble. It instead de-
pends upon acts of the mind theoretically indifferent to gender and class, or so
Plato claims in book  of the Republic (d–e). A writer such as Mary Wroth
may imagine a character, female or male, in response to her uncle’s poetry and
to the idea of heroism which A Defence implies. And so might Sidney. In A
Defence he fantasizes how he would react to Petrarchistic conceits if he were
their female recipient: “But truly many of such writings as come under the
banner of unresistible love, if I were a mistress, would never persuade me they
were in love: so coldly they apply fiery speeches.” Such “fiery speeches” deploy


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

“a courtesan-like painted affectation,” “far-fet words,” a “dictionary” allitera-

tion, and “winter-starved” flowers of speech. The remedy is a “forcibleness or
energia (as the Greeks call it)” which might achieve “the right use of the mate-
rial point of poesy” (‒). But even these terms are fraught with complica-
tion. By material point, for example, Sidney means the dangerous and debili-
tating attributes of enchanting words, alluring effects, and rhetorical
figurations whose hazardous potential derives from the feminized origins of
poetry as “the mother of lies, . . . the nurse of abuse, infecting us with many
pestilent desires; with a siren’s sweetness drawing the mind to the serpent’s tail
of sinful fancies” ().5 From a perspective of feminine matter contending
with masculine form and masculine substance giving way to feminine acci-
dent, the misomousoi (haters of the muses) have asserted that poetry weakens
the moral fiber of whole peoples and races (): “Both in other nations and in
ours, before poets did soften us, we were full of courage, given to martial ex-
ercises, the pillars of manlike liberty, and not lulled asleep in shady idleness
with poets’ pastimes” (‒). Sidney sets out to defeat this belief by directing
its meaning toward other frames of reference.
At stake in opposing ideas of nation and “manlike liberty” to the allegedly
effeminizing powers of “poets’ pastimes” are long-established convictions
about the military function of the nobility, so that “before poets began to be
in price our nation had set their hearts’ delight upon action, and not imagina-
tion.” By our nation Sidney here clearly means not the whole population but
its noble elite, those entrusted with social, cultural, and political authority to
represent and defend the community. In particular he means the warrior pro-
fessionals charged with protecting the king’s estate and entire realm, such
members of the noble class to which he and his family aspired to belong. By
its military function this class differentiated itself from the gentry, the rising
bourgeoisie, and an increasingly strong central monarchy, but during the Tu-
dor era, in the wake of the Hundred Years War and the civil wars of the fif-
teenth century, it found itself being pacified, demilitarized, and domesticated
by being leveraged into a social class noted for its distinction of birth, culture,
and self-regulation.6 As an untitled gentleman at the end of this historical
process, Sidney would resolutely imagine himself participating in military ac-
tion, “rather doing things worthy to be written, than writing things fit to be
done” ().
At this impasse, untitled at a time when service to the nation was coming
to be identified not with the military establishment but with the state bureau-
cracy, Sidney defends his work of writing, that is, his transformation of gnosis


The Site of Petrarchism in England

into literature specifically associated with poetry. His argument turns on two
claims: first, that there was no “before-time” without poetry, “since no mem-
ory is so ancient that hath not the precedent of poetry”; and, second, that any
counterclaim breeds libel “against all learning” by opposing it to productive
action (). Words complement action; indeed, the pen is mightier than the
sword, so that in his “unelected vocation” as a writer ()—“unelected” be-
cause he imagines himself as devoted to poetry in lieu of other opportunities
available to him in rustication at Wilton—Sidney is performing the work of
his “nation.” He is validating his membership in a ruling elite by justifying his
career as a writer.
England, he declares in yet another gendered figuration, has become “so
hard a stepmother to poets” that in the current climate of “overfaint quietness”
()—a description that evokes his own inactivity at Wilton—the nation fails
to honor its poets. The problem is not that England lacks good poets but that it
prefers to reward “base men with servile wits.” Sidney defines “base men” in a
status-bound frame of reference that includes the ranks of “new” men entering
the schools, the Inns of Court, and the lower echelons of government in hopes
of professional advancement. These bourgeois aspirants to high degree now
compete with noblemen who, in matters of poetic skill, should act “better
content to suppress the outflowings of their wit, than, by publishing them, to
be accounted knights of the same order” (). Sidney responds by endorsing
“at least to my opinion” the superiority of the “more sound style” of “smally
learned courtiers” to the pallid style of its academic or professional and lower-
class competitors (). The language of court shaped by an accomplished
elite, amateurs (in the etymological sense of lovers) in the various arts, over-
rides the utilitarian standards of narrow-minded experts, one-track practition-
ers, single-goal social climbers. It is not surprising to find as models for English
style what George Puttenham in The Art of Poetry () designates as “proper
terms” and “cleanly conueyance” along with “sweet and stately measures.”7
Puttenham complicates the issue by associating the first two terms with
Thomas Wyatt and the last with the earl of Surrey, and his estimate fixed for
centuries the judgment on both poets, “betweene whom I finde very litle differ-
ence” (). This ranking strangely undoes a social distinction noted a genera-
tion earlier and held by Sidney. Richard Tottel’s  miscellany of Songes and
Sonnettes had blatantly subordinated the lower-born Wyatt to the higher-born
earl of Surrey, the son of England’s leading peer and on his mother’s side a de-
scendant of Edward III.8 Even though Tottel included twice as many of Wy-
att’s poems than Surrey’s, he featured Surrey’s name prominently in the vol-


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

ume’s title, Written by the Right Honorable Lord H. Haward Late Earl of Surrey
and Others.9 His preface in turn characterizes “the honorable style of the noble
Earl of Surrey” as a mark of distinction, elevating it above “the weightiness of
the deep-witted Sir Thomas Wyatt.” Tottel’s goal had a nationalistic intent—
to show that “our tong is able . . . to do as praiseworthy as the rest [of Europe’s
national languages]” (.)—and the result was to position the noble earl of
Surrey at the forefront of sixteenth-century English literary history.
Sidney embraces Tottel’s estimate but strikingly declines to mention Wyatt’s
name in A Defence when he includes Surrey’s lyrics in his English national
pantheon with Troilus and Criseyde, Mirror for Magistrates, and Sheapherdes
Calendar. The terms in which he canonizes Surrey as one of the nation’s pre-
mier poets along with Chaucer and Spenser reflect his aristocratic perspective
as he credits his forerunners with “many things tasting of a noble birth, and
worthy of a noble mind” (). In Astrophil and Stella, however, we find that
Sidney does exactly the opposite. He echoes the energy and dynamism of Wy-
att’s lyrics at the expense of Surrey’s polish. It is as though Wyatt, twice im-
prisoned on murky charges of having undermined the king’s interests (one of
them relating to an alleged affair with Anne Boleyn) and Surrey, sent to the
Tower and beheaded for quartering the king’s arms at the very end of Henry
VIII’s reign, had become rival totemic figures for Philip Sidney.10 Reminding
him of his family pride, his elite identity, and his place in the English court,
they awaken his ambivalence about court politics, his unrewarded service to
the Crown, his frustrated interest in Penelope Rich, and his thwarted inheri-
tance from the earl of Leicester.
Both Wyatt and Surrey, then, cast shadows that portended ill. If Wyatt’s
sometimes harried career inflicted pain as well as glory and Surrey’s privileged
existence ended on the block, a choice between them might seem nugatory.
Striving to reclaim what had been lost or denied, Philip Sidney invests these
precursors with exemplary value, but he would edit out of his own poetic
practice the subversive, raw, and uncomfortable elements of Wyatt’s model
and replace them with the tractable, poised, more refined elements of Surrey’s.
Or so he might have wished to do. Despite his commendation of Surrey as
one of England’s preeminent national poets in A Defence, he more frequently
in his own poetry echoes and reenacts the taboos associated with Wyatt.
The discrepancy betokens a crisis in social mobility during the early s.
In  Sir Thomas Smith, secretary to Queen Elizabeth in ‒, published
De Republica Anglorum, with its endorsement of “whosoever studieth the lawes
of the realme, who studieth in the universities, who professeth liberall sciences,


The Site of Petrarchism in England

and to be shorte, who can live idly and without manuall labor” as eligible for
admission to the minor nobility exclusive of birthright.11 Through “this maner
of making gentlemen” Smith commends virtue, education, and public service
as primary vehicles that justify advancement in rank, an idea articulated by
humanist writers of an earlier generation. Sir John Ferne responded in his Bla-
zon of Gentry () with a categorical defense of bloodline and lineage as ab-
solute prerequisites.12 If industry, ingenuity, and even wealth alone were crite-
ria, then pirates, thieves, and prostitutes would be noble.
High birth along with military and administrative service are crucial com-
ponents, and Sidney agrees. He thoroughly values the claims of pedigree. In A
Defence he dismisses More’s Utopia with a backhanded compliment, praising
the text for its skillful fiction but decrying its ideas “because where Sir Thomas
More erred, it was the fault of the man” (). More’s spokesman, Raphael
Hythloday, contends that the prerogatives of aristocratic birth undermine a
commonwealth, and he argues instead for a consensual form of government
which dissolves noble titles and redistributes inherited wealth. Utopia couches
this program in the form of a legal contract negotiated between the ruler and
the populace, a consensus enacted in the name of an egalitarian polity.13 Sid-
ney’s Arcadia shows the chaos that ensues when, under the sanction of such le-
gality that More might approve, the anointed king Basilius abdicates his sacred
responsibility to rule and transmits his kingdom to Euarchus. In Philip Sid-
ney’s world an elevated birthright confers permanent duties as well as abiding
obligations that safeguard the nation.
The claims of pedigree themselves invite disaster, of course, especially when
they generate misguided loyalties and unsound allegiances, an inversion of at-
tachments that are crucial to the formation of a national consciousness. The
careers of Wyatt and Surrey exemplify such disaster as both men incurred
high-level suspicions of Henry VIII. If Surrey possessed the formal titles that
Sidney could only hope for, Wyatt displayed the verve that he might wish to
emulate. The disparity between Wyatt’s rank as a commoner who rose to
knighthood by “commendable means” and Surrey’s as a nobleman born into
the peerage with royal ancestry was considerable. Their respective renditions
of Petrarch’s sonnet , “Amor, che nel penser mio vive et regna” ‘Love, who
lives and reigns in my thought,’ together with various commentaries on the
poem, illustrate the differences.
Petrarch’s earliest commentators understand the poem’s action as a chal-
lenge to socially variable rules of conduct in love:


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

Onde Amor paventoso fugge al core,

lasciando ogni suo impresa, et piange, et trema;
ivi s’asconde, et non appar più fore.
Che poss’io far, temendo il mio signore?
Wherefore Love flees terrified to my heart, abandoning his every enterprise,
and weeps and trembles; there he hides and no more appears outside. What
can I do, when my lord is afraid?
Antonio da Tempo, for example, thinks that the speaker has transgressed
bounds of decency in expressing his love. The poem shows “cio chel gli in-
contra con la sua donna quando talhor lui excede lusato non in gir a uederla”
‘what happens with respect to his lady when he oversteps the customary
bounds of seeing her’ (ev–fr). Squarzafico repeats this idea and adds that for
such a transgression the lover merits the beloved’s censure “se lamore a questo
li trasporta” ‘if love brings him to this trespas’ (Dv). Vellutello imagines a sim-
ilar situation “nelqual il Poe. ha dimostrato il repugnar che M.L. contra il suo
sfrenato uoler facetia” ‘in which the poet has shown the repugnance that Laura
displayed against his unbridled will’ (r). Sylvano da Venafro points to a defi-
ant resolution. For him the sonnet shows the speaker’s bold initiative in de-
claring his love to a reluctant Laura: “La sentenza del presente S. e ch’egli
quelch uolta ardiua di plarle & cercar mercede & pieta alla pena sua” ‘The
meaning of the present sonnet is that he sometimes dared to speak with her
and beg mercy and pity for his suffering’ (cxxiiiir). The speaker withdraws only
in order to plot a new assault.
With variant emphases these commentators agree that the poem’s speaker
has acted with an unusual temerity that invites social rejection. Wyatt appears
to have read the poem in this manner as a brash declaration of personal sover-
eignty.14 Tottel nonetheless prefaces Wyatt’s translation, “The long love that in
my thought doth harbour,” with a moralizing headnote that accents its speaker’s
squeamish retreat: “The lover for shamefastnesse hideth his desire within his
faithfull hart” (Rollins, ed., .). In fact, Wyatt accents the reverse with jagged
trochaic rhythms, abrupt turns of phrase, and provincial Kentish verb endings
in -eth which express his singular lack of shame or embarrassment about his
low social status or cultural insensibility.15 The personified “long love” en-
courages the speaker “with bold pretence” to display his “trust” (or confident
expectation of being requited [OED sense ]) until the beloved “with his har-
dinesse taketh displeasure.” Her rebuke signals a breakdown in their relation-
ship, as the lover ventures too far in his public display of “lust’s negligence.”


The Site of Petrarchism in England

The biographical possibility of associating Wyatt’s mistress with Anne Bo-

leyn at a time when Henry VIII was beginning to notice her casts a penumbra
of terror and intrigue over their relationship and a desperation born of the
speaker’s desire for a woman now even more unobtainable than Laura.16 In the
sestet Love flees “to the hartes forest,” an expansive site suggesting uncharted
territory and untamed wilderness:
Wherewithal unto the hartes forest he fleeth,
Leaving his enterprise with pain and cry,
And there him hideth and not appeareth.
The speaker follows his lord into this darkness, expressing as in Petrarch’s
poem a loyalty to him rather than to his lady: “What may I do when my mais-
ter feareth?”17 His pledge of faith to the conquering, though momentarily dis-
abled, Love takes precedence over obedience to his riled beloved. Petrarch’s
poem ends in suspension with a double entendre about death as the petite mort
of sexual climax, “chè bel fin fa chi ben amando more” ‘for he makes a beauti-
ful end who dies loving well,’ a recall of the punning “laus in amore mori” ‘to
die in love is glory’ of Propertius’ elegy .. Wyatt’s translation ends upbeat,
with an earnest statement of the speaker’s fidelity to his master, “For good is
the life, ending faithfully.” The dramatic pause-laden four-stress rhythm re-
places Petrarch’s phosphorescent wit with a protestation of constancy, accent-
ing the dactylic faithfully through its brisk off-rhyme with live and die.
Other commentators construe Petrarch’s poem from a quite different per-
spective. Gesualdo, for example, regards the speaker as a victim of Laura’s dis-
dain: “Con turbata faccia guardaua” ‘He looked upon her with a troubled
face.’ He will endure everything to win her, but she is implacably “sdegnando”
‘disdainful,’ and at every turn “portar li facea patientemente l’amoroso
affanno” ‘she has made him bear in sufferance his amorous pangs’ (cxcviiir).
Bernardino Daniello likewise depicts Laura as the poem’s aggressor. She is a
Medusa who turns the hapless lover to stone when he casts his eyes upon her:
“Come freddo marmo diueniua per la temenza poi” ‘He turned into marble
because of fear’ (r). Petrarch loves her “grandemente e veracemente” ‘greatly
and truly’ (v), but she responds with unremitting scorn.
Laura receives no little criticism from still other commentators, who judge
her harshness as unfair. Fausto resolves the ambiguity of “temendo il signore,”
in which signore may be either subject or object of temendo, by deciding in fa-
vor of the former. The speaker has no hope for success “se colui in cui hauea
qual che speranza ha tema di lei” ‘if he in whom he placed such hope has fear


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

of her’ (v). For Brucioli fear paralyzes the speaker: “Pel timore restaua di par-
lare” ‘Through fear he refrained from speaking’ (r). Castelvetro imagines
that a friend has questioned Petrarch’s behavior, to which he replies that
“Amore, il quale regna nel suo cuore, lo ’nduce piu volte a dimostrar i suoi
affanni” ‘Love, which reigns in his heart, entices him to display his anguish.’ It
is a love as described “dalle parole d’Agathone nel Conuit” ‘by the words of
Agathon in Plato’s Symposium’ (). The speaker is an unrequited hero, an
honorable man domineered by a woman without pity, arriving finally at a state
of philosophical acceptance. The earl of Surrey appears to have read the poem
from such a perspective. His translation, “Love that doth raine and live within
my thought,” begins and wittily ends with the word love, circumscribing its
speaker in a realm of honor and virtue.18
Unlike Wyatt’s stark, unadorned, aggressively phallic Cupid, Surrey’s is
stately, aristocratic, and in control, elegantly “clad” in chivalric “armes” and ac-
customed to “raine” within the speaker’s thought. Unlike Wyatt’s lover, who
places allegiance to his lord before loyalty to his lady, Surrey’s has learned to
subdue his “hote desire / With shamfast clooke,” displaying a self-awareness
beyond mere pragmatism. Upon the beloved’s rebuke, Love retreats as a “cow-
arde,” mindful of his “gylt” in having provoked her, while the speaker coolly
asserts his own “fawtless” innocence:
And cowarde love then to the hart apace
Taketh his flight, where he doth lorke and playne
His purpose lost, and dare not shew his face.
For my lordes gylt thus fawtles byde I payine.
The beloved may have expressed a precipitate “yre” in rebuking the lover, but
he curbs his own riposte. His composure and self-assurance, measured
smoothly in regular iambics punctuated by an occasional trochee, lead calmly
to the playful couplet that reinstates Petrarch’s double entendre: “Yet from my
Lorde shall not my foote remove. / Sweet is the death that taketh end by love.”
Energetic yet restrained, Surrey models the dry-eyed detachment of a regnant
courtly elite. It is easy to understand why Philip Sidney figured him high in his
national pantheon.19
Sidney might have aspired to Surrey’s template in theory, but in practice
throughout Astrophil and Stella he more frequently evokes Wyatt’s gritty ex-
ample. Surrey himself had praised Wyatt as “a worthy guide to brynge / Our
Englysshe youth, by travayle unto fame” (Elegy to Wyatt, “Wyat resteth
here”), and Sidney’s persona would concur. Recalling from Wyatt’s “Mine own


The Site of Petrarchism in England

John Poyntz,” the accusatory “I am not he such eloquence to boast / To make

the crow singing as the swan,” Astrophil ridicules in sonnet  both “daintie
wits” in the Continental fashion and “Pindares apes” in the classical mode.20
He hankers for an opportunity in the public arena to clothe himself in valor
that will repay “Nature’s rent, / Which unto it by birthright I do ow” (sonnet
), to earn Stella’s acceptance by fulfilling his yet unfulfilled “great promise”
(sonnet ). His penultimate sonnet plots to win Stella back through heroic
exploits, “since thou so right a Princesse art” (sonnet ). He accordingly asks
her “as a Queene” to assign him to some “great cause,” replacing her in his
imagination with the reigning monarch, whose state he would serve.21 In a re-
version to Petrarch’s sonnet , in which the lover takes on Love’s shame as he
flees from his sovereign, Astrophil hopes that his misdeeds may not damage
Stella’s reputation: “On servants shame oft Maisters blame doth sit.” But, hav-
ing fallen “under the banner of unresistible love” derided in A Defence
(‒), he could scarcely persuade a reader that he is ready to succeed in any
public, let alone nationally prominent, endeavor. He parades his noblesse with-
out the slightest trace of oblige.
Mary Wroth’s speaker would regard such masculine heroics with a detached
judgment. As a beloved aware of Amphilanthus’s infidelity to her, Pamphilia
has been on the receiving end of his “fiery speeches” and “swelling phrases” in
clear knowledge of the difference between “lovers’ writings” and a genuine
“forcibleness or energia” of lived emotion (Defence ). As a queen, too, she
has been on the receiving end of her subjects’ devotion to her, and she knows
full well the uncertainty of their dedication as well as the unpredictability of
their achievement. As a woman, finally, she is on the receiving end of gendered
expectations about the sexual division of labor which denies her the prowess
of Sidney’s, Wyatt’s, or Surrey’s speakers. One consequence is her heightened
emphasis on private virtues such as prudence, wisdom, sexual integrity, and
inner spirituality to compensate for her limited access to public heroics.22
Sonnet , first series (P), “Once did I heere an aged father say,” presents
this consequence as an apology for the negative poetics of Philip Sidney’s De-
fence. Recalling the dialogue in Petrarch’s sonnet , “Cara la vita, e dopo lei
mi pare / Vera honestà, che ’n bella donna sia” ‘Life is most dear, it seems to
me, and after that, true virtue in a beautiful woman,’ Wroth’s poem registers a
father’s advice to an adult son about jealousy and constancy in love:

My Sonn sayd hee, behold thy father, gray,

I once had as thou hast, fresh tender years,


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

And like thee sported, destitude of feares

Butt my young faults made mee too soone decay.

In nearly every important aspect Wroth reverses the rhetorical strategies of

her model. Petrarch narrates a dialogue between an older woman, respectfully
called “madre mia” ‘my mother,’ and a younger one, presumably Laura.
Wroth’s poem switches the gender and allows only the father to speak directly.
Petrarch’s poem offers the elder woman’s opinion about the merits of expedi-
ence in response to rape and then allows the younger woman to articulate an
opposing view. Wroth’s poem delivers the father’s advice with profound ambi-
guity about its outcome.
As Petrarch’s commentators show, the model itself displays uncertainty. The
identity of the madre remains unclear. No commentator assumes that she is
Laura’s parent, but, as Antonio da Tempo points out, the word might function
as an honorific for any woman of appropriate age or rank: “Appella la madre
in signo de honor reuerentia & de amore” ‘He uses madre as a term of honor,
reverence, and affection’ (g viiir). Fausto remarks that she may have been
Laura’s elder sister: “Pensano alcuni che fosse fatto questo so. per vna sorella di
L. qual era di dishonesta vita” ‘Some think that this sonnet was composed for
one of Laura’s sisters who had fallen into a life of dishonor’ (r). Nor does the
text confirm that Laura is her interlocutor. Antonio, Squarzafico, Sylvano, and
Brucioli assume that Petrarch is addressing the older woman. Daniello imag-
ines that he is engaging in a philosophical dialogue with several women, “par-
landosi in vna camera fra certe Matrone della vita, e dell’ honestà: . . . Et es-
sendo da vna di quelle Matrone pregato il Poe. ch’ egli anchora volesse dire
sopra di ciò il parer suo” ‘discoursing about life and honor among certain
ladies in a chamber; . . . and being asked by one of them what he would still
like to say about her way of thinking” (r).
Vellutello, Fausto, Gesualdo, and Castelvetro hear Laura’s corrective voice in
the admonitory “L’ordine volgi” ‘You reverse the order,’ but some hear it more
clearly than others. Castelvetro construes the rest of the poem as Laura’s refu-
tation: “I primi due versi s’introducono per parole d’vna donna attempata. . . .
glialtri sono parole di L. tenente il contrario” ‘The first two lines begin with
the words of an elderly woman. . . . The rest are Laura’s words asserting the
contrary’ (). But the poem’s ambiguity goes beyond the identification of its
speaker to question the legitimacy of his or her ethical teaching. Vellutello res-
urrects a controversy among moral philosophers about Lucretia’s suicide.23
From a purely rational point of view, life is more sacred than virtue or honor;


The Site of Petrarchism in England

the latter acquire value in the light of further speculation: “Tutti i morali
philosophi . . . diranno, la morte di Lucretia non essere stata necessaria, non
hauendo ella con l’animo peccato” ‘All the moral philosophers will say that Lu-
cretia’s death was unnecessary, since she did not sin in spirit” (v). For Gesu-
aldo, Laura emerges as the supreme example of virtue, one that makes Lucre-
tia’s act pale by comparison: “Tacitamente lauda M.L. in cui era giunta honesta
con leggiadria” ‘Implicitly he is praising Laura, in whom honor is accompa-
nied by gracefulness.’ The commentator then analyzes Laura’s reproof step by
step and traces its claims “ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum anteceden-
tis” ‘from the opposite of consequent to the opposite of antecedent’ (ccciv).
Readers of Wroth’s poem who apply this logical rigor to its argument will
uncover flawed premises and false conclusions. According to the father, his
own crisis occurred in a moment of misgiving, fueled by jealousy, which led
him to doubt his beloved’s fidelity. As he explains his unease, he evokes “fear’d”
with its older sense of doubt: “Love once I did, and like thee fear’d my love.”
An off-rhyme of Jealousy/liberty signals confusion:

Led by the hateful thread of Jealousy,

Striving to keepe, I lost my liberty,
And gain’d my griefe which still my sorrowes move.

As the father confesses his mistake, he denies any error in perception. The
contrast between keepe and lost suggests instead some deliberate act of trans-
gression. If one invents a scenario, it may run like this: the man has doubted
his beloved’s fidelity; whether to retaliate or simply to get on with his life, he
transfers his affections to another woman; when the first woman sees that he
has violated his fidelity, she suspends hers and takes a new lover; in conse-
quence both suffer.
This father retails a comedy of errors, but he neglects to specify the crucial
event that prevents his return to the status quo. The missing link in his narra-
tive logic obscures his deliberative role and diminishes his reliability as a
teacher or guide. His conclusion wobbles, shot through with unexamined as-
sumptions: “In time shunn this; To love is noe offence / Butt doubt in youth,
in age breeds penitence.” Does all love give “noe offence”? Is all “doubt” un-
warranted in youth? In his own case did “penitence” in old age arise only from
doubt, or does it atone for some unmentioned wrong? If the son could re-
spond to his father, what would he say? Wroth’s sonnet here plays with fanci-
ful evasions of men’s logic. It parodies forms of argument taught, discussed,
practiced, and exemplified in gender-restricted educational institutions, uni-


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

versities, and Inns of Court that speak on behalf of the nation.24 Applied to
amatory situations and addressed to jealous beloveds, this logic shores up the
ego of men who think it unavailable to untutored women. Applied to confed-
erated loyalties among men of power and prominence, it tests the bonds of al-
legiance which promote social cohesion. It is symptomatic of further intellec-
tual obstacles to securing an effective sense of national cohesion.
Philip Sidney had likewise perceived the affinity of such logic to sophistry
and political regression, and he satirized it broadly in such poems as sonnet 
of Astrophil and Stella, “O grammer rules.” There the young man who plies his
beloved with specious rhetoric is using a verbal talent that he has developed to
shape a public career based upon rhetorical skills. Part of the joke is that the
nobility to which Astrophil pretends needs no academic credentials to safe-
guard its status. Its members could safely leave oratory to opportunistic
lawyers employed to defend them. That those outside of Astrophil’s charmed
circle appreciated the joke appears evident in annotations upon Astrophil and
Stella written by Brian Twyne (‒), a reader of Greek at Corpus Christi
College, Oxford. Twyne draws attention to Astrophil’s misuse of “grammer
rules” in which “ negatiues make an affirmatiue,” suggesting how well-
educated, nonaristocratic readers might have criticized the speaker’s
sophistry.25 Certainly it requires little technical training to detect Astrophil’s
besetting use of occupatio, the figure of seeming to pass over or deny what one
in fact states directly. “Fool,” Astrophil’s muse addresses him in sonnet , and
“fool” is exactly what he is.26
The logic of Pamphilia’s father and son is an imprecise tool for assessing
complex moral reality. Its results are only as adequate or inadequate as the
goals of those who use it. Wroth’s poem implies a critique of the class-bound
suppositions that govern a male discourse about love. It may be the discourse
of her uncle’s Astrophil or her father’s Rosis in pursuit of a resonant public
voice, but it is not the discourse of Pamphilia, who rules her nation as its
queen. Petrarchan conventions provide a holding pattern that sustains the
forenamed in a reciprocal network of themes and motifs, figures and tropes,
arguments and counterarguments. It sustains a sense of personal identity
which Wroth continually reassesses and reconstructs as a component of na-
tional identity. Knowing full well that her uncle wanted his readers to perceive
Astrophil as errant, Wroth reproduces a flawed logic in the dialogue of father
and son in sonnet . To evaluate their speech she activates the techniques
urged in A Defence to uncover not “what is or is not, but what should or
should not be” (), shifting a negative apology into a richly positive poetry.


The Site of Petrarchism in England

The deeper dimension that Wroth confers upon her characters in Urania
evolves from their rank and status as members of royal families. Impulsive
some of them are and prone to gendered weaknesses of male egotism and fe-
male disconsolation, but each is or is poised to be the monarch of an estab-
lished kingdom. Their destinies encapsulate Wroth’s sense of the territorial
state and its capacity for a national identity. As daughter of the king of Morea,
for example, Pamphilia has been raised in Peloponnesian Greece, but she is
designated as heiress of her uncle’s kingdom of Pamphilia in southwestern
Turkey “and therefore bore that name likewise given by him” (First Part ).
The latter became king by will of the people after winning them from “the
subjection of Tyrants,” illustrating Sidneian convictions about the legitimacy
of ending tyrannical rule. But his election “in requitall whereof the people
chose him their King” amounts to no endorsement of monarchical rule by
consensus. Necessitated by the lack of any legitimate heir to the throne, it fa-
vors dynastic supremacy over vaguely Calvinistic or republican forms of rule
by magistracy or vote. The Pamphilians consequently empower their heirless
king, because “he never marryed,” to chose his successor “as they have given
him leave.” He appoints his niece to succeed him lest the choice “had else falne
to them againe” ().
Pamphilia exemplifies the strong monarch that Philip Sidney and the
Leicester circle urged Elizabeth I to be when they dissuaded her from marry-
ing the duke of Anjou. Pamphilia rejects the suit of Leandrus on grounds that
she “had once married her before, which was to the Kingdome of Pamphilia,
from which Husband shee could not be divorced, nor ever would have other”
(First Part ). Echoing Elizabeth I’s  letter to the House of Commons
that “I am already bound unto a husband, which is England” and her declara-
tion that she would appoint a successor “more beneficial to the realm than
such offspring as may come of me,” Pamphilia averts the peril that might re-
sult from hereditary chance.27 Her great historical prototype is once again
Elizabeth I, who chose James I as royal successor.28
In a kind of stereoscopic vision Wroth identifies Pamphilia with England
and England’s Virgin Queen, even though the historical conditions for Eliza-
beth’s kind of rule had long since passed. One of the most striking instances of
this identification between character and kingdom occurs in sonnet , second
series (P), “My paine, still smother’d in my grieved brest,” incorporating the
Petrarchan topos of the storm-tossed ship of state.29 Pamphilia compares her
amatory distress to being caught in the treacherous Goodwin Sands off the
coast of Kent:


 Philip Sidney’s Defence of Poetry

Like to a ship, on Goodwines cast by wind

The more she strives, more deepe in sand is prest
Till she bee lost. So am I, in this kind
Sunk, and devour’d, and swallow’d by unrest.
Pamphilia’s specificity of place (the Goodwin Sands) gives witness to a sense of
mapping and concrete spatial reference which subtends the increased mobility
and political unification of the early seventeenth century.30 Although Pam-
philia does not set foot in England, her attention to affairs in far-off kingdoms
of the Aegean occupies her imagination just as Amphilanthus’s attention to
affairs in western and eastern Europe occupies his imagination. The latter has
been born heir to the Kingdom of Naples, has been subsequently appointed
king of the Romans because of his valor, and is finally elected Holy Roman
Emperor, exercising power to unite the ruling houses of Romania, Bulgaria,
Albania, Macedonia, Tartaria, Epirus, Phrygia, Slavonia, Negroponte, Flo-
rence, Venice, Sicily, Brunswick, Wurttemberg, Burgundy, and Savoy, “and
with the best reason, for he was the most worthy, and famous that ever reign’d
over them” (First Part ).31 Between them Pamphilia and Amphilanthus
come to rule over eastern Europe and Asia Minor.
The romance locale of Urania conveys a seventeenth-century Briton’s-eye
view of the world to the east. This view is imaginatively congruent with con-
temporary accounts of such broader locales in the travel narratives of George
Sandys’s A Relation of a Journey () and Fynes Moryson’s An Itinerary Con-
taining His Ten Yeeres Travell (). Wroth’s positioning of the rock at St.
Maura on the Ionian island of Leucadia, “a rocke which lies just against it to-
wards Cephalonia” (First Part ), for example, directly echoes Sandys’s: “a
white rocke which lyeth before it, towards Cephalonia.”32 Representations of
geographical space, national character, and political distinctiveness such as
those in Sandys and Moryson likewise inform Wroth’s narrative.33 The stereo-
types of national ethos in these accounts readily merge with romance topoi in
the action of Urania, especially in exploits associated with Amphilanthus.
Amphilanthus’s captivity in England allows for a satiric interlude designed
to sharpen the national sentiment of its English readers near the end of the fic-
tion. Here the prince of Venice and the dukes of Savoy and Florence arrive in
England to search for the missing hero. They set anchor at Dover, identified as
“the faire Rocks of Brittany, anciently called Albion; but by happinesse after
many misfortunes againe called Brittany” (First Part ). This renaming of
Albion as “Brittany” accords with James’s efforts to unite England, Scotland,
Wales, and Ireland under the composite ancestral name of “Britain.”34 It em-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

bellishes the nationalist myth of early settlement by the Trojan Brute as well as
the ancient migration of Celtic Bretons from the Rhine basin across western
Europe into southern England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Perhaps most
conspicuously, it registers the mixed ethnic identity of Britain and, in retro-
spect, the merely fractional part played by England and its Anglo-Saxon fore-
bears in shaping the composite nation.35 Wroth’s description of this Brittany
notes its bracing air, “and that in greatest bounty,” its generally sparse rural
habitation in a landscape “stony, wooddy, rocky, and as odde as could bee,” its
“faire” though apparently “poore” towns (), its expansive forests and com-
munal lands with sheep “in aboundance, and some Cattle” (), and “the
bravery, and sumptuousnesse” of London (). But it also defines “this
charming Countrey” as a site of aberrant action (). The story recounts the
“unmanerly” reception of “haughty” foreigners upon their arrival at a rural
inn, “a second or rather a perfect Hell” crowded with drunken knights and
quarrelling squires (‒), and it leads to the allegory of Amphilanthus’s en-
trapment in the Hell of Deceit, figuring the abuse of imagination which holds
its self-pleasing grip upon the monarch of Pamphilia’s affection.36
Fanciful as this narrative is, it enables readers to glimpse the geopolitical di-
versity of Europe and the Middle East and to assess the uniqueness of England
in this world.37 Because Urania is a romance fiction, its amatory entangle-
ments prevail over dynastic relationships. It is as though Wroth’s protagonists
see themselves as anguished lovers first, baffled and tormented by the pangs of
love, and as ascendant monarchs second, human beings with feet of clay
dressed in robes of state which barely compensate for their doubts and insecu-
rities. Their crowns appear as inherited artifacts scarcely differentiating them
from lesser mortals, who behave in similar ways under the rule of Love. The
lessons of Sidney’s Defence travel full circle as “our poet” becomes “of all sci-
ences . . . the monarch”: “For he doth not only shew the way, but giveth so
sweet a prospect unto the way as will entice any man to enter into it” (First
Part ). Here Petrarch and Petrarchism, especially Petrarchism as elaborated
in the commentaries, provide the keys to spiritual renewal among Wroth’s be-
leaguered heroes and heroines as their aristocratic impulses guide them to
virtue. Internal merit justifies their rank and status, palliating their worldly
ambition with spiritual refinement. With this assessment Wroth’s defensive
uncle could surely agree. If his literary production aimed implicitly toward
that goal, hers makes it explicit as an apology for her family’s undeniable
achievements.


 11 Prosthetic Gods
The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

Henry Sidney’s advancement toward title in the reign of Henry VIII reached a
double climax with his daughter Mary’s marriage to the earl of Pembroke in
Elizabeth’s reign and his son Robert’s accession to the nobility in James’ reign.
Its success might seem the fulfillment of a fairy-tale dream, except that frus-
trations mark the way. Felt most keenly in the transitional generation of Mary
and Robert, these frustrations beget a strong malaise. The jagged evolution of
social categories in early-seventeenth-century England further complicates the
family’s ambivalence. When the linkage of aristocracy to wealth and status
rather than to a warrior professionalism took root during James I’s reign, ear-
lier definitions of rank became blurred.1 A spirit of commercialism had be-
fallen England’s urban population, bringing prosperity to the gentry and bour-
geoisie and positioning them for economic competition with the titled
nobility. The great recorder of this transformation was Ben Jonson, frequenter
of the Sidneys at Penshurst and Wilton. In alternating currents of satire and
detachment, complicity and involvement, he chronicled the rise of town and
country gentlefolk and wealthy bourgeoisie to prominence in the nation’s ex-
pansive hierarchy, using the Sidney family as a classical point of reference in
poems on that topic.2
Jonson’s “To Penshurst” is a celebrated example. Here the poet disclaims that
Robert Sidney’s estate was “built to envious show, / Of touch, or marble” (‒),
as it would have been by the nouveau riche; it instead rejoices “in better markes”
of aristocratic virtue and honor ().3 As the speaker weaves a seamless, almost
invisible web of pentameter couplet rhymes, so he makes the immense human


The Site of Petrarchism in England

labor required to build Penshurst seem effortless, as though the edifices of poem
and building were “rear’d with no mans ruine, no mans grone” ().4 Jonson, a
bricklayer’s stepson, fantasizes a rise in his own status as he identifies with his
patrons, imaging that in the dining hall no waiter “doth my gluttony envy: /
But gives me what I call, and lets me eate” (‒). So complete is this fantasy
that he addresses Penshurst “as if thou, then, wert mine, or I raign’d here” ().5
The poet’s assertion of command over this site proclaims a nobilitas in the
national imaginary that would please Mary Wroth. Following “To Penshurst”
in his carefully arranged collection The Forrest () Jonson dedicates a poem
to her husband, “To Sir Robert Wroth,” which depicts a salubrious mingling
of the nation’s nobility and its rustic workers (but not mercantile bourgeoisie)
in bonds of loyalty and allegiance. Here Sir Robert’s zest for hunting brings
him into productive contact with “the rout of rurall folke” who labor on his
estate (). Receiving them with “welcome grace,” Lady Wroth entertains them
in ancestral halls where now “the great Heroes, of her race, / Sit mixt with losse
of state, or reverence” (‒). The Sidney family’s “losse” implied in its min-
gling with lowly rustics evokes a corresponding gain in its achieving not only
real title but also a high moral ground where “freedome doth with degree dis-
pense” ().
Like the Sidneys, Jonson reached into the canons of England’s literary his-
tory to gather and assimilate materials for his literary production.6 As though
to proclaim this connection, he dedicated his  Epigrammes to William
Herbert, declaring these classical poems “the ripest of my studies” ().7 And, as
though to acknowledge Herbert’s relationship with Wroth, he addressed suc-
cessive epigrams to each. Epigram  praises Herbert’s noblêsse, which “keeps
one stature still, / And one true posture” against the “ambition, faction, pride”
of the times. Epigram  praises in Wroth “but the twi-light of your sprite”
which would make her known “to be a Sydney, though un-named.” Epigram
, framed by poems addressed to the Herbert family (Susan de Vere, count-
ess of Montgomery, in  and Sir Edward Herbert in ), praises Wroth as
a model from which to reconstruct the form of classical virtue “had all antiq-
uitie beene lost.” She figures at once a text that some might imitate (“There’s
none so dull, that for your stile would aske”) and a topic that others might
pursue (“So are you Natures Index, and restore / I’ your selfe, all treasure lost of
th’age before”). She is the material embodiment of a social ethic and moral
aesthetic recovered from England’s now distant past.8 In Jonson’s and Wroth’s
day London was seen as embodying the best that the nation had to offer, a
concentration of its wealth in the material as well as spiritual, cultural, intel-


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

lectual senses, so that it prefigured synecdochally the entire nation of which it

was a part.
Ben Jonson avoided the Petrarchan model in his own writing, except for
some satiric uses in such plays as Epicoene.9 The single example of the sonnet
form in his collected verse, poem  of Under-wood (gathered in  and pub-
lished in ‒), appropriately addresses Wroth. Here Jonson plays mischie-
vously with the conventions of Petrarchism even as he disparages them. The
speaker records his experience of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus with the neolo-
gism exscribe, conveying the physical act of copying out a manuscript but also
suggesting “to imitate the writing of another.” Not only does this act allow
Jonson the illusion of possessing Wroth’s poetry in its material form, but it also
enables him to process and absorb the latter, enhancing his perception of its
virtues.10 Fittingly, the experience prompts him to write a sonnet, though with
the characteristic Jonsonian twist of imposing his own poetic rhythms in the
conspicuously hypermetrical “feminine” rhymes of shew it and poet:

I that have beene a lover, and could shew it,

Though not in these, in rithmes not wholly dumbe,
Since I exscribe your Sonnets, am become
A better lover, and much better Poet.

The poem demonstrates Jonson’s art of gathering and transformation while in-
gesting Wroth’s delight in Petrarchan form. Jonson had earlier dedicated to her
his quarto printing of The Alchemist (), evidently trusting that she would
appreciate its satire on the commercialization of London’s middle classes,
about as far from courtly Petrarchism as one might imagine. Her enjoyment
of it affords one more confirmation of her aversion to the values embraced by
England’s bourgeoisie.
Wroth laid claim to the Sidneys’ literary assets, and she used them to pro-
claim her aristocratic flight from the populous urban marketplace that Jonson
derided. Her departure from this milieu is complicated, however, by feelings
of ambivalence toward her immediate family. Her father, though elevated to
the nation’s peerage, hardly represents the family’s most talented member. Its
ideal remains Philip Sidney. His aspirations embody everything that an earlier
generation thought unattainable and a later generation took for granted. In
terms that Freud describes in Civilization and Its Discontents, ancestors like
Philip Sidney function as gods who represent “cultural ideals.” The problem
begins when his descendants might wish to seem gods themselves, but, as
Freud points out, they attain their goals “not completely; in some respects, not


The Site of Petrarchism in England

at all, in others only half way” (Works .). The result for this generation is a
sense of inferiority and insufficiency. The heir feels like “a kind of prosthetic
God,” propped up by an inheritance that is not fully his or her own: “When
he puts on all his auxiliary organs he is truly magnificent; but those organs
have not grown on him and they still give him much trouble at times” (.).
These prosthetic devices are now construed largely as infringements upon the
heir’s liberty.
The trappings of caste and class, tangible displays of power and wealth,
prestige and entitlement, constitute the most visible sorts of prosthetic device
associated with the nation’s elite families. Mary Wroth routinely devalued
most of these trappings, but, following in the mold of her aunt and uncle, she
greatly esteemed her literary and rhetorical education as the mark of her com-
mitment to learning. The family had in fact staked a great deal on the latter
ever since Henry Sidney began assembling a serious library in the s. A re-
cently recovered seventeenth-century catalog of the Penshurst library suggests
that Henry and his descendants seem consistently to have favored books of
law, history, and current events over every other type, reflecting their preoccu-
pation with the nation’s affairs of state, the political advancement of their own
interests, and matters of supreme public consequence.11 In October 
Philip defended this preoccupation in a letter to Robert urging him to study
history more seriously than other academic disciplines because “the Historian
makes himself a discourse for profite and an Orator, yea, a Poet sometimes for
Ornament,” subsuming into his writing the work of “the Divine . . . the
Lawyer . . . a Naturall Philosopher . . . and a moral Philosopher.”12 Such habits
of reading would prepare its practitioners for roles of leadership in adapting to
a modernized world.
The text that would provide the major ground for application and recom-
bination was the Bible. Mary Sidney, as we have seen, devoted a great part of
her literary activity to translating Psalms, while women who wrote on scrip-
tural themes include Anne Askew, Anne Lok, and Anne Collins. Among
Wroth’s contemporaries most important was Aemelia Lanyer (‒), a
daughter of Elizabeth I’s Venetian court musician, Baptista Bassano, and like
Wroth no stranger to sexual impropriety.13 In  Lanyer was one of the first
women in England to see her own work through the press when she published
Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum.14 Her poem, a biblical narrative about Jesus’ Pas-
sion and Resurrection in  rhyme royale stanzas, is framed by dedicatory po-
ems that press the old conventions of Petrarchism to register the new pulse of
seventeenth-century England before abandoning them altogether.15


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

With its bold emotional emphasis on the lamentations of Mary and the fe-
male saints, the Salve Deus seems out of step with increasingly austere Calvin-
ist leanings that disparaged such sentiment.16 Addressing elite women who
might serve as possible patrons for this poetry, Lanyer confronted the social
differences that complicate their putatively shared ideals.17 In “To the Ladie
Katherine Countesse of Suffolke,” for example, she cites the Petrarchan model
as a specific instance of elite court poetry against which hers represents Christ
as “a Lover much more true / Than ever was since first the world began”
(‒).18 In “To the Queenes most Excellent Majestie” she depicts herself as
“clos’d up in Sorrowes Cell, / Since great Elizaes favour blest my youth”
(‒), a comparison indicting the Jacobean court for having become a
snobbish preserve. In “The Authors Dreame to the Ladie Marie” she addresses
Mary Sidney, whose translated Psalms are “holy Sonnets” (), at once noting
the distance between herself “here on earth” and Sidney now “in the heav’ns
above” (). Lanyer’s poetic efforts as native “hony in the meanest flowres”
contrast sharply with Mary Sidney’s, figured as luxury “sugar” imported from
New World colonies, “more finer, higher priz’d” (‒), but both aspire to
the sweetness formerly exemplified by Petrarch’s candied sonnets and tem-
pered style.
The patron whom Lanyer sought most to attract was Margaret Clifford,
countess dowager of Cumberland, and in poems addressed to her daughter
Lanyer figures a series of roles that women might play in imagining England
as a nation and in formulating new expressions of national sentiment. In “To
the Ladie Anne, Countesse of Dorset” she tries to efface the social disparities
in their rank with the claim that “God makes both even, the Cottage with the
Throne” (). Such women might show the way to an equitable society built
upon loyalty and trust, in which bonds of allegiance unite members unknown
to one another but sharing crisscrossed patterns of tacit affection and affilia-
tion in interlocking, interpenetrating layers of shared community. In the topo-
graphic poem celebrating the royal manor associated with the Cliffords, the
“Description of Cooke-ham,” Lanyer mourns her absence from this site
“where I first obtain’d / Grace from that Grace where perfit Grace remain’d”
(‒), and from the person of Anne, whose marriage to the earl of Dorset has
transported her far away:
Unconstant Fortune, thou art most too blame,
Who casts us downe into so Lowe a frame:
Where our great friends we cannot daily see.
(‒)


The Site of Petrarchism in England

In this telling ambiguity of Fortune as “fate, lot in life” but also as “portion of
wealth or worldly prosperity,” Lanyer registers upon upper-class women the
emotional toll of their social mobility when they leave their families of origin
to wed (usually older) men in marriages arranged to serve the economic inter-
ests of their kin.19 With them, however, they transport at least a sense of their
local or regional identities, uniting them with those of their husbands in some-
times distant locales. And, in raising their own families upon this hybrid space,
they would become links in a network of translocal, supraregional identity.
In Lanyer’s view the exogamic experience of these women becomes a para-
digm for a newly defined, generically transportable brand of national senti-
ment. One scriptural prototype for such women is Ruth, a widow who fuses
her own identity with that of her spousal family and in exchange acquires a
new form of identity. Ruth, the foreigner, absorbs radical Otherness into her
embrace of an adoptive community and thus models a role that exogamic
wives and mothers adopt in their marital and family arrangements.20 Lanyer’s
gallery of potential patrons acknowledges this condition of life for upper-class
women, figuring it as emblematic of a commutative national sentiment. Such
a sentiment would increasingly call upon women—and men—to commit
themselves to supraregional loyalties that transcend narrowly provincial con-
texts and fuel the hybrid identity of the nation.
In Wroth’s Pamphilia to Amphilanthus a powerful example of such secular-
ized scriptural modeling concerns the meaning of the word liberty, used by
Paul in  Corinthians . (“Where is the spirit of God, there is liberty [Koine
eleuthería, Vulgate libertas]) to designate a freedom from bondage to sin
granted by divine patrimony but also used in early-seventeenth-century Eng-
lish in a range of meaning from ordinary “freedom to act” (OED sense ) to
opprobrious “licence or licentious behavior” (OED sense ) to the sense of “an
exceptional right or privilege granted to a subject by the sovereign” (OED
sense ). Pamphilia to Amphilanthus stages a conflict among these meanings in
the laments of their Petrarchan lovers. Wroth’s speaker, the queen of Morea,
finds herself on the receiving end of Petrarchan declarations wrought by an
imperfect and disappointing man, the king of Naples and soon-to-be Holy
Roman Emperor. Mistreatment drives her to defense mechanisms with poten-
tial consequences for the nation that she rules.
Sonnet , first series (P), “Am I thus conquer’d? have I lost the powers,”
exemplifies the distractions to which Pamphilia is led, the evasions that she
may practice in dealing with them, and the insight that she might gain in a
wider social, psychological, and theological context.21 The poem recalls sonnet


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

 of Astrophil and Stella, “What, have I thus betrayed my libertie?” which it-
self echoes Petrarch’s concern with libertà (liberty) in sonnets , , , and .
The nexus among various meanings in the word liberty is its etymology from the
collective noun liberi, liber(or)um (offspring), which designates children of the
patrician class, born with the right to inherit titles and estates from their an-
cestors and with the duty of their parents to ensure such transmission.22 Even
the sovereign is constrained to respect their rights to familial inheritances just
as God grants His own designated liberi freedom from bondage to sin.
Wroth’s and Sidney’s poems follow similar trajectories. Pamphilia initially
questions whether she has lost her freedom to resist Love’s conquest of her
will: “Am I thus conquer’d? have I lost the powers / That to withstand, which
joy’s to ruin mee?” Although in a pivotal couplet she forcefully rejects Love’s
domination—“Why should wee not loves purblind charmes resist? / Must wee
bee servile, doing what hee list?”—she nonetheless accedes to Love in the
poem’s final lines: “Butt O my hurt, makes my lost hart confess / I love, and
must: so farwell libertie.” Astrophil defiantly questions whether he has lost his
freedom: “What, have I thus betrayed my libertie?” His initial inquiry raises
self-doubt about his very rank and status: “Can those black beames such burn-
ing markes engrave / In my free side? or am I borne a slave, / Whose necke be-
comes such yoke of tyranny?” Summoning Virtue in the sestet, “Vertue,
awake!” Astrophil rouses himself to reject Stella’s seductive allure. At that very
moment she appears before him. On the verge of renouncing her, he suddenly
halts. In a hilarious reversal one glimpse of her eyes paralyzes him:

Let her go. Soft, but here she comes. Go to,

Unkind, I love you not: O me, that eye
Doth make my heart give to my tongue the lie.

In each poem, then, the speaker surrenders to Love. The difference is that
Pamphilia does so through a conscious act of the will (“So farewell Liberty”),
while Astrophil does so in an unconscious, involuntary moment of weakness
(“O me”). Pamphilia hands herself over to a sublime love, while Astrophil slips
on the banana peel of lust.
Astrophil’s weakness rehearses a distinct line of inquiry in sixteenth-century
commentaries on Petrarch’s sonnet , “Ahi bella libertà, come tu m’ài, / Par-
tendoti da me” ‘Ah sweet liberty, how by departing from me,’ a poem whose
tortured metrics forecast Sidney’s dramatic rhythms. The dominant effect of
Petrarch’s verse occurs through a higher-than-usual frequency of midline
tronco stresses on the final syllables at the hiatus of some lines (“Ahi bella lib-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

ertà,” “partendoti da me”) and dieresis or the separation of adjunct vowels in

the final syllables of other lines (“come tu m’ài,” “io non guerro mai”). The re-
sult conveys sharp agitation. Sidney’s effects, by contrast, are comic, whether
registered by jerky iambs (“I may, I must, I can, I will, I do”) or by breath-
pausing enjambment (“go to, / Unkind, I love you not”). Some commentators
on Petrarch’s model construe the speaker’s lost libertà in the context of scrip-
tural opposition between freedom of the spirit and bondage to the flesh, as in
St. Paul’s  Corinthians ., “where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
Gesualdo imparts a Neoplatonic turn to his discussion by paraphrasing the oc-
tave’s final lines so that “a uedere beltà celeste & a schifare ogni cosa men bella”
‘to see heavenly beauty and to despise everything less beautiful’ are qualities
imputed “al Platonico & al uero amante” ‘to the Platonic and to the true lover’
(CXXIXr). Castelvetro adds that Laura is a “diuina cosa” ‘divine being’ and that,
like the mythic Acteon, mere mortals such as Petrarch “non vegga cosa diuina
senza danno” ‘do not behold a divine being without being harmed’ ().
When Bernardino Daniello comments upon the topos, he veers notably
away from moral or theological issues and refers instead to classical precedent.
Shifting the site of Petrarch’s concerns to the social and political sphere, he
identifies bella libertà as an echo from Virgil’s Aeneid .‒. These lines
evoke the historical struggle between Rome’s elite families and its tyrannical
kingship, resulting in the birth of the republic as an oligarchy, ruled by patri-
cian magistrates in the interests of great landowners. Here Anchises prophesies
the goal of Junius Brutus, who wrested the imperium from his uncle Tarquin
in  ... and restored it to the aristocracy, “pulchra pro libertate” ‘for fair
freedom’s sake’ (.).23 So strong was Brutus’ amor patriae (Aeneid .)—
a love not of nation or res publica or “fatherland” in any extended sense but of
his own distinct lineage and aristocratic patrimony, his patria in the sense of
patrilinear family connections—that as Roman consul he later sentenced to
death his own sons for conspiring to restore the exiled king: “natosque pater
nova bella moventis / ad poenam pulchra pro libertate vocabit” ‘when his sons
stir up new war, the father, for fair freedom’s sake, shall call them to their doom’
(.‒). It is as though the pious amor patris that motivated Aeneas’ jour-
ney to the underworld had morphed into a monstrous amor patriae (.).
Particularizing libertas in its etymological derivation from liberi as the priv-
ilege of a noble family to transmit its inheritance to legitimate offspring and
thus to manage its own affairs, Daniello applies it to Petrarch’s concern with
his poetic patrimony. The speaker worries that his deference to Laura has un-
done his libertà as a poet, his privilege and responsibility, that is, to transmit a


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

poetic inheritance from classical antiquity to the present. Perhaps it may even
impel him to abandon his major liber (book) as a poet, his epic about the an-
cient republic’s finest hour in the Punic Wars. Amor inverts his poetic preoc-
cupation with Roma, an inversion measured in the opening of the last tercet
(echoing the word-within-words of mia morte associating amor [love] with a
kind of morte [death] in the preceding tercet) and in the figuration of pie (feet)
for metrics and man (hands) for writing:
Amor in altra parte non mi sprona,
né i pie’ sanno altra via, né le man come
lodar si possa in carte altra persona.
Love does not spur me anywhere else, nor do my feet know any other road,
nor do my hands know how on paper any other person can be praised.

Laura’s tyranny deprives future generations of one sort of poetic patrimony

while endowing it with another in the form of the Petrarchan lyric.
Daniello’s gloss anticipates the patrimonial contexts of both Pamphilia to
Amphilanthus and Astrophil and Stella. It summons Pamphilia’s sense of inher-
ited prerogative and Astrophil’s hard-won entitlement. Both of them complain
about demands that aristocratic status imposes upon them as a new concep-
tion of the nation takes shape. The conclusion of Sidney’s Old Arcadia, and
hence of the composite Arcadia published by the countess of Pembroke in
, illustrates the meaning of liberty in this context as its action evokes Livy’s
narrative of Junius Brutus’ harsh judgment against his sons at the foundation
of the Roman Republic.24 Here the heroes Pyrocles and his cousin Musidorus
have been arrested for complicity in the apparent death of King Basilius. The
latter’s successor, Euarchus of Macedonia, Pyrocles’ father, brings the suspects
to trial and, like Brutus, condemns them to death even though they are his son
and nephew: “I prefer you much before my life, but I prefer justice as far be-
fore you” (). Musidorus assails the austere verdict as a “bloody conquest,”
and Pyrocles offers to die for both of them: “Let Musidorus live, and Pyrocles
shall live in him, and you shall not want a child” (). The heroes are saved
only when Basilius awakens from what has been a sleep induced by magic po-
tions. Euarchus resigns from his kingship, “more glad than of the whole
world’s monarchy to be rid of his miserable magistracy” (), and equitable
rule is providentially restored.25
The tempering of justice with mercy and the conduct of equitable rule fig-
ure as important themes in Arcadia, but they also generate important motifs
in Astrophil and Stella, and they inflect the context of Wroth’s Urania and


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Pamphilia to Amphilanthus as well. Astrophil’s questions in sonnet  are not

entirely rhetorical:

What, have I thus betrayed my libertie?

Can those blacke beames such burning markes engrave
In my free side? or am I borne a slave,
Whose necke becomes such yoke of tyranny?

Here liberty and its off-rhyme tyranny figure in three important senses argued
by the Petrarchan commentators—social or patrimonial, personal or psycho-
logical, and moral or theological. Astrophil cannot quite coordinate their im-
plications as his liberty slides from the state of “exemption or freedom from ar-
bitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” (OED sense ) toward a chaotic
state of “unrestrained action, conduct, or expression; freedom of behavior or
speech, beyond what is granted or recognized as proper” (OED sense ). His
construction of tyranny likewise implies a psychological condition in which an
“unjustly severe use of one’s authority” (OED sense ) slides toward “violence,
outrage, villany” (OED sense b). Finally, his use of the word faith initiates a
devotional trajectory in the second quatrain:

Or want I sense to feele my miserie?

Or spite, disdaine of such disdaine to have?
Who for long faith, tho dayly helpe I crave,
May get no almes but scorne of beggerie.

Unlike the spiritual fede of Mary and Peter in Petrarch’s sonnet , Astrophil’s
faith reduces him to contemptible meanness. When in the sestet he summons,
“Virtue awake,” he regards “virtue” as an efficacious moral power to help him
recover the personal freedom he thinks he has lost.
A model for Astrophil’s ensuing resolve (“I may, I must, I can, I will, I do)
and his sudden failure of nerve (“soft, but here she comes!”) is Petrarch’s son-
net . In Petrarch’s poem the speaker loses control the moment he sees
Laura, “sì dolce et ria / Che l’alma trema per levarsi a volo” ‘so sweet and cruel
that my soul trembles to rise in flight.’ Upon descrying in her eyes a pity that
he cannot verify, “s’i’ non erro” ‘if I do not err,’ he is overcome by an impulse
to declare his torment to her. No sooner does he formulate his intent than he
stops short: “Tanto gli ò a dir che ’ncominciar non oso” ‘I have so much to say
to her that I dare not begin.’ The crisis points to a more volatile issue than his
poetic ability to express Laura’s excellence. It concerns the lover’s moral re-
sponsibility and his enslavement to the senses.


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

Sixteenth-century commentators register opposing views on these conflicts.

Some construe them as wholly interior. Fausto da Longiano, for example, lo-
cates the action entirely within the speaker’s imagination, “stando nella imag-
inatione d’hauer a parlar alla sua donna” ‘posing in his imagination the act of
having to speak to his lady’ (v). For Sylvano da Venafro the speaker grows
anxious—“Che l’alma trema per levarsi a volo” ‘That my soul trembles to rise
in flight’—not because he doubts his ability to address the beloved but be-
cause the moment of ecstasy is so intense that it undoes him: “Che l’alma sua
tremava per leuarsi a uuolo. Per lasciar le membra. Et non gia come Altri di-
cono per . . . effettuar di parlarle, ch’era suo pensiero” ‘His soul was trembling
to rise in flight, to leave behind its bodily members; the reason is not, as others
claim, . . . to carry out his plan of telling her what his thoughts were’ (cxxxiiiv).
In Daniello’s gloss, “Pien d’un vago pensier che me desvia / Da tutti gli altri, et
fammi al mondo ir solo” ‘Full of a yearning thought that makes me stray away
from all others and go alone in the world,’ refers to the speaker’s rapt imagi-
nation: “: perche non è simile à quello de gli altri amanti, poco prezzando
esso quel, ch’ogn’un desia” ‘Alone, because it is similar to that of no other lovers,
as he values little what everyone else desires’ (r). According to these com-
mentators, the speaker wishes to prolong his experience of elevated thought.
Other commentators construe Petrarch’s text in less idealized terms. Gesu-
aldo, for example, mocks certain glossators, “ingegnosi giovani” ‘ingenious
young readers,’ who imagine that “Poe. pieno del detto pensiero solo n’andasse
a se stesso involandosi, ricercando colla mente M.L.” ‘full of the aforemen-
tioned thoughts, the poet walks alone, stealing away by himself, seeking Laura
in his imagination.’ Gesualdo prefers to imagine a face-to-face encounter be-
tween Petrarch and Laura: “Non uuol dir altro, se non che disiando, e
temendo d’adiempiere il suo disire nel’apparir di lei grauemente sospiraua” ‘It
cannot mean anything else but that, desiring her and fearing to fulfill his de-
sire, he would sigh solemnly in her presence’ (ccxxv). The speaker cannot put
into adequate words his own dense feelings. Castelvetro spells out the tension
when he paraphrases the poem’s last line: “Tante sono le cose, che io ho da
dire, che io temo, dicendole tutte, d’offenderla, per essere troppe” ‘So many
are the things I have to say, that in saying all of them I fear to offend her with
their quantity’ ().
Vestiges of this tension pervade Astrophil’s complaint. In the presence of
Stella he lacks the discipline, the emotional maturity, and the moral resources to
keep liberty from collapsing into license, and the outcome is actually funny. In-
voluntary weakness at the end of sonnet  propels him to abandon his resolve:


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Vertue awake, Beautie but beautie is,

I may, I must, I can, I will, I do
Leave following that, which it is gaine to misse.
Let her go. Soft, but here she comes. Go to,
Unkind, I love you not: O me, that eye
Doth make my heart give to my tongue the lie.

Astrophil’s anxieties seep out explicitly in scriptural contexts, among which

“Or am I born a slave, / Whose neck becomes such yoke of tyranny?” resonates
against St. Paul’s “Ye are boght with a price: be not the seruants of men” ( Cor.
.). He simply does not correlate his behavior with Paul’s teaching.
Scripture implies a judgment upon Astrophil in other ways as well. Al-
though no Christian should be or become another’s slave, in  Timothy .‒
Paul urges servants to respect their masters, especially those who profess Chris-
tian faith: “Thei which haue beleuing masters, let them not despise them.”
Masters who perform God’s will—including leaders of the church and state
and certainly England’s annointed monarch who governs the Church in this
particular kingdom—merit loyalty. Others do not. This warning captures
God’s people in a double bind. Paul cautions that not all human leaders serve
God as they should, for some “shall departe from the faith, and shal give hede
vnto spirits of errour.” Paul’s text promotes resistance to corrupt authority
never more powerfully than when it associates false doctrine with the effemi-
nacy of “old wiues fables” (Greek graōdeis múthos, Latin aniles fabulas) and its
remedy with an exercise of militant Christianity: “But cast away prophane,
and old wiues fables, & exercise thy self vnto godlines” ( Tim. .). For a mil-
itant Protestant like Philip Sidney, especially after his retreat from Elizabeth’s
court in , such a text might justify his criticism of the queen’s proposed
marriage with the duke d’Anjou.26 For a deluded sensualist like Astrophil,
Paul’s text might reinforce the lover’s self-proclaimed ends, one of which is,
perversely, to justify his rejection of the court’s rules about sexual conduct.
When Astrophil does so, he is asserting his own willful prerogative beyond
that of any sovereign, church, or bureaucratic state. His reasoning rests upon
the presumptive conception of libertà implied in Daniello’s analogy between
Petrarch’s speaker and the Brutus of Virgil’s Aeneid. The liberty whose loss As-
trophil laments has everything to do with his fixation upon a patria and a pat-
rimony—strangely overdetermined because the lineage and wealth of this his-
torical author came not from his father but from his mother (Mary Dudley,
daughter of the duke of Northumberland) and his wife (Frances Walsingham,
daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s principal secretary of state),


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

Sidney’s matria (to coin a neologism) and his matrimony.27 Petrarch’s com-
mentators warn about the lover’s moral life, as Vellutello, Gesualdo, and
Castelvetro do when they evoke his bondage to sin, but Astrophil pays no at-
tention. He fixes his understanding of freedom upon a self-justifying and self-
promoting sense of libertà.
Wroth’s sonnet  offers a different perspective on noble autonomy and am-
atory choice. In her poem Pamphilia initially projects a resolution stronger
than any of Astrophil’s. The speaker’s rhetorical questions leave no doubt
about the depth of her self-assurance. They test her sense of the “powers” and
“strength” that she needs in order to remain free:
Am I thus conquer’d? have I lost the powers
That to withstand, which joy’s to ruin mee?
Must I bee still while itt my strength devowres
And captive leads mee prisoner, bound, unfree?

Part of her self-assurance issues from a confident, even defiant, enumeration of

impossibilities (in the rhetorical form of a recusatio) which must occur before
she concedes to Love:
Love first shall leave mens phant’sies to them free,
Desire shall quench loves flames, spring hate sweet
showres,
Love shall loose all his darts, have sight, and see
His shame, and wishings hinder happy howres.
At first it seems unclear how these possibilities might resolve her questions. Pe-
trarchan convention would encourage a positive resolution with negative con-
sequences: Yes, I am conquered, I have lost my powers, I must be still. In Pe-
trarch’s sonnet , “Ponmi ove ’l sole occide i fiori et l’erba” ‘Place me where
the sun kills the flowers and the grass,’ for example, amatory devotion can
only prove debilitating so long as nature itself abhors contradiction. The self-
defensive posturing of Wroth’s lover, on the other hand, encourages the oppo-
site response, a negative resolution with positive consequences: No, I am not
conquered, I have not lost my powers, I cannot be still.
As it unfolds, the poem supports both responses in radical contrariety. The
speaker can resist servitude only by giving herself wholly and freely to a love
that occupies her. But she must also subordinate her love to the claims of gen-
der, class, and rank, partly because in the fictional narrative of Urania she her-
self is the queen of a nation and is therefore subject to the moral discipline that
she requires of others. The impression of contrariety seems particularly acute


The Site of Petrarchism in England

as the poem stages its conflict of discourses. The first quatrain, for example,
projects scriptural overtones from Paul—the call to resist being “conquer’d,”
to “withstand” what can “ruin” faithful service, to avoid being “still” as this
wicked force “strength devowres / And captive leads mee prisoner.” The second
quatrain displays an anacreontic imagination that Petrarch’s commentators
find disturbing in the Rime sparse—the lover’s “phant’sies,” love’s “flames,”
springtime’s “showres,” Cupid’s “darts and blindness.” Against the latter Pam-
philia’s scriptural echoes iterate her positive commitment to active virtue.
The contest between scriptural and anacreontic discourses reaches its cli-
max in the sestet. Here Pamphilia asserts her resistance to “love’s purblind
charms”: “Why should wee nott loves purblind charmes resist? / Must wee bee
servile, doing what hee list?” Reinforcing Scripture’s claims, the queen of
Morea unequivocally asserts her moral independence when she banishes the
figure of Cupid: “Noe, seeke some hoste to harbour thee: I fly / Thy babish
trickes, and freedome doe profess.” Once again the anacreontic mode repre-
sented by a mischievous Cupid clashes with the scriptural mode. Scriptural
meanings of host might evoke the Lord God of Hosts or possibly the bread of
Communion (Latin hostia [sacrifice, victim]) which reconciles sinners to the
deity. Its secular meanings evoke the military might of an assembled army
(Latin hostis [armed host]) and the reciprocal duties of hospitality as either
household master or guest (Latin hostis [host, guest]). Its negative meaning
evokes the sense of an enemy presence (Latin hostis [enemy]). These discordant
possibilities heighten the impact of struggle in Pamphilia’s narrative, a struggle
that the speaker’s concluding lines overturn: “Butt O my hurt, makes my lost
hart confess / I love, and must: So farwell liberty.” Pamphilia cannot defeat Cu-
pid or resist the claims of love. Everything that she does only reinforces her at-
tachment to Amphilanthus. In a capitulation that recalls how Astrophil and Pe-
trarch’s speaker surrendered to love, Pamphilia succumbs to amatory bondage.
Pamphilia’s compromise nonetheless differs from that of Petrarch or As-
trophil. In his commentary on Petrarch’s sonnet  Vellutello interprets the
speaker’s verbal paralysis as a result of awe before Laura’s virtue. Her sweetness
moves him to extol her excellence, but her chastity urges him to silence. As
Vellutello explains, “l’anima . . . trema & non ardisce per la rigidita, dalla qual
vede tal dolcezza in lei essere accompagnata” ‘his soul trembles and he dares
nothing because of the moral austerity that he sees accompany her extreme
sweetness’ (r). While Pamphilia certainly cannot attribute any active virtue
to the unfaithful Amphilanthus, she may still act as Laura did for Petrarch, as
a spur to motivate his potential for virtue. And, while she might view her sur-


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

render of liberty as something that imperils her right to rule as queen of Morea
and of Pamphilia, she nonetheless submits to love in confidence that her virtue
will prevail.
Wroth’s reworkings of Philip and Mary Sidney’s poetry parallel reworkings
by their literary progeny, Samuel Daniel (‒) and Fulke Greville
(‒), who would express divergent currents of national sentiment while
professing their allegiance to the Sidneian norm. Daniel’s “The Complaint of
Rosamund,” a dramatic monologue appended to his sonnet sequence Delia
from  onward, reverses Petrarchan idealism as it recounts salacious inci-
dents about the historical Rosamund Clifford, mistress of Henry II and an-
cestral relative of Philip Sidney’s one-time rival, George Clifford, earl of Cum-
berland.28 The incidents so besmirch Rosamund’s honor “that Cliffords race
should scorne thee one of theyrs” (‒).29 Her sexual relationship with the
king has deprived Rosamund “of libertie: / The onely good that women holde
so deare” (‒). As the poem’s moral tone makes clear, this libertie is no
vacuous freedom from sexual restraint but, rather, the right to claim legitimate
offspring, liberi, with an affirmation of their paternal identity and a title to in-
heritance reserved for lawful progeny. Adulterous women forfeit this right as
their extramarital activities risk contaminating bloodlines. A nearly forgotten
footnote to national history, it now enlists sympathy for Daniel’s would-be
patroness Lady Margaret Clifford, the long estranged wife of Rosamund’s
descendant.30
Daniel’s preferences for current and local forms led him a decade later to
abandon a superannuated Petrarchism for the timely allure of drama and
masque at the Stuart court and finally to abandon the invention of versified
history for “the common tongue” of prose history, as he avers in his  ded-
ication of The Civil Wars (begun in ) to Mary Sidney.31 Here Daniel’s ac-
count of heroes who “haue brought / Nations and Kingdomes vnder our com-
mand” seems a fairly transparent effort to narrate a national history in accord
with James I’s foreign and domestic policies (.‒).32 Unlike the individ-
ualist heroes of Arcadia, the heroes of Daniel’s Civil Wars are corporate players
who subordinate their (often considerable) egos to national unity.
Meanwhile, in Musophilus ‘Lover of the Muses’ (dedicated to Greville in
) Daniel figures the effects of the national language against the workings
of “this busie world” and “profit-seeking age” (‒), in an effort to “make
men see the weapons of the mind / Are states best strengths and kingdoms
chiefest grace” (‒). Against Philocosmus (Lover of the World) he extols
the vernacular eloquence of “this little point, this scarce discerned Ile, / Thrust


The Site of Petrarchism in England

from the world” (‒), forecasting its effect on future civilizations through
colonial expansion, “T’inrich vnknowing Nations with our stores” (). By
nations Philip Sidney had implied a system of pedigreed biological descent ac-
cording to circumstances of birth, evoking the lineage to which his family as-
pired. Daniel extends the word’s meaning to include those in the future born
of a colonizing stock who, though living abroad, will be one with the people
of England in their legal and political institutions and in the culture and dis-
course that have shaped them. In his usage the word nation implies a strong
bond among distant peoples, one forged by a constantly changing and ever-
evolving language that links far-flung communities, as events happening in
one region or locality impinge upon those happening in another far away.
From this premise springs Daniel’s appreciation of the English language in
A Defence of Ryme (dedicated to William Herbert in ) as one that star-
tlingly reverses conventional humanist assumptions about the impulsive
power of language. Lorenzo de’ Medici’s Commento and Du Bellay’s Deffence,
for example, had argued that a canonically stabilized language might help to
regulate political, legislative, and judicial institutions in an expanding nation.
Daniel provisionally agrees that among these forms there are “as many shapes
as there be tongues or nations in the world” (), but he differs in relating
cause to effect. Whereas earlier writers had attributed the spread of the Roman
Empire to the imposition of its language, Daniel attributes such spread to
brute force: “They may thank their sword that made their tongues so famous
and vniuersall as they are” (). The dialectic of Daniel’s argument leads to a
cultural relativism in which no absolute standard forecasts the achievement of
any given epoch or civilization. Every language, every culture, every system of
thought, “hath alwayes some disposition of worth” (), but none has a mo-
nopoly on it, and none can predict what it may achieve or fail to achieve.
Daniel’s chief example for such excellence is “Franciscus Petrarcha (who
then no doubt likewise found whom to imitate)” (). Not only does Pe-
trarch’s genius defy any logical expectation by originating in a still barbarous
age, but it also defies any anticipated result by triumphing in the vernacular
rather than in Latin, “all which notwithstanding wrought him not that glory
& fame in his owne Nation, as did his Poems in Italian” (). One implica-
tion may be that, if all genius is local or particular, then every genius is eccen-
tric and by definition unpredictable. The concomitant that Daniel espouses
would deny the existence of most, perhaps all, universal rules, except for the
one rule that genius appears “vniuersall” in all cultures “and all seasons hath
them in some sort” (). So Daniel curbs the humanist tendency to privilege


 The Liberties of Astrophil and Pamphilia

the absolute model of Greco-Roman antiquity as he valorizes modernity. But,

just as his defense of rhyme in the vernacular requires him to disparage even
“mine owne daintinesse” in savoring Continental forms (), so it also leads
him to disclaim the idea of any dominant or canonical national form.33 There
are only concrete particulars of excellence whose collective appeal defies cate-
gorization. The idea of the nation appears more than the sum of its parts.
Just as Daniel moved from Petrarchan poetry to versified history, so Fulke
Greville moved from his sonnet sequence Caelica (in which he already re-
nounced Petrarchan excess in the beloved’s complaint that “I offer wrong to
my beloued Saint, / I scorne, I change, I falsify my loue” [sonnet ]) to the un-
adorned didactic versification of his Treatie of Monarchy, Of Humane Learn-
ing, Of Religion, Of Warres, and An Inquisition upon Fame and Honour, writ-
ten in the first decade of the Stuart era.34 Here Greville places a new emphasis
upon personal initiative, now disciplined to meet the economic needs of a re-
generated nation. An Inquisition, for example, meditates upon the hollow but
yet necessary and self-validating pursuit of financial gain and concludes that
the temptation to idolize personal honor is worse than the temptation to seek
private wealth or even creatural pleasure: “Of which three baytes [Gaine, Ho-
nour, Pleasure], yet Honour seemes the chiefe” (st. ). A sedate enjoyment of fi-
nancial reward and of modest comforts that accrue from it can in fact keep
human beings on a godly course against the “hypocrisies of hell” (st. ), those
delusions of self-love which divide people, destroy groups, and fracture the
commonwealth.35 The upshot for Greville is a classic demonstration of a
toughened Protestant initiative in its steadfast devotion to a productive work
ethic, corroborated in the outward marks of success which affirm God’s favor
and in the ties that bind citizens to one another. Money can be good for you
as long as you earn it in good conscience, and it can be good for the nation as
long as citizens manage it with sober circumspection.36
Ironically, Greville’s most important modification to the Sidneian synthesis
of heroic action and religious principle occurs in The Life of Sidney (‒?,
published ). What Philip Sidney had only vaguely fantasized, his biogra-
pher shapes into a national agenda. During Sidney’s dying days attendant sur-
geons labored upon him “to doe him good, and (as they thought) many Na-
tions in him.”37 Here the word Nations refers to all those participants in the
international Protestant League whom Sidney sought to unite. Early chapters
of the Life are filled with accounts of homage to the fallen hero, “reverenced
by forraigne Nations in one forme, of his owne in another” (). In his visits
to the Protestant Netherlands he “awaked that confident Nation” to mistrust


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Spain and the papacy (). Chapters  through  offer a “survay of forraine
Nations” (), with pointed insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each,
geared toward a program of European diplomacy for . Sidney encouraged
the expedition of Francis Drake, for example, less to colonize the New World
than to readjust Europe’s economic balance by “fetchinge away Spain’s golden
fleece” (). In Greville’s argument for the case, Drake’s effort would provide
“forraine employment” for potentially disruptive individuals in England,
Wales, Ireland, and Scotland and so avert their factionalism, as “the word
[gold] was an attractive Adamant to make men venture that which they have”
(, ). By , however, the Crown had already chartered the Virginia
Company, formed for the expressed purpose of encouraging individuals to
pursue their own acquisition of wealth. In the economic climate that ensued,
the monarch could only negotiate among competing factions, as Greville im-
putes Elizabeth to have done. His representation of her intervening among the
“Regiment of her Grandees,” “her yeomanry,” and “her Peasantes” (), allow-
ing none an upper hand over the others, belies the late decades of her reign but
addresses initiatives under way to consolidate national sentiment in the early
years of James’s reign.38
The ideals that Philip Sidney had represented, based on the concept of a
heritable nobility dedicated to the profession of arms in the name of the na-
tion, evolve in Greville’s writing to a new set of ideals associated with personal
property, corporate solidarity, and more fluid notions of social distinction. Tu-
dor policy from Henry VII to Elizabeth I had sought to pacify an autarchic,
activist nobility by transforming it into a class of courtiers noted for compli-
ance and assiduity. Whether through attainder, confiscation, or execution, the
monarchy replaced the old lords with a new aristocracy recruited from the up-
per gentry and urban bourgeoisie on the basis of its willingness to work for the
Crown and pay for the title.39 Since in theory any talented male with access to
training and opportunity (still, of course, tightly limited in the seventeenth
century) might increase his wealth and rise to an elite status through diligence,
effort, and sheer application, one might think of the general populace as a ma-
jor resource for ennobling the nation. One might, that is, identify the strength
of the nation with its active and dynamic population. It was an idea that had
evolved half-hidden in the trope of Petrarchan libertà, opening itself from
moral and theological associations in the commentaries to social and political
ones and enscripted in the history of Petrarchism from Daniel to Greville.
Against these vaguely demotic tendencies, Wroth would renew a Sidneian re-
sponse on the high platform of aristocratic honor and noble virtue.


 12 Byblis and the Bible
Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

Mary Wroth’s continued identification with the Sidney lineage is conspicuous

in her sexual involvement with William Herbert. The birth of their illegiti-
mate children (probably around , alluded to fictively in the Second Part of
Urania) speaks to their mutual disdain for courtly society’s gossip and to their
secure sense of privileged autonomy.1 Edward Herbert, later lord of Cherbury
(‒), the elder brother of the poet George Herbert and a kinsman of
William, projects their blithe disregard in “A Merry Rhyme Sent to the Lady
Wroth upon the Birth of My Lord of Pembroke’s Child,” a poem whose in-
bred monorhyme correlates wittily with the child’s incestuous lineage. Wroth,
he muses, has augmented her metrical accomplishments with “a further art,”
since, “as everybody knows,” the birth of her love child has added “to those
feet fine dainty toes.” Herbert offers to defend her against accusation—“While
thus attired we’ll oppose / The tragic buskins of our foes”—and he concludes
with witty approval of her pregnancy: “’Tis no matter how it shows: / All I care
is, if the child grows.”2 Whether “foes” had objected to the incest or to the il-
legitimacy, or to both, mattered little. Neither Wroth nor Pembroke made any
effort to regularize their union.
Wroth’s attachment to Pembroke no doubt dampened for her the appeal of
other conjugal prospects. He was a swank companion, an amateur of poetry,
theater, and the arts, a sponsor with his brother Philip of the first printed fo-
lios of Ben Jonson () and of William Shakespeare (), and since the age
of twenty no novice in illegitimate parentage after his affair with Mary Fitton.
Nor was he a stranger to endogamous nuptials. In  he married his


The Site of Petrarchism in England

kinswoman, Mary Talbot, a daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury, into whose

family both his father and paternal aunt had married.3 Such unions were not
unusual among the aristocracy to prevent the dispersal of inherited titles and
estates through usurpation by outsiders. Inversely, the practice of exogamy
among the middle and lower classes enabled those without title or estate to
form suprafamilial bonds that reinforce interlocking, interpenetrating layers of
geopolitical community.4
Endogamy, a contract of marriage among close kin, is of course not incest,
the “uncomely claspings” of Shakespeare’s Pericles .., which concerns passion
or sexual violence among close kin. Endogamy is rather a social arrangement
designed to shore up and concentrate the precise designations of caste which
incest would blur by confounding relationships among family members.5 The
etymology of incest from incastus (unchaste) suggests the undoing of castus
(caste) that could follow from a violation of castitas (chastity). Wives and moth-
ers are enjoined to be castae (chaste) in order to safeguard and protect the castus
(caste) of propertied classes, enabling husbands and fathers to identify their
children and endow them with legal rights in a line of descent.6 With respect
to endogamous marriage between first cousins, neither Scripture nor English
law forbids such unions. Both in fact allow them, the latter since , when
English statute legalized marriage between first cousins in order to legitimate
Henry VIII’s match with Catherine Howard, concurrently shifting jurisdiction
over marital contracts from canon law and church courts to that of civil law
and state courts.7 This statute mobilized the major scriptural proof texts for
marriage, Deuteronomy .‒ and Leviticus .‒ and .‒, none of
which prohibits unions between first cousins or even between uncles and nieces.8
Nor could the dark side of the Tudor ancestral myth about King Arthur’s parri-
cidal death at the hands of Mordred, incestuously begotten upon Arthur’s sis-
ter, Morgawse, dispel the lure of such marriages among the aristocracy.9
The paradoxical upshot and antithesis of Henry’s marital policy was the re-
fusal of Elizabeth I—a self-imposed taboo, really—to marry anyone. So rid-
dled with charges of incest was her mother’s life that she sublimated her own
marriage prospects to an idea of suprafamilial siblinghood when she pro-
claimed herself a Virgin Queen, the Bride of England, and Mother of the Eng-
lish people.10 Elizabeth’s promulgation of a new pattern of social organization
owes at least some of its iconic status to ancient religious teachings about in-
cest, enabling her both to erase the stigma of a putatively incestuous birth and
to herald the onset of an exceptional regeneration. An important tradition in
both the Old and New Testaments stipulates that a convert to Judaism or


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

Christianity has undergone a passage from death to life in which he or she is

newborn and is therefore no longer the same person.11 All of the convert’s old
relationships are dissolved, so that this person is free to marry kin to whom he
or she is now no longer considered to be related. Such close couplings ac-
quired a distinctly religious value as a sign of conversion, rebirth, and miracu-
lous renewal.12 Incest emerges in this instance as the affirmation of a new or-
der, a denial of submission to the old order, and a display of powerful beliefs
about religious community and societal organization.
The sexual liaison between Wroth and Herbert invites analogous specula-
tion about its relevance to issues of cultural exceptionality and national iden-
tity. England, as my earlier indications of its multicultural Celtic, Roman,
Saxon, Anglian, Viking, and Norman contributions show, was a political en-
tity with a composite history, and its drive to enforce homogeneous bonds of
loyalty and allegiance required deliberate effort and systematic formulation.13
Its idea of being or becoming a single collective entity evokes the fantasy of a
family that believes it has evolved endogamously rather than exogamously, a
product of spontaneous regeneration and natural cohesion rather than delib-
erate cross-bred union. We might explore this paradox in the First Part of
Urania, in which in important ways Pamphilia figures as a double for Eliza-
beth I. Here incest plays a peculiar role, since not only are Pamphilia and Am-
philanthus close kin—or so Parselius implies when as “my kinsman” he intro-
duces Amphilanthus, brother of Urania and lover of his sister Pamphilia,
implicating himself and Urania as well as Pamphilia and Amphilanthus in
symmetrically endogamous relationships ()—but so also are such incidental
pairs of lovers as the Angler Woman and Laurimello (‒) and Silvarine
and an unnamed cousin (‒). Spicing the mix in the Second Part of Ura-
nia are stories of the illegitimate offspring, Andromarko (‒ and ‒)
and Faire Designe (‒).
Parselius’ pursuit of Urania leads to a particularly conspicuous narrative
about incest. Urania resists his advances and, upon advice from the sage Melis-
sea, persuades him to reverse his love by leaping with her from the Rock of St.
Maura into the Sea of Oblivion. The plunge works its cure, whereupon
“Parselius knew nothing of his former love to her . . . and being assured of her
neerenesse to him in bloud, rejoyced with them” (First Part ). In one respect
the cure is easy because Parselius has already fallen in love with Dalinea. Upon
being reunited, however, they arrive at an allegorically foreboding Tomb of
Love. Here a “Brother and Sister, children to one man” chose to die rather
than yield to the incestuous passion that possessed them (). Wroth’s narra-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

tor seals the account with an allusion to the myth of Byblis’ unchaste love for
her brother Caunus, “yet the comparison holds not clearly, because these
Lovers were chaste and pure after the secret was disclos’d” (). The episode
depicts the victory of self-control over unrestrained passion at a cost of human
life, but it also exalts the purity of motives firing the incestuous pair.14 They rec-
ognize their privileged autonomy as lovers, but they carefully acknowledge their
debt to a broader community of family, kin, and nation which condemns their
relationship. This action establishes a model for Pamphilia and Amphilanthus.
If we turn to Wroth’s poetry and to its relationship with that of William
Herbert, we find a powerful set of analogies associating both with the incestu-
ous figures of Byblis and Caunus in classical myth. Herbert’s poetry, for ex-
ample, recalls the value of sublimating one’s desire even when its speaker
chooses frankly not to do so. In an elegy of seduction and resistance entitled
“That Lust is not his Ayme,” he protests that his goal is not simply carnal:
“OH do not tax me with a brutish Love, / Impute not Lust alone to my de-
sire.”15 He seeks to ennoble his love by incorporating the language of sacred
devotion as “ravishment Divine, / Invincible to strength of humane hand, /
Union Divine of mutual burning hearts, / . . . Sovereign delights, which God
to man imparts.” His insistence rings hollow as a largely appetitive argument
contrived to weaken the beloved’s high-principled defense. A particularly sor-
did comparison (“ ’Tis but a prostitute, and bestial joye / Which seekes the
grosse materiall use alone”) betrays his salacious intent.
The earl of Pembroke ought to have taken a leaf from the poetic practice of
his cousin, George Herbert (‒). As a young man, George appeared full
of high promise in the Sidney family mold, especially upon his appointment
in  as Public Orator at Cambridge, a post that carried with it a virtual
guarantee for future service to the Crown and nation in high office.16 Before
he abandoned his worldly career for ordination, he no doubt frequented his
aunt Mary Sidney’s glittering circle of writers, artists, and musicians at Wilton,
sharing his poetry with William Herbert and Mary Wroth. His talent elegantly
transforms the surface of Philip Sidney’s secular style into the substance of re-
ligious verse. “Jordan I,” for example, channels the “purling streams” of As-
trophil’s Helicon into the baptismal river of Jordan, where a “sweetnesse readie
penn’d” redeems the Sidneian persona’s injunction to “looke in thy heart and
write.”17 “The Forerunners” recalls the “lovely enchanting language, sugar-
cane, / Hony of roses” of amatory verse now directed to self-meditation, while
the celebrated rhythms of “The Collar” and “Affliction I” mime powerful con-
flicts between self-determination and predestination, free choice and divine


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

election: “But as I rav’d and grew more fierce and wilde / At every word, / Me
thought I heard one calling, Child! / And I reply’d, My Lord” (“Collar”).18
George Herbert directed the situations and devices of a fading Petrarchism
to the service of his sacred poetry, but Mary Wroth turned them back to a
carefully cultivated, powerfully regenerated Petrarchism. The extended con-
ceits and astonishing mimetic effects of his style recur in her poetry. Sonnet 
in the second series (P) of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, “Love like a jugler,
comes to play his prise,” for instance, mimes its own conceit of juggling by
balancing a series of clauses in an elaborate syntactical acrobatics. Like a circus
performer, Cupid attracts an audience:
To see how cuningly hee, wanting eyes,
Can yett deseave the best sight of desire:
The wanton child, how hee can faine his fire
So pretely, as none sees his disguise!
The poem’s form mirrors its meaning as internal echoes deprive the end-
rhyme and pentameter rhythm of their expected finality. The juggler’s leg-
erdemain is replicated by subtle internal echoes of hee/see, wanting/wanton,
and, in the next quatrain, sleights/sight. His spectators succumb to this illu-
sionary art in a contrapuntal monosyllabic beat:
For men can only by theyr slieghts abuse
The sight with nimble, and delightful skill;
Butt if hee play, his gaine is our lost will:
Yett childlike, wee can nott his sports refuse.
Wroth’s representation of Cupid’s audience as “childlike” in the grip of his per-
formance dramatizes the irresistibility of his appeal. The “wanton child” in-
fantalizes his captive viewers with spellbinding technique. The “lost will” that
he secures is erotic desire, in this case the lovers’ mutual attraction. As the
poem’s figurations evoke the sonneteering of a bygone era, they summon
Philip Sidney’s experiments from the early s, Mary Sidney’s editing of
them in the s, Robert Sidney’s restyling of them in his own maturity, and
William Herbert’s transpositions of them in the new century. Petrarchism pro-
vides a holding ground for all these endeavors, allowing Wroth to recall the
lyric achievements of her predecessors.
William Herbert’s single surviving incursion into the fourteen-line son-
net form trades Petrarchan restraint for Ovidian license. The poem amounts
to a cynical defense of inconstancy on the grounds that nothing in nature, nei-
ther rivers nor streams nor the changing face of Fortune, remains forever con-


The Site of Petrarchism in England

stant. The Ovidian context recalls mythic lovers who pursue their reluctant
beloveds in watery environments: Acteon’s spying upon Diana in her stream,
Narcissus’ gazing at himself in his gentle pool, and Alpheus’ flowing toward
Arethusa in a gliding current. It focuses upon the fickleness of Cupid, “The
Fantastick boy . . . / Who ne’re kept word in promis’d joy” (p. ), comparing
him to a purling stream that charms river banks:
So glides a long the wanton Brook
With gentle pace into the main,
Courting the banks with amorous look,
He never means to see again.
Likewise, Fortune appears poised to beguile the “swelling hopes” of those
who arrive at the height of “short liv’d” success. The poem’s sestet makes ex-
plicit the comparison with Cupid, “the god of the ill-manag’d flames,” who de-
ceives alike the lover and his “loving Dames.” In a seriation that instantiates
excess (deploying both/and for more than two members) the concluding cou-
plet reaffirms the speaker’s inconstancy: “So all alike will constant prove, / Both
fortune, running streams, and Love.”
Wroth’s sonnet  offers a possible response to this Ovidian fantasy as the
speaker addresses a running stream and approves soulfully of its swift flight
away from her. Not only does it outrun her tears, but it also escapes her dis-
tress and the ills that attend her broken heart:
How fast thou hast’st (O spring) with sweetest speed
To catch thy waters which befor are runn,
And of the greater rivers wellcom wunn,
’Ere thes thy new borne streames thes places feed.
Yett you doe well least staying heere might breed
Dangerous fluds your sweetest banks t’orerunn,
And yett much better my distress to shunn
Which makes my teares your swiftest course succeed.
Butt best you doe when with soe hasty flight,
You fly my ills which now my self outgoe,
Whose broken hart can testify such woe,
That soe o’recharg’d my lyfe blood wasteth quite.
Sweet spring then keepe your way, bee never spent
And my ill days, or griefs assunder rent.

Two mythic reminiscences problematize the poem’s meaning. One evokes Are-
thusa as the speaker emphasizes her flight from amatory involvement; the other
concerns Byblis as the speaker’s tears merge with the stream and increase its force.


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

In the first instance Arethusa’s story, drawn from book  of Ovid’s Meta-
morphoses, tells of the nymph’s efforts to outrun the ravishing river god
Alpheus and her transformation into a stream that carries her to safety.19 Pam-
philia by contrast has not resisted Amphilanthus’ pursuit. She instead suffers a
broken heart upon being abandoned by him. Ovid enfolds the story of
Arethusa within another narrative about the rape of Proserpina and her subse-
quent espousal to her uncle Pluto brokered by her father Jupiter. The narrative
of incestuous coupling furnishes an archetype for the idea of marriage as a le-
gal contract negotiated by the bride’s family to ensure the safe transmission of
title and inheritance to the couple’s legitimate offspring. The story of Arethusa
provides an antithetical counterpoint. Proserpina becomes a queen but
laments her consignment to Hades. Arethusa meanwhile frustrates her pur-
suer’s advances and gets on with her life through an elective metamorphosis:
“Delia rupit humum, caecisque ego mersa cavernis” ‘The Delian maiden split
open the earth and I plunged into its gloomy caverns’ (.).
The story of Byblis, drawn from book  of the Metamorphoses, considers
the matter of incest from an entirely different emotional angle. Here Byblis
falls passionately in love with her twin brother, Caunus. Finding herself unable
to speak about her love, she proclaims it in a letter in which she rationalizes
her contempt for law and custom. She begs exemption from the taboo against
incest by affirming her high birth and comparing herself to the inbred deities:
“cuncta licere / credimus, et sequimur magnorum exempla deorum” ‘we believe
all things allowed; and in this we do but follow the example of the gods’
(.‒). When Caunus rejects her plea, she pursues him abroad, and, in
grief, she dissolves into a fountain of tears: “Sic lacrimis consumpta suis Phoe-
beia Byblis / vertitur in fontem” ‘So Phoebean Byblis, consumed by her tears,
is changed into a fountain’ (.‒). Byblis’ dissolution provides Wroth
with a powerful Ovidian subtext for sonnet , in which the speaker’s tears
swell the spring’s water, “Dangerous fluds your sweetest banks t’orerunn.”
Wroth’s sonnet enacts the incestuous attractions of Ovid’s tale. The homo-
phonic echoes of its first line weave a texture of sonoric identity which over-
takes the verse: How . . . thou, fast . . . hast’st, hast’st . . . sweetest spring . . .
speed, spring . . . with, with . . . sweetest, sweetest . . . speed. As the stream has-
tens “to catch thy waters,” acts of reduplication occur not only in subject and
object positions, “thes streames feed thes places,” but also in the poem’s figu-
rations of birth and maternal nourishment. The streams are “new borne,”
though begotten of familiar waters, and they threaten to flood the environ-
ment with their own profligate generation as they “feed” these places.


The Site of Petrarchism in England

The poem’s second quatrain extends these figures of generation and sexual
reproduction. Resemblance overwhelms the speaker’s expression of fear with
verbal repetition (“yett . . . And yett”), identical rhyme (“runn” “ore’runn”), and
syntactic parallelism (“your sweetest banks,” “your swiftest course”). The “ills”
that “outgoe” the speaker—the tears that issue from her eyes—are products of
her own making. They extend her material being, literally pressed out of herself
and forced to circulate in the external world. The semantics of testify in line 
underscores this point. Its etymology from the Latin testis (testicle) refers to
the act of swearing by placing a hand on the testicles to bear witness (testis
[witness]) to an oath that binds oneself and one’s heirs, the issue of one’s seed.20
When Pamphilia testifies to her love, she implies its power to grow and produce
a facsimile of herself in self-begotten form. She becomes a perfect image of rad-
ical self-identity, sui generis, an entropic fulfillment of isotropic generation.
Like the octave, the poem’s sestet deploys repetition and reprisal as mimetic
embodiments of incestuous resemblance. The dominance of o sounds (doe, soe,
outgoe, broken, woe, soe o’re, flood ) homogenizes the poetic texture, while inter-
nal echoes in the final couplet (sweet . . . keepe . . . bee . . . griefs, spring . . .
spent, then . . . spent . . . rent, way . . . day) bind the verse in its disjointed syn-
tax: “Sweet spring then keepe your way, bee never spent / And my ill days, or
griefs assunder rent.” Absorbed in her own inanition, Pamphilia risks losing
contact with the outside world. Like Byblis, she may consume herself in grief,
renouncing her queenly obligation to form and sustain extrafamilial ties.
Juxtaposed against the Ovidian subtext is a scriptural text that turns Pam-
philia’s unfulfilled urges to higher ends. It regenerates her Sidneian legacy by
echoing Mary Sidney’s versions of Psalms  and .21 In the former, “Trou-
blous seas my soule surround,” the speaker begs God’s aid to save his soul in
troubled waters, “sinking, where it feeles noe ground, / In the gulph, this
whirling hoale” (‒). The Geneva commentary allegorizes the waters of
Psalm  as a figure for “what great dangers Dauid was [in], out of the which
God did deliuer him.” Not the least danger was the temptation to despair: “To
my kynn a stranger quite, / Quite an alian am I grown” (‒). Thus the
speaker pleads in desperation, “Calme these waves, these waters bay, / Leave
me not this whirlpooles pray” (‒). Here the Geneva commentary sum-
mons a lesson in faith: “He sheweth a liuelie faith, in that he assureth himself,
that God is fauorable to him.”
Pamphilia’s complaint expresses a similar faith. In Psalm , “Make O my
soule the subject of thy Songe,” the Lord channels the flood’s waters as a sign
of His power over humankind and all nature: “But at thy rebuke thei flee: at


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

the voice of thy thunder thei haste awaie.” Buttressing the sense of order im-
plied here, the Geneva commentary emphasizes the working of Divine Provi-
dence as a principle of control: “If by the power thou didest not bridle the rage
of the waters, it were not possible, but the whole worlde shulde be destroied.”
In Mary Sidney’s translation a threefold repetition of haste in participial, sub-
stantive, and adjectival forms reinforces the Psalmist’s praise of divine order:
“Hastning their hast with spurr of hasty feare” (l. ). Haste, the verb that
Pamphilia attributes to the stream at the beginning of her poem, likewise sig-
nals a recognition of order and self-control as the water’s swift current prevents
its own overflow: “How fast thou hast’st (O spring) with sweetest speed / To
catch thy waters which befor are runn.” As Pamphilia meditates upon the
stream’s resistance to a chaotic flood, she comes to see in it the opposite of her
own rampant impulses.
In the sestet Pamphilia asserts that the waters do “best” when they flow so
fast that they exceed her grasp: “Butt best you doe when with soe hasty flight, /
You fly my ills which now my self outgoe.” The Ovidian paradox of averting
danger by running before it as Arethusa did recalls Mary Sidney’s Psalm ,
in which for those “in wofull plight” the Lord “His succour sent doth end
their woe” (‒). Thus the Lord changes “well watred grounds” into “thirsty
sand” and vice versa: “To watry pooles doth desertes change!/ And on the
fields that fruitlesse stand, / Makes trickling springs unhoped range!” (‒).
One result is to make the desert habitable as a site for human life: “A Colony
they there do make, / They dwell, and build, and sow, and plant, / And of their
paines greate profitt take” (‒). Here the Geneva commentary attributes
this deliverance of God’s people to Divine Love, “For the loue that he beareth
to his Church he changeth the ordre of nature for their commoditie.” Pam-
philia sublimates her incestuous fantasies in this recourse to Scripture, replac-
ing eros with agape, carnal love with a spiritual love that has passed through the
mediation of philia, brotherly love. Male and female, husband and wife,
brother and sister, become one in the eyes of the Lord, fulfilling at once an
ideal of universal love expressed in Mary Sidney’s version of Psalm :
How good, and how beseeming well
It is that wee,
Who brethren be,
As brethren, should in concord dwell.
(‒)
Such an ideal undoes the taboo of polluted incest as it figures a communal sib-
linghood, a fraternal and sororal amity, a nation of brothers and sisters.


The Site of Petrarchism in England

Wroth’s fusion of scriptural texts with Ovidian subtexts finds analogues in

Petrarch’s poetry. In canzone , “Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade” ‘In the
sweet time of my first age,’ for example, Petrarch’s speaker enacts a series of
transformations (one of them echoing Byblis’) begotten by his desire for
Laura; and in the Trionfo della morte , a text translated by Mary Sidney as the
Triumph of Death (possibly part of a complete translation of the Trionfi now
lost), Laura recounts her love for Petrarch in terms that will locate Ovid’s story
of Byblis in scriptural territory.22 For the Petrarchan commentators both texts
evoke Byblis’ letter of confession to Caunus: “Incipit et dubitat, scribit
damnataque tabellas, / et notat et delet, mutat culpatque probatque” ‘She be-
gins, then hesitates and stops, writes on and hates what she has written’
(.‒), culminating in her desperate appeal: “Tu servare potes, tu perdere
solus amantem” ‘You alone can save, you only can destroy your lover’ (). In
canzone  Petrarch’s speaker likewise commits his own words to paper and ink:
Le vive voci m’erano interditte;
ond’io gridai con carta et con incostro:
Non son mio, no. S’io moro, il danno è vostro.
(‒)
Words spoken aloud were forbidden me; so I cried out with paper and ink:
“I am not my own, no; if I die, yours is the loss.”
As Vellutello explains, these lines evoke Byblis’ infamous confession: “
charta et con inchiostro, cio è scrisse a M. L. come Biblis a Cauno” ‘With pa-
per and ink, that is, he wrote to Laura as Byblis wrote to Caunus’ (v).
Curiously, the canzone inverts its speaker’s gender when it compares him to
Byblis. The Trionfo della morte , on the other hand, directs the comparison in
a gender-appropriate way to Laura’s confession of her love for Petrarch. This
Trionfo reviews the poet’s love for her, explains why she had appeared aloof,
and recounts her astounding avowal. As he now realizes, Laura’s death has lib-
erated him from bondage to the flesh. He did not know it then, but the only
true freedom is one consonant with divine caritas:
Nessun di servitù già mai si dolse
né di morte, quant’io di libertate,
e de la vita, ch’altri non mi tolse.
(Trionfo della morte .‒)23
None was ever grieved so much for servitude,
Even for death, as I for liberty,
And that my life was not now ta’en from me.
(Wilkins trans.)


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

Mary Sidney’s Triumph curiously alters the tense of this passage. In ways
not earlier achieved by the young Elizabeth Tudor’s translation of the Trionfo
della eternità into fairly stiff quatrains or by Henry Parker, Lord Morley’s The
Tryumphes of Frauncis Petrarcke (published in  perhaps as part of Mary Tu-
dor’s effort to arrange a marriage for Elizabeth), it also invests Petrarch’s use of
the word libertade with its echoes of Christian freedom and noble privilege.24
Here is Sidney’s translation:

None so his thralle, as I my libertie;

None so his death, as I my life doe rue,
Staying with me, who faine from it would flye.
(.‒)

Petrarch’s past definite si dolse and mi tolse become the present continuous doe
rue and faine would flye, underscoring a reciprocity between Laura’s and the
speaker’s attitudes toward moral freedom.25 The alteration emphasizes Pe-
trarch’s sense of gradual disclosure and self-revelation as a temporal and pro-
gressive act. Its implications for contrasting life and liberty to thralldom and
death are important, as we shall see.
In the climactic lines of the Trionfo della morte  Laura reveals that Pe-
trarch’s ardor drove her to an extreme reaction. She loved him almost as much
as he loved her (here the discreet quasi [almost] conspicuously qualifies her
avowal), but her virtue saved both of them from opprobrium:

Fur quasi equali in noi fiamme amorose,

almen poi ch’i’ m’avidi del tuo foco;
ma l’un le palesò, l’altro l’ascose.
(.‒)
The flames of love burned almost equally
In us, after I knew the fire in thee:
But one of us revealed them, one did not.
(Wilkins’ trans.)

In Sidney’s translation the omission of quasi (almost) puts Laura exactly on Pe-
trarch’s level. In the new figure of a trial (“our hearts were tryde”) she saves
both herself and him from public condemnation by blocking his advances:

In equale flames our louing hearts were tryde,

At leaste when once thy loue had notice gott,
But one to shewe, the other sought to hyde.
(.‒)


The Site of Petrarchism in England

All the while Laura recognizes that her response cannot deter Petrarch’s true
and honest love: “Per fictïon non cresce il ver, né scema” ‘For no pretense
greatens or lessens truth.’ Mary Sidney’s rendition of fictïon as a rhetorical lit-
erary term, fiction, links Laura’s control of affect and emotion to the artfully
fashioned verse in which the poet speaks: “Through fiction, Truth will neither
ebbe nor flowe” (.).
At this point the avowal reaches an ambiguous conclusion:
Ma non si ruppe almen ogni vel, quando
soli i tuo’ detti, te presente, accolsi,
‘Dir più non osa il nostro amor’ cantando?
(.‒)
But was not every veil between us rent
When in thy presence I received thy verse,
Singing, “Our love dares not say more than this”?
(Wilkins’ trans.)

Here the participle cantando may refer syntactically to the last explicit pro-
noun before the reported clause, “te presente,” pointing to Petrarch as Laura
addresses him. In this case Laura would be saying that she had come upon the
poet while he was singing the words of a song, “dir più non osa il nostro amor”
‘our love dares not say more than this.’ In another scenario, however, cantando
might refer to the implied subject of accolsi, Laura herself. In this case she
would be saying that Petrarch had come upon her while she was singing one
of his verses, the words of a song that he earlier composed. Sixteenth-century
commentators are divided on the issue.
Gesualdo endorses the former reading, but he admits that the latter is a
possibility: “Altri dicono che quando sola ella si staua cantando una Canzone”
‘Others say that when she was alone, she began singing a song’ (viiir). Vel-
lutello, however, identifies the referent of cantando (singing) with Laura. Alone
in her chamber the beloved is singing to herself: “M. L. sola & da se stessa can-
tasse, al proposito di lui, una Canz. il cui principio in quella lingua sonaua,
Dir piu non osa il nostro amore” ‘Alone and by herself Laura sang, about him,
a song whose beginning sounded in these words, “Our love dares not say more
than this” ’(er). As Laura articulates her song, she claims a power of self-
determination that gives voice to her own perspective on love. Mary Sidney
evidently understands this difficult text in such a sense when she translates it:
But clear’d I not the darkest mists of yore?
when I thy words alone did entretaine


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

Singing for thee? my loue dares speake no more.

(.‒)
At this point several commentators recall Ovid’s myth of Byblis. Vellutello,
for example, tries to relate “dir più non osa il nostro amor” to Petrarch’s larger
corpus. In his estimation it refers to canzone , and its specific verses recall
Byblis’s letter averring her love for Caunus:
Le vive voci m’erano interditte;
Ond’ io gridai con carta et con incostro:
Non son mio, no. S’io moro, il danno è vostro
(.‒)
Words spoken aloud were forbidden me; so I cried out with paper and ink:
“I am not my own, no; if I die, yours is the loss.”
As Vellutello explains:
Noi intendiamo, ch’egli intenda di quelli ch’egli disse in fine de la quinta
stanza di quella Canzo. Nel dolce tempo de la prima etade, hauerle ecritto,
Onde dice, Ond’io gridai con charta e con inchiostro, Non so mio non, s’io
moro il danno e vostro. (er)
We understand that he refers to what she said he wrote at the end of the
fifth stanza of the canzone “In the sweet time of my first age,” in which he
declares, “so I cried out with paper and ink: ‘I am not my own, no; if I die,
yours is the loss.’”
Here Byblis’s incestuous impulses come into play as a matter not of sexual de-
sire but of Laura’s pious commitment. Petrarch’s avowal of pain is significant
because in sonnet  his speaker repeats it using the same words but in a
transposed order and with reversed valuation: “Vostro, Donna, ’l peccato et
mio fia ’l danno” ‘Yours will be the blame, Lady, mine the loss.’ Either way the
result is the same: Laura’s radical virtue and unyielding chastity locates her in
a class by herself.
The allusion to Byblis’s incestuous desire for Caunus becomes a site for Pe-
trarch’s crisis of multiple identity in canzone  and for Laura’s self-revelations
in the Trionfo della morte. For Mary Wroth’s fictional Pamphilia, a queen who
commands a nation for which she bears responsibility, the same figure res-
onates with a sociocultural valence. She and Amphilanthus move through the
narrative as shadowy analogues of the author and her lover-cousin, relating the
account to biographical circumstance. By scriptural standards that prohibit no
union between first cousins, her attraction to Amphilanthus (or Wroth’s to
Herbert) violates no law, but it does raise questions about the universality of


The Site of Petrarchism in England

laws and the constancy of human nature. It productively averts the taboo of
ingenerate incest by figuring a positive corporate siblinghood that nurtures the
self-identity of the nation.
Pamphilia’s merging of her wish for autonomy with her incorporation into
a larger community as queen of Morea finds its introverted analogue in the
story of Narcissus, and it follows that sonnet , first series (P), “Love, thou
hast all, for now thou hast mee made,” explores this myth with scriptural echoes
as a counterpoint. In it Wroth’s heroine addresses Love as a deity, becoming
Love’s priestess in a semantic shift in which ordained means both “consecrated
to the service of organized religion” and “destined or determined by fate”:
Love, thou hast all, for now thou hast mee made
Soe thine, as if for thee I were ordain’d;
Then take thy conquest, nor lett mee bee pain’d
More in thy sunn, when I doe seeke thy shade.
Although she has tried to escape this surrender, Pamphilia now accedes to it in
hopes of finding some relief from the flames of love. She presumes that it will
temper her passion. Of course it won’t, as she finds in the next quatrain, when
she feels her “paine increase.” In the sestet the fever leads her to a well “by love
afresh imbrac’d.” She now seems ripe for a narcissistic encounter with her own
image, “When hott and thirsty to a well I came / Trusting by that to quench
part of my flame.” She is vulnerable not only to Love—“Butt ther I was by
love afresh imbrac’d”—but also to a need for self-approval after being spurned
by Amphilanthus. No longer prey to the ordinance of Byblis, she may yet fall
prey to the vice of Narcissus.
Wroth’s development of the Narcissus motif recalls Petrarch’s sonnet , “Il
mio adversario in cui veder solete” ‘My adversary in whom you are wont to
see,’ especially as Petrarch’s sixteenth-century commentators variously inter-
preted the Italian model. There Laura’s fascination with her image in the mir-
ror, the speaker’s adversario, spells out positive as well as negative consequences
of self-love. Although Brucioli and Daniello offer disapproving interpretations
of this narcissism as a particularly female vice, one that is tolerated in beauti-
ful women as a compensation for social restrictions imposed upon them, both
Gesualdo and Castelvetro offer affirmative glosses.26 Gesualdo understands it
as the first stage of self-knowledge, “il conoscer se stesso” ‘self-knowledge,’
which is “il principio di sauere e di uirtute” ‘the beginning of knowledge and
virtue’ (lxiiv). By gazing at her own reflected image, Laura comes to under-
stand that her physical beauty is only a shadow. An initial act of self-regard
leads to a deepening of self-awareness, a cognitive reawakening that stimulates


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

virtue. Likewise, for Castelvetro the recognition of self-love marks a prelimi-

nary stage of moral awakening that empowers both lover and beloved. Laura
is a worthy object of Petrarch’s devotion because she already loves herself and
is “degni amante di voi medesima” ‘worthy to be a lover of yourself ’ (). The
beloved’s self-sufficiency motivates the lover’s self-sacrifice.
In Wroth’s poem the narcissistic moment brings her to a positive encounter
with Love. Her reflected image deters her from drinking the waters of self-
absorption, and it also attracts the God of Love, who begins to work upon
enhancing her image:
Drinke I could nott, butt in itt I did see
My self a living glass as well as shee
For love to see him self in truly plac’d.
Here Pamphilia inverts the Petrarchan topos in two ways. Instead of limit-
ing her gaze to herself, she extends it to the God of Love, thereby inviting the
participation of an outside agent; and, instead of retreating to an image of her
own beauty in the water, she becomes a mirror for the God of Love to project
his image. To him she becomes a human embodiment of all those virtues that
constitute love. To the extent that this deity takes satisfaction in such a “living
glass,” however, it is he, not she, who displays narcissism. Pamphilia thus dis-
places onto a male figure the kind of self-love that Brucioli and Daniello at-
tribute to female behavior.
As a surrogate for the beloved, the God of Love exemplifies the self-
absorption of all those Petrarchan lovers who have exalted themselves before
their mistresses. Pamphilia achieves a measure of transcendence and self-
realization by questioning this self-absorption. She sees herself as “a living
glass” that reflects her virtues “as well as she”—as vividly embodied, that is, as
the flesh-and-blood woman who enacts them in real life. As a transitional
space between the other’s presence and her own autonomous selfhood, her liv-
ing glass becomes a nurturing ground for self-identity. Here the paradigm of
St. John’s Gospel, “loue one another, as I haue loued you,” initiates a recipro-
cal action (.). In sonnet  Pamphilia fulfills this command when she be-
comes a repository of Love, a mirror “for love to see him self in truly placed.”27
In the final pages of the First Part of Urania Amphilanthus comes upon
Pamphilia by accident as she lies weeping tears into a stream. The setting
evokes Ovidian myths of watery transformation, while its concluding action
revokes their negative consequences. Amphilanthus prepares to drink waters
from the stream: “Hee saw her not, but seeing the dainty streame alighted to
drinke of it” (First Part ). Imbibing her tears, he absorbs her constancy:


The Site of Petrarchism in England

“The water he dranke being mixed with her teares, had so infused constancy
and perfect truth of loue in it, as in him it had wrought the like effect.” Hav-
ing become one like her, Amphilanthus initiates a move to become one with
her in marriage. In the text’s last complete sentence “Amphilanthus must goe,
but intreates Pamphilia to goe as far as Italy with him, to visit the matchles
Queene his mother” (). This attempt comes undone. Not only do they not
marry before the text breaks off, but even the manuscript continuation frus-
trates its consummation. There Pamphilia’s father engages her to the king of
Tartaria after dissolving her union with Amphilanthus (Second Part ‒).
She reluctantly submits to this arrangement, but she never renounces her
affection for her former lover.
The meaning of personal in this context goes beyond any merely individual
or egoistic sense of self. Pamphilia’s analogies with Byblis in sonnet  and
with Narcissus in sonnet  put her in touch with her own absorptive ener-
gies, and their accommodation to Scripture allows her to work through issues
binding her to family, kin, and community. In each case Pamphilia comes to
embrace a group identity larger than herself. Her public legal commitment to
her royal lineage supersedes her private affective commitment to an amatory
relationship. Unlike many of her counterparts in earlier Petrarchan poetry, she
resists a narcissistic involvement with herself. Family, kin, and community
afford Pamphilia a transcendent Otherness that mitigates the hazards of self-
love, on the one hand, and of real or imagined incest, on the other. In this way
she transmutes both narcissism and incest into the beginnings of self-knowledge
and an engagement with the larger polity. As queen of Morea, she gives herself
to her people, both the local and regional subjects whom she rules and the far-
off supralocal, supraregional ones as well, contributing, like her prototype
Elizabeth, to a new ideology of nation as a corporate siblinghood.28
The interiority of Petrarchan poetry becomes a staging ground for this
commitment. Such interiority permits individuals to imagine themselves at
least provisionally apart from the structures of family or kin, profession or
trade, rank or status, with which they routinely identify. It enables them to
think of themselves as active and autonomous persons with distinct inner lives.
At the same time it redirects their shared political commitments to a new cause.
Here in the hollow of an interior life where time and space are radically com-
pressed, a person might extend such customary totemic allegiances from smaller
communities to overlapping larger ones, from amatory and domestic loyalties
to a version of social contract based on wider patterns of interpersonal affilia-
tion.29 He or she might transcend allegiances to family or kin, profession or


 Incest, Endogamy, and Mary Wroth

trade, or even rank and status and invest them in a larger community, a greater
locale or region, a comprehensive nation or state of which he or she is part.
Instead of impounding the heroine in solitude, Petrarchan interiority lends
her a vehicle that transports her to a heightened sense of social solidarity. Just
as Laura had led Petrarch to salvation through her unyielding virtue, so Pam-
philia will lead her beloved. But, whereas Petrarch’s regeneration was deeply
personal and intensely private, that of Wroth’s lovers will have an impact on
the public and political world that they inhabit and rule. As queen of her own
kingdom, Pamphilia will inspire her beloved to virtue in governing the Holy
Roman Empire. Their joint virtue will inspire all who depend upon them,
their subjects in differing degrees of rank and status from lowest to highest, as
their example forms the bedrock of their respective nations. As sister and
brother rather than as lover and beloved—though not wholly released from
the erotic power that has brought them together and charged their incestuous
relationship—Pamphilia and Amphilanthus will turn the taboo of incest into
a productive figure of national siblinghood.
Nurtured by her debt to an earlier generation of Sidneys, Mary Wroth’s
sense of political concordance betokens new ideas about the compressed space
enveloping her world. In this space once remote localities were becoming mu-
tually dependent, reciprocally interactive communities. The era of European
exploration and colonization which had begun a century and a quarter before
the publication of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus hatched new visions of long-
distance nationhood and new forms of totemic identification with the geopo-
litical sites that they occupy. Spain led the way with its establishment of Nueva
España in  and, for its colonizers, the concomitant of transporting their
Spanish sentiments across miles of ocean and uncharted territory. In his mem-
oirs of Cortés’ efforts to conquer Mexico from  to , Bernal Díaz de-
scribes the site of Montezuma’s capital, strange and wonderful, in terms fa-
miliar to European readers, “like an enchanted vision from the tale of
Amadis,” with an open square “bigger I think than the plaza at Salamanca”
and canals like those in Venice.30 France followed with its plans to establish a
Nouvelle France in North America, a sporadic and less orderly endeavor than
the Spanish enterprise in South and Central America and one impelled by the
rationale of consigning to far-off outposts religious rebels, cultural noncon-
formists, and social undesirables rejected by the motherland. Their survival, as
Marguerite de Navarre writes in story  of the Heptameron, proves only that
“God is almighty to nourish His servants in the barren desert.”31 This model
of pragmatic extradition might well have motivated Philip Sidney’s interest in


The Site of Petrarchism in England

such New World ventures as part of a solution to social problems generated by

conflicting sentiments about religion, class, and national identity in England.32
English colonizers, late starters in the New World race, had much to learn
from their Continental forerunners, especially after the disastrous Jamestown
venture in . They would especially embrace the idea of a transportable na-
tional sentiment, one that could survive the passage of a voyage across the At-
lantic and an implantation upon a new continent. In December , seven
months before the entry of Urania in the Stationers’ Register, separatist Puritans
arrived at Plymouth Rock. Exiled in Holland since  and yearning to prac-
tice English ways of life which their exile denied, they reasoned that emigra-
tion to the Virginia colony would allow them to resume an English identity far
from the religious persecution and political oppression in their place of birth.33
Just as their experience of exile nourished their sentiments about the homeland
from which they were separated, so it fueled their attachment to the new com-
munity that they had established.34 Mary Wroth, it would seem, had already
mobilized an analogous sentiment about her Sidneian past, and she called
upon it to shape her attitudes toward the nation in which she was now living.
The site upon which Wroth exercises her imagination is Petrarchan poetry
and narrative romance. Directed especially toward women and young readers,
her writing exemplifies the qualities of self-discipline, refinement, and national
sentiment honored in the new polity. The armature of Petrarchan style pro-
vides a ground for this display. In Wroth’s lyric voice the exilic longings of Pe-
trarch’s poetry are transmuted into an expression of totemic allegiance to the
Sidney family’s achievements and to the nation that their family served. This
poetic discourse—shaped and molded by socially valorized tenets of courtly Pe-
trarchism—plays an important role in facilitating Wroth’s expression of Eng-
lish sentiment. It offers a particular style, a studied manner, a cultivated way
of speaking and writing, as a discursive paradigm for the ruling elite, a cultural
vernacular that supplements the stark administrative idiolect.35 The constructed
quality of Wroth’s Petrarchan style draws upon the hybridity of the English lan-
guage’s mixed identity and exploits its French, Germanic, and Latinate fea-
tures. It registers the sentiments of a social hierarchy inscribed forty years ear-
lier in Philip Sidney’s Defence, sustained both in his belletristic writings and in
Mary Sidney’s literary translations. In the process Pamphilia to Amphilanthus
instantiates a conception of what the English people had become and what, as
a ruling class, its elite could accomplish for the emergent nation. Such was the
series of delicate transactions with the Petrarchan model which the Sidney
family had negotiated and which Mary Wroth kept in circulation.


 Conclusion
Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

The diversity of interests among early modern commentators on the Rime

sparse had reaped a rich harvest. The loyalty of Antonio da Tempo, Francesco
Filelfo, and Girolamo Squarzafico to the sovereign courts of northern Italy fo-
cused their attention on Petrarch’s attitudes toward Ghibelline ideals. The his-
toricizing efforts of Vellutello gave perspective to Petrarch’s residence in south-
ern France and northern Italy and to his frequent travels throughout Europe
and the Empire. The rhetorical approaches of Gesualdo, Sylvano da Venafro,
and Bernardino Daniello located Petrarch within ancient and early modern
culture as one who processed and absorbed classical, Christian, medieval, and
contemporaneous thought on politics, society, and art. The proto-Protestant
sympathies of Fausto da Longiano, Antonio Brucioli, and Castelvetro finally
attributed to Petrarch a resistance to the universalism of papal Christendom
and a forecast of the particularisms of would-be national states emerging in
sixteenth-century Europe.
The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe that received Petrarch’s
Rime sparse with this commentary was animate with varying forms of national
sentiment, particularly among the ruling elite and the merchant and profes-
sional classes increasingly exposed to foreign contacts. Less than a decade be-
fore Mary Wroth’s Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, John Barclay (‒), a
Scottish nobleman who aspired under James I to an ambassadorship in France,
published a Latin essay on the attributes of different nations in Europe, Icon
Animorum (, translated into French as L’Examen des esprits in  and
from French into English as The Mirror of Minds in ). Its argument pro-


Conclusion

ceeds from the assumption “that there is a proper Spirit to every Region,
which doth in a manner shape the studies and manners of the Inhabitants”
().1 By assembling such loci of national differences, Barclay hopes to provide
a rhetorical handbook for fellow diplomats to assess the temperaments of their
foreign counterparts, “then from the Genius of diuers Nations to bee so in-
formed, as to know how to behaue our selues in different countries, and what
from euery place to expect or feare” ().
The Icon deepens a rhetorical inventory of cross-cultural comparisons
formed by such ancients as Herodotus and Tacitus and such early moderns as
Ravisus Textor, whose Specimen epithetorum () characterizes older societies;
Baldassare Castiglione, whose Book of the Courtier () offers obiter dicta on
contemporaneous Italian, French, and Spanish differences; Juan Huarte,
whose Examen de los ingenios () appraises Spain’s geography, climate, and
temperamental humors; Jean Bodin, whose Republic () tabulates the at-
tributes of other modern nations in similar terms; and Michel de Montaigne,
whose Journal of a Voyage to Italy (‒) compares French and Italian idio-
syncrasies and relates them to those of other peoples in the ancient and six-
teenth-century worlds. Barclay’s Icon arranges such topics for practical use,
pausing not for a single moment to doubt the Germans’ “loue of drinking”
(), the Italians’ “obsequiousnesse and curtesie” (), the Spaniards’ “super-
cilious pride” (), and the Turks’ “rustike and base nature, not worthy of lib-
erty” ().2 Its publication in Latin, French, and English attests to the grip of
national stereotypes upon the European imagination.3
Most of Barclay’s discussion would have surprised Petrarch. In the latter’s
lifetime, only France, of all the emerging nation-states considered in this book,
displayed any recognizable sense of corporate identity. As a noncontiguous
kingdom that embraced chiefly the Île de France, Normandy, Touraine, Lim-
ousin, and parts of Languedoc, it bore only a shadowy resemblance to today’s
hexagon. But the French monarchy had long thought of itself as an adminis-
trative entity ruling with unbroken continuity since the sixth century, when
Clovis imposed his rule on the Paris basin, and French people thought of
themselves as a collectivity, despite social, cultural, ethnic, and historical
differences among them. Spain fixed its unity in the second half of the fif-
teenth century, when the Castilian and Aragonese kingdoms combined and
expelled from Iberia Jewish and Islamic extranjeros. England, despite the unar-
guable demarcation of its insular boundaries and, since the eleventh century,
the endurance of its Plantagenet monarchy, was a patchwork of feuding bar-
onies in intermittent civil war until the Tudors stabilized the kingdom. States


 Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

on the northern and eastern borders of Europe such as Denmark, Sweden, and
Russia had longer histories of administrative continuity than England, while
Portugal had a longer-lived monarchy than Spain, but none of them attained
the degree of national sentiment displayed in Spain, France, or England.4
In the lifetimes of Lorenzo de’ Medici and Cariteo a century after Petrarch
and of Du Bellay and the Sidneys in the next century, sentiments about Italy
as a nation-state would have been inconceivable. Not only was it divided into
zones of well-organized principalities, republics, papal territories, kingdoms,
and autonomous city-states, some of which were ruled by France and Spain,
but its people seemed intent on perpetuating regional differences and rivalries
among themselves, not the least through (to this day) a bewildering variety of
dialects and local accents. In Germany the major impediment to a centralized
Reich came from a congeries of some three hundred poorly organized secular
and ecclesiastical lordships, eighty-five imperial cities, and seven imperial elec-
torates.5 The spirit of a headstrong but diffuse Volk spawned little national
sentiment.6 In  Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini had revived Tacitus’ long-
forgotten Germania in order to mobilize German feelings into a crusade
against the Turks.7 In  Jacob Wimpheling appealed to Teutonic distinc-
tiveness as a mark of solidarity against Louis XI’s designs on Alsatian frontiers.
Other overtures included Conrad Celtis’s Germania Generalis (), with its
mythology about the northern Druids as a race driven from its native Greece
by the emperor Tiberius, and Ulrich von Hutten’s address to the Augsburg
Diet (), with its representation of the first-century warrior Arminius (Her-
mann) as a liberator of Germania.8 A powerful summons to German self-
consciousness came from Martin Luther’s reformist measures against the hege-
monic Latin culture of Rome.9
The spiritual sonnets of Catharina Regina von Greiffenberg (‒) il-
lustrate the fate of this German sentiment a century and a half later. Von
Greiffenberg was a noblewoman from Lower Austria who in  emigrated to
Nuremberg for social, political, and religious reasons. She had been born into
Protestant nobility in  near Amsetten, midway between Vienna and Linz,
a predominantly, even militantly, Catholic region during the Thirty Years War
(‒).10 The Treaty of Westphalia that closed the war marked a defeat for
the Hapsburg Empire and the papacy, the end of a world universalized by
them, and the rise of diverse national interests competing in their place.11 It
diminished the power of church and clergy, amplified the power of princes
and barons, and further particularized the various states of Germany. Above all
it ended the illusion that Europe was a single Christian empire, governed spir-


Conclusion

itually by the pope and temporally by the Holy Roman emperor as Dante and
Petrarch hoped for in their day. The reality of Europe as a heterogeneous so-
ciety had taken root. Von Greiffenberg was fifteen years old at the time of the
treaty. After the death of her younger sister three years later, she devoted her
life to God and the Protestant cause, and in her early twenties she wrote some
 religious sonnets in the Petrarchan mode to prove the point. They were
published in Nuremberg in , along with a hundred other poems in vari-
ous meters, no doubt selected from a much larger body of poetry that she had
produced by the age of twenty-nine.
The circumstances of their publication as Geistliche Sonnette () bears
upon von Greiffenberg’s social position. The poet lived with her mother and
her father’s half-brother Hans Rudolf, who became her guardian when her fa-
ther died during her childhood. This half-uncle paid for her education in
Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, and eventually Hebrew and Greek, so that she
was able to read Petrarch and Scripture in their original languages. In early
 her uncle contacted the most famous publisher in Nuremberg to arrange
for the printing of her poetry. The reason is palpable. He wanted to marry her.
He might have been madly in love, or perhaps, as members of the Protestant
minority in a predominantly Catholic territory, he simply lacked other suit-
able spousal partners.12 In any event he was twenty-six years older than her,
and she recoiled from the prospect. When he threatened to convert to Roman
Catholicism if she refused, she relented at once. The taboo of incest must have
seemed less fearsome than the creedal conflicts that had thwarted German na-
tional unity.
Von Greiffenberg stood by her uncle-husband when he was thrown into jail
for shady business dealings a year later, and when he died a decade later—
their marriage was without children—she mourned him as a virtuous widow.
She then moved permanently to Nuremberg, where she lived without remar-
rying and published devotional essays interspersed with poetic prayers and
thoughtful interpretations of scriptural passages. Her sense of attachment to
Nuremberg, an Imperial City that since the Peace of Augsburg in  had tol-
erated both Protestant and Catholic creeds, seems more an expression of her
internationalist literary sensibility than of any national sentiment. There Hans
Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen’s contemporaneous Der abenteuerliche
Simplicissimus (, printed at Nuremberg by Felszecher) parodied an evident
vogue for Philip Sidney’s pastoral romance (translated partly by Martin Opitz)
as its newly ennobled hero devotes himself to hunting, amatory pursuits, and
reading “the incomparable Arcadia, from which I sought to learn eloquence . . .


 Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

[but which] taught me, instead of eloquence, to practice lechery.”13 A reader

such as von Greiffenberg would rather draw from the Protestant Sidney the
moral fervor ratified in his work by his niece Mary Wroth.
Von Greiffenberg came to Nuremberg when its Lutheran elite was seeking
a cultural bond that might relate it to Germany’s Protestant Hanseatic, Saxon,
and Silesian centers.14 In Nuremberg the middle-class convergence of courtly
Hofweise modes of verse with still popular late medieval Meistersinger styles
of poetry (exemplified preeminently by Hans Sachs a century and a half ear-
lier) produced a remarkable efflorescence of theory and practice. Justus Georg
Schottel in Teutsche Vers-oder Reim Kunst ‘Art of German Verse or Rhyme’
() and in Ausführliche Arbeit von der Teutschen Haubt Sprache ‘Introduc-
tory Work on the Chief German Dialect’ () exalted the merits of German
as an original language, primal since Babel, not descended from a decayed
Latin as were the Romance tongues.15 Indebted to Schottel, the patrician
Philipp Harsdörffer launched a periodical, the Frauenzimmer Gesprächspiele
‘Dialogues in the Ladies’ Salon’ (‒), and wrote a manual of poetics, the
Poetischer Trichter ‘Poetic Funnel’ (). With Johann Klaj and Sigmund von
Birken he also established a literary society that connected with others
throughout Germany, the Blumenorden an der Pegnitz ‘Floral Society by the
Pegnitz’ (, named after the river that flows through Nuremberg), which
evolved into the Pegnisische Schäfferei ‘Pegnitz Shepherds.’16 The poetry that
they wrote is especially notable for its emphasis on musicality, metrical virtu-
osity, tonal brilliance, acoustic resonance, and onomatopoetic effects.17 Von
Greiffenberg brought her Protestant sensibility to this milieu and conjoined to
it the technical facility of such poets as Simon Dach from Königsberg, Paul
Fleming and Paul Gerhardt from Saxony, and Andreas Gryphius, Angelius
Silesius, and Daniel Casper von Lohenstein from Silesia.18 By  von
Greiffenberg was elected leader of the Lilienzunft society, the local branch of
Philipp von Zesen’s Hamburg-based Deutschgesinnte Genossenschaft, an-
other pan-Germanic academy whose members kept in touch with one another
through frequent correspondence.
The octave of the following sonnet by Greiffenberg announces its ties with
Nuremberg theory and practice:19
Ach lobe, lobe, lob ohne Unterlaß und Ziel
Den, den zu loben du, o meine Seel, geboren!
Zu diesen Engel-Werk bist du von Gott erkoren,
Daß du ihm dienen sollst im Wunderpreisungs-Spiel.
Das kleine Scherflein ihm von jenem Weib gefiel:


Conclusion

Dein Einfalt klinget wohl in seinem Demut-Ohren.

Er geht sanfmütig um mit dem zerbrochnen Rohren.
Wie schwach und bebend auch, beliebt ihm doch dein
Kiel.
Praise, praise, praise without cease or limit Him whom you, o my soul, were
born to praise. For these angel-tasks were you elected by God, that you
should serve Him in the playful give-and-take of wonder’s exaltation. The
smallest mite from that woman pleased Him: your simplicity resounds
nicely in His ears, open as they are to meekness. He deals gently with the
crushed reeds. No matter how slender or quivering, your quill still pleases
Him.

Reworking the opening of the Lord’s Prayer, this poem expresses a deep reli-
gious sentiment in harmonious cadences compatible with the premises of
Harsdörffer’s and Klaj’s poetic theory. Suggesting an increasingly upward move-
ment of sound, the repetition of basslike lobe in the first line yields to modu-
lated e-u-o vowels in the second line and to higher-pitched ie, e, and long i vow-
els that follow. The impression is of a seamless diatonic ascent toward
consonance and serenity, not unlike that in the closing sonnets of Du Bellay’s
Olive. Protestant convictions inform von Greiffenberg’s use of the word erkoren
(elected) to designate the Engel-Werk ‘angel-task’ of praising God that is ap-
pointed to her, and they circumscribe her relations to the community—a
Protestant community that defines its identity in terms of religious attachment.
Von Greiffenberg’s poem recalls Petrarch’s sonnet , “Padre del ciel” ‘Fa-
ther of heaven,’ itself a concise reworking of the Lord’s Prayer and striking be-
cause in Matthew . Jesus proposes this prayer in its plain and abbreviated
style as a counter to the grandiloquent rhetoric of heathens: “Use no vaine rep-
etitions [nolite multum loqui] as the heathen, for they think to be heard for
their much babbling [in multiloquio suo].”20 In this context von Greiffenberg
displays her scriptural virtuosity but also a sense of poetic competition with
Petrarch and those who have appropriated his style. In her poem there is no
question of a tormented secular conscience such as Petrarch’s. Certainly von
Greiffenberg admits of no sexual impediment, nor does she allow the distrac-
tion of a human love, whether legitimate or adulterous, to intervene upon her
contact with God. Her calling is to praise the Lord and to be a good Protes-
tant reader of Scripture, as her echoes from the synoptic Gospels in lines  to
 show, when she evokes the story of the widow’s mite in Mark .‒ and
Luke .‒ and the prophecy of Isaiah .‒ as recounted in Matthew .:
“He will not break the crushed reed . . . till he has led the truth to victory.”


 Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

The congregational sentiment exemplified by von Greiffenberg aspired to a

transportability across Protestant Germany in much the same way that the
Spanish sentiment of early European settlers in the New World of central
Mexico and coastal Peru aspired to transportability across the Atlantic
Ocean.21 Called Nueva España because its colonists thought of themselves as
Spaniards inhabiting lands claimed for the Crown, its domains underwent a
rapid process of hybridization and new social formation.22 By the seventeenth
century the overextended Spanish monarchy, buffeted by the French, Dutch,
and English, could no longer securely control its colonies, and so criollo set-
tlers experienced new degrees of self-sufficiency and autonomy. Haciendas,
great landed estates formed on Iberian models of land tenure and social status,
generated a powerful class of local oligarchs who sometimes thought of them-
selves as quite distinct from their brethren in the mother country, spawning
new sentiments about being in and belonging to the Americas.23
Into this world Sor Juana Inéz de la Cruz (‒) was born in the foothills
of Popocatepetl as the illegitimate daughter of an upper-class criolla mother and
an unidentified Basque father. At the age of twenty-one, after some years at the
viceregal court in Mexico City, where she had served as lady-in-waiting to the
viceroy’s daughter, she entered a Hieronymite convent. Here for importunate
visitors from court she wrote several volumes of comedias and autos sacramen-
tales in the style of Calderón, lyrics of various genres in the style of Góngora,
and sixty-six sonnets on philosophical, mythological, religious, amatory, en-
comiastic, and satirical themes in the styles of Lope de Vega and Quevedo.24 A
famous letter in reply to a reprimand from the archbishop of Mexico City, a
“Response to the Most Illustrious Poetess Sor Filotea de la Cruz,” the latter a
pseudonym for her benefactor, the bishop of Puebla, presents a self-defense
against misogynistic attacks on her intellectual interests. An impressive catalog
of European arts and sciences useful for interpreting Scripture and worthy of
pursuit in their own right accompanies an equally impressive enumeration of
European women who devoted themselves to such studies in ancient and early
modern times. Sor Juana inserts herself into this largely Iberian, deeply Euro-
pean culture as though her life in a Mexico City convent were commensurate
with a life in Spain. Consonant with much of her writing, the letter betrays no
sentiment about being distant or detached from the mother country.25
Sor Juana’s writing reveals her fascination with Mexican distinctiveness,
paradoxically regarded as a mirror of Spanish and European identity. In the
loa for an auto sacramental entitled El divino Narciso, an allegorical personage
of Christian religion looks into the reflecting pond of Aztec religion, personi-


Conclusion

fied as La América, and finds there a likeness of her own concept of God and
moral values. La América staunchly proclaims her independence against colo-
nizing Europeans, “sin dejar que advenedizas / Naciones, osadas quieran / in-
tentar interrumpirlas” ‘our rituals shall not be banned / by these Nations, still
unknown, / so newly come unto our land (/).26 Religion, acknowledging
the syncretic ties that link Aztec concepts to Christian ones, deters Zeal from
attacking the former, “que a especies intelectivas / ni habrá distancias que es-
torben / ni mares que les impidan” ‘for men of reason realize / there is no dis-
tance that deftly deters, / nor seas that interchange efface’ (/). The world
in Sor Juana’s imagination is a cognate whole, in which Aztec beliefs totemi-
cally mirror Christian ones, but still Sor Juana fixes for herself a distinctly
Mexican version of her identity. Her sense of being a criolla in and of Mexico
with a specific Mexican character has spurred such modern authors as Octavio
Paz, José Lezama Lima, and Gabriela Mistral to regard her as an early emblem
of Latin American literature writ large.27
In the extensive corpus of Sor Juana’s poetry twenty-one amatory sonnets
represent a late flowering of Petrarchism in the Spanish Americas, as exempli-
fied by the following:

Detente, sombra de mi bien esquivo,

imagen del hechizo que más quiero,
bella ilusión por quien alegre muero,
dulce ficción por quien penosa vivo.
Si al imán de tus gracias, atractivo,
sirve mi pecho de obediente acero,
¿para qué me enamoras lisonjero
si has de burlarme luego fugitivo?

Mas blasonar no puedes, satisfecho,

de que triunfa de mí tu tiranía:
que aunque dejas burlado el lazo estrecho
que tu forma fantástica ceñía,
poco importa burlar brazos y pecho
si te labra prisión mi fantasía.

Stay, shadow of contentment too short lived, / illusion of enchantment I

most prize, / fair image for whom happily I die, / sweet fiction for whom
painfully I live. / If answering your charms’ imperative, / compliant, I like
steel to magnet fly, / by what logic do you flatter and entice, / only to flee, a
taunting fugitive? / ’Tis no triumph that you so smugly boast / that I fell vic-
tim to your tyranny; / though from encircling bonds that held you fast / your


 Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

elusive form too readily slipped free, / and though to my arms you are for-
ever lost, / you are a prisoner in my fantasy.
The poem prominently replicates familiar Petrarchan figures of the flatterer
(lisonjero), the tight snare (el lazo estrecho), tyranny (tu tiranía), and the noc-
turnal phantasm (tu forma fantástica), but it sets them in strangely different
contexts activated through paradox, irony, wordplay, and hyperbole. Its dom-
inant figure is inscribed in its final word, fantasía, whose Petrarchan pedigree
may be traced to sonnet  in the Rime sparse. The speaker of this poem
marks twenty years of “grave et lungo affanno” ‘heavy, long labor’ in falling for
“l’ésca et l’amo” ‘the bait and the hook’ of Love:
Beato in sogno et di languir contento,
d’abbracciar l’ombre et seguir l’aura estiva,
nuoto per mar che non á fondo o riva;
solco onde, e ’n rena fondo, et scrivo in vento.
Blessed in sleep and satisfied to languish, to embrace shadows and pursue
the summer breeze, I swim through a sea that has no floor or shore, I plow
the waves and found my house on sand and write on the wind.
Vellutello and Gesualdo offer relevant glosses. By cross-referring the poem to
sonnet , “Amor fra l’erbe una leggiadra rete” ‘Love set out amid the grass a
gay net,’ Vellutello puts it into a narrative context just before Laura’s death. Pe-
trarch is visiting Laura at Cabrières for the last time before embarking for
Parma, where a few months later he learns that she has died. In this account
Petrarch’s frustrated longing renders the cliffs of Vaucluse and the Rhone Val-
ley desolate, “per non esser in quello alcuna vera beatitudine, ma solamente il-
lusioni e errori” ‘because no real happiness occurs here, but only illusions and
mistakes’ (v). Conversely, Gesualdo locates the poem upon a map of poetic
allusion which begins with the Florentine proverb “beato in sogno,” which
Gesualdo glosses as “che nulla vale” ‘an out-and-out delusion’ (r), and ex-
tends through echoes of Pindar, Plato, Democritus, Cicero, Tibullus, Chris-
tian theology, Arnaut Daniel, Dante, and Petrarch himself. Whether in the
concrete historical space of Vellutello’s narrative or in the intertextual cham-
bers of Gesualdo’s literary imagination, the poem situates its author as one
with multiple allegiances to a geopolitical world and to a world of thought and
local sentiment.
Sor Juana’s poetry reflects at a distance the courtly manners of Mexico
City’s viceregal government, while her “Response to Sor Filotea” conveys her
willing embrace of the convent as a site where she would have “no obligatory


Conclusion

occupation that would inhibit the freedom of my studies” (/).28 Inside

the convent with her books and her poetic imagination she could be anywhere
and everywhere at once and always most profoundly in the stream of Euro-
pean intellectual discourse. Likewise, any criollos or criollas in baronial hacien-
das of New Spain could imagine themselves as noble lords or ladies in the Old
World, connecting their sentiments to ways of life in the mother country.
Conversely, they could see themselves as oligarchs in the New World, ground-
ing their sentiments in a distinctly emerging American consciousness.29 For
them the vastness of Mexico could and did represent a new Rome, settled by
diverse ethnic groups as ancient Rome had been, colonized not by the sur-
vivors of Troy but by the latter’s Hispanic descendants, who now governed ter-
ritories formerly part of the Aztec empire.30 As ancient Rome ceded its totems
and taboos to a Christian order, so would ancient Mexico. Out of their shared
experiences grew a bond of solidarity between the Spanish-speaking colonists
and the non-Spanish-speaking Amerindians—a sense of community without
linguistic, cultural, or ethnic unity but with a recognition of common politi-
cal interest and of exceptionalism amid hybridity.31
This sense of divided identity, of allegiance to competing zones, even of ex-
ile from a primal site of origin, has deep roots in Petrarch’s political imagina-
tion, where fantasy summons the collective energies of a cultural and histori-
cal awareness. Casting a distinctively public and patriotic emphasis upon the
lover’s anguished estrangement from Laura, such commentators as Vellutello
and Gesualdo remark about the burden of the poet’s many travels. Vellutello
thinks of his diplomatic missions to “duri genti et costumi” ‘hard peoples and
customs’ (canzone .) as efforts to escape from Love, “per fuggirsi e liber-
arsi dal giogo d’amore” ‘to flee and to free himself from Love’ (v). The fig-
ure of “mille lacciuoli” ‘a thousand snares’ (canzone .) evokes Love’s
counterefforts to entrap the traveler, as Gesualdo explains: “mille impedi-
menti, che per lo camino incontrano” ‘a thousand impediments that confront
him, along the road’ (r). The experience drives Petrarch to make statements
that are phantasmic: “Mai notturno fantasma / d’error non fu sì pien” ‘Never
was a nocturnal phantasm so full of error’ (canzone .‒).
This figuration of phantasma dominates Sor Juana’s poem, too, from the
sombra de mi bien and imagen del hechizo of its opening lines to the conclud-
ing forma fantástica of its sestet. Liberated from the tyranny of a satisfecho op-
pressor (masculine gendered but ambiguously defined), her speaker evokes an
idealized world of self-possession, in which the “sombra de mi bien” is no
longer “esquivo” and every “bella illusión” and “dulce ficción” remains forever


 Far Sites, Father Sites, Farther Sites

“allegre.” Sor Juana’s poetry expresses a moment of productive tension in her

culture when the power of a Petrarchan imagination breaks away from Petrar-
chistic efforts to stabilize a literary language and its modes of cultural produc-
tion. This split figures strongly in the Jesuit program to valorize indigenous
Amerindian languages at the expense of European languages—a program that
the Crown and its agents resisted. While the Spanish monarchy saw its rule in
the Americas as strengthened by teaching the Castilian dialect to the
Amerindians and acculturating them through that medium as through a lin-
gua franca, Jesuits such as José de Acosta prompted other forms of interde-
pendence by using Aztec idioms as fit vehicles for evangelizing native Ameri-
cans.32 In the court of the Spanish viceroy in Mexico City the talents of Sor
Juana offered Criollos a precious reserve of cultural capital. To the extent that
this capital refers to totemic standards of the ancestral land beyond the sea, it
might seem to express a nostalgia for European identity. But, to the extent that
Sor Juana puts it at the service of a powerful imagination soaring across the
boundaries of ancestry and descent, territory and cultural behavior, it might
also express the opposite: the beginnings of a distinctive Spanish-American
sentiment free from taboos of the Old World.
That Petrarchism had contributed to Sor Juana’s style is indubitable, even
though its powers had begun to wane before her birth. Earlier, however, they
dominated European poetry. Petrarch himself had complained, disingenu-
ously or not, that his Rime sparse were sung to his dismay everywhere “through
the arcades . . . [and] at the street corners” (Fam. .: ./). Lorenzo de’
Medici fashioned his own verse in the Petrarchan mode to mobilize a power-
ful segment of the Florentine populace and Cariteo fashioned his to impress
powerful foreign rulers. Joachim Du Bellay advocated for a literary culture
that would include the language of “not only the learned but also all kinds of
workmen and mechanics” (Deffence /). Mary Sidney published her
brother Philip’s writing to increase its circulation beyond Whitehall’s or
Wilton’s “smally learned courtiers” (Defence ), so that it might reach a wider
readership in and around metropolitan London and perhaps among the rural
gentry, a readership to which Mary Wroth aspired. By and large their poetry
made its way through upper-class environments and appealed to upper-class
sentiments.
The boundaries of this readership insured its totemic status among classes
of people bound to one another with ties of loyalty and personal allegiance.
This nucleus of readers would develop its own attitudes toward local or re-
gional identity and its relationship to a national imaginary, and the social


Conclusion

prominence of these readers guaranteed that larger segments of the population

would come to share vicariously in such sentiments. Concepts of nation, na-
tional identity, and national sentiment remain difficult to define and even more
difficult to justify. They evolve out of a play of language and memory, charac-
ter and conflict, history and accident, geography and design. Our own highly
pressured age of sociological awareness and psychological self-consciousness
analyzes them with a particular attachment to scientific rigor and precise ter-
minology. Earlier ages lacked such nomenclature, but they did possess a poetic
language that expressed convergent problems and issues, tensions and con-
flicts, dreams and aspirations, in powerfully nuanced formulations.
Among them the language of Petrarchan poetry achieved this goal. Origi-
nally a hybrid of classical and late medieval forms in northern Italy, Petrar-
chism offered a literary model for emergently national vernaculars soon to be
codified throughout Europe. If its subsequent history foregrounds the rise of
national sentiment, it does so partly because of issues at stake as it dramatizes
interrelated ideas about friendship, sex, marriage, family, community, social
class, gendered bodies, ruling hierarchies, and emerging state bureaucracies.
Petrarch’s fourteenth-century composite discourse came close to supplying a
universal norm for poetic expression in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
Europe. Yet this same universalism everywhere conflicted with regional ver-
naculars and local identifications inscribed in consecutive imitations of the
Rime sparse. In this context each reworking of Petrarchan discourse displays a
palimpsest of social change, cultural adjustment, and political development,
with attendant conflicts, tensions, and outright contradictions enacted in
them. That, plus the permanently unfulfilled desire at the heart of Petrarchan
lyric, made Petrarchism a powerful vehicle for expressing national sentiment
in early modern Europe.


 Notes

Introduction
. See Ernest Hatch Wilkins, Life of Petrarch (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See William J. Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ); and Gino Belloni, Laura tra Petrarca e Bembo: Studi sul commento
umanistico-rinascimentale al “Canzoniere” (Padua: Antenore, ). For the social,
cultural, and technological context of these commentaries, see Paolo Trovato, Con
ogni diligenza corretto: La stampa e le revisioni editoriali dei testi letterari italiani
‒ (Bologna: Il Mulino, ), pp. ‒; for Petrarch’s reform of book
production providing impetus for such commentaries, see Armando Petrucci,
Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy: Studies in the History of Written Culture,
trans. Charles M. Radding (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒;
for Aldus Manutius’ innovative edition of Petrarch’s Italian poetry in , see
Brian Richardson, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacu-
lar Text, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒;
and, for the diversified reading public that received such commentaries in the six-
teenth century, see Richardson, Printers, Writers, and Readers in Renaissance Italy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. He entered the city only twice, each time for a few days of stopover flanking
a visit to Rome in the Jubilee Year of  (referred to in Familiares . and .).
On the first occasion (early October) he stayed with Boccaccio, attended to some
family matters about confiscated property, and met several young scholars who
showed him a longer text of Quintilian’s Institutes than the one he had known, in-
spiring him upon his return to compose a letter to Quintilian dated from Florence
in December (Familiares .). See Wilkins, Life, pp. ‒.
. For Bembo, see Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒; Martin L.
McLaughlin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: The Theory and Practice
of Literary Imitation from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒; and Maurizio Vitale, La Questione della lingua (Palermo: Palumbo, ),
pp. ‒. For Bembo’s reception outside of Tuscany, see Paolo Trovato, Storia
della lingua italiana: Il primo Cinquecento (Bologna: Il Mulino, ), pp. ‒.
For the role of anthologies in disseminating Petrarchism, see Amedeo Quondam,
Petrarchismo mediato: Per una critica della forma antologia (Rome: Bulzoni, ),
pp. ‒.

Notes to Pages ‒

. For Machiavelli’s complex relationship to the Medici and the Republic of

Florence, see John Najemy, Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the
Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of ‒ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ),
pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒; Sebastian DeGrazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Maurizio Viroli, Machi-
avelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For Bembo’s
influence on the literary vernacular, see Giancarlo Mazzacurati, La questione della
lingua dal Bembo all’ accademia Fiorentina (Naples: Liguori, ), pp. ‒; and
Pasquale Sabbatino, L’idioma volgare: Il dibattito sulla lingua letteraria nel Rinasci-
mento (Rome: Bulzoni, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For descriptive profiles, see Carlo Dionisotti, “La Fortuna del Petrarca nel
’,” Italia medioevale e umanistica  (): ‒; Ezio Raimondi, “Francesco
Filelfo interprete del Canzoniere,” Studi Petrarcheschi  (): ‒; and
Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒. For the analogous history of fifteenth-
and sixteenth-century commentaries on Dante’s work, see Deborah Parker, Com-
mentary and Ideology: Dante in the Renaissance (Durham: Duke University Press,
), with a study of Filelfo on pp. ‒.
. For profiles, see Parker, Commentary and Ideology, pp. ‒ and ‒;
Belloni, Laura tra Petrarca e Bembo, pp. ‒; and Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch,
pp. ‒.
. See profiles in Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒; for Sylvano, see
Sabbatino, L’idioma volgare, pp. ‒; for Gesualdo, see Belloni, Laura tra Pe-
trarca e Bembo, pp. ‒.
. For profiles, see Parker, Commentary and Ideology, pp. ‒; Ezio Rai-
mondi, “Bernardino Daniello e le varianti petrarcheschi,” Studi Petrarcheschi 
(): ‒; Belloni, Laura tra Petrarca e Bembo, pp. ‒; and Kennedy, Au-
thorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. See profiles in Paolo Trovato, Il primo Cinquecento, pp. ‒; Giorgio
Spini, Tra rinascimento e riforma: Antonio Brucioli (Florence: La Nuova Italia,
), pp. ‒ and ‒; Ezio Raimondi, “Gli scrupoli di un filologo: Lu-
dovico Castelvetro e il Petrarca,” Studi Petrarcheschi  (): ‒; and
Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. For nationalism as a transformation of consciousness enabled through com-
munication technology, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections
on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, ); for nationalism as
providing a culture summoned by the industrialization process, see Ernest Gellner,
Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ); for nationalism
as a political program of polyethnic unification and expansion, see Eric Hobs-
bawm, Nations and Nationalism since : Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ); for nationalism as a product of state growth
and the latter’s monopolization of military technology, see Michael Mann, The
Sources of Social Power, vol. : A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒; for nationalism


 Notes to Pages ‒

as a declaration of citizenship within the collective character of a society, see John

Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (New York: St. Martin’s Press, ).
. For a sociological approach to this question, see Liah Greenfeld, National-
ism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, );
for an ethnographic approach, see Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origin of Na-
tions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ); for a historical approach, see John Arm-
strong, Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, ); for a psychological approach of mass identification in relation to in-
ternational politics, see William Bloom, Personal Identity, National Identity, and
International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒;
for interlocking psychological, ethical, and political claims embedded in national
sentiment, see David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒.
. Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works
of Sigmund Freud, trans. James Strachey in collaboration with Anna Freud, 
vols. (London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, /‒),
“Totem and Taboo,” .‒. For the political aspect of this myth in seventeenth-
century drama in which the representation of guilt promotes social cohesion, see
Mitchell Greenberg, Canonical States, Canonical Stages: Oedipus, Others, and Sev-
enteenth-Century Drama (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ),
xi–xxxix.
. Freud, “Family Romances,” Standard Edition, .‒.
. For the late-medieval transformation of agrarian Italy into administratively
centralized urban states, see Philip Jones, Economia e società nell’Italia medievale
(Turin: Einaudi, ), pp. ‒; and Ovidio Capitano, ed., Comuni e signorie:
Istituzioni, società e lotte per l’egemonia (Turin: UTET, ), esp. the contributions
of Raoul Manselli, “Il sistema degli stati italiani dal  al ,” pp. ‒; and
Antonio Ivan Pini, “Dal comune città-stato al comune ente amministrativo,” pp.
‒. For specific examples, see Alberto Tenenti, Stato: Un idea, una logica: Dal
comune italiano all’assolutismo francese (Bologna: Il Mulino, ), esp. “La
nozione di ’stato’ nell’Italia del Rinascimento,” pp. ‒; and “Profilo e limiti
delle relatà nazionali in Italia fra Quattrocento e Seicento,” pp. ‒; and essays
in Julius Kirshner, ed., The Origin of the State in Italy, ‒ (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, ), esp. the contributions of Giorgio Chittolini, “The
‘Private,’ the ‘Public,’ the ‘State,’” pp. ‒; and Elena Fasano Guarini, “Center
and Periphery,” pp. ‒. For German territorial consolidation, see Otto Brun-
ner, Land and Lordship: Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria, trans.
Howard Kaminsky and James Van Horn Melton (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, ). For comparisons between Italian and German history,
see Giorgio Chittolini and Dietmar Willoweit, L’organizzazione del territorio in
Italia e Germania, secoli XIII–XIV (Bologna: Il Mulino, ).
. For standardized state forms as a functional response to these conditions,
see Gellner, Nations and Nationalism; for agency as a reactive response to change,


Notes to Pages ‒

see Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since ; and Breuilly, Nationalism and
the State. For collective solidarity as a product of vertical and lateral ethnic con-
sciousness, see Smith, Ethnic Origins of Nations, pp. ‒. For literary implica-
tions of social integration and political legitimization, see Walter Cohen, Drama
of a Nation: Public Theater in Renaissance England and Spain (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒; and Andrew Hadfield, Literature, Politics, and Na-
tional Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For biblical ideals of nationhood in Reformation political theory, see
Adrian Hastings, The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion, and Nation-
alism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For
nationalist bearings of religious identification upon French cultural history, see
Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late Me-
dieval France, trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Fredric L. Cheyette (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, ). For implications in English literary history, see
Clare MacEachern, The Poetics of English Nationhood, ‒ (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For application to Italian history, see the territorial rivalries discussed in
Sergio Bertelli, Nicolai Rubinstein, and C. H. Smyth, eds., Florence and Venice:
Comparisons and Relations,  vols. (Florence: Olschki, ‒); and Bertelli, Ru-
binstein, and Smyth, eds., Florence and Milan: Comparisons and Relations,  vols.
(Florence: Olschki ). For application to French literary history, see Tom Con-
ley, The Self-Made Map: Cartographic Writing in Early Modern France (Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press, ); for application to English literary history,
see Richard Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England
(Berkeley: University of California Press, ).
. Anderson, Imagined Communities, esp. p. , drawing on Walter Ben-
jamin’s “Theses on the Philosophy of History, in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, ), pp. ‒.
. For the ways in which literary texts register conflicts between different
models of community in dialogic relationship with different and developing generic
forms, see Timothy Hampton, Literature and Nation in the Sixteenth Century: In-
venting Renaissance France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒.
. For the responsiveness of the Petrarchan lyric to cultural upheavals and its
correlation with gender and class conflict, absolutism, transatlantic imperialism,
and other applications, see Roland Greene, Unrequited Conquests: Love and Em-
pire in the Colonial Americas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp.
‒.
. For patterns of differentiation in Petrarchan poetry which resemble dis-
tinctions between the self and the other and therefore suggest connections with
problems of gender, artistic competition, and national pride among Petrarch’s ad-
herents and detractors, see Heather Dubrow, Echoes of Desire: English Petrarchism
and Its Counterdiscourses (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For cultural polemics initiated by the nationalistic implications of Pe-

trarch’s Latin writings and by the conception of history undergirding them, see
Walter Stephens, Giants in Those Days: Folklore, Ancient History, and Nationalism
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Ernest Pulgram, The Tongues of Italy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Pulgram, Tongues of Italy, pp. ‒.
. For a splendid survey of ideas about Italy from ancient Roman to early
modern times, see Claudia Lazzaro, “Italy as a Garden: The Idea of Italy and the
Italian Garden Tradition,” in Villas and Gardens in Early Modern Italy and France,
ed. Mirka Benes and Dianne Harris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. For the long evolution of Latin into the vernacular languages of Italy, see
Pulgram, Tongues of Italy, pp. ‒; Mario Pei, The Italian Language (New York:
Columbia University Press, ), pp. ‒; Bruno Migliorini, The Italian Lan-
guage, rev. trans. T. Gwynfor Griffith, d ed. (London: Faber and Faber, ), pp.
‒; and Giacomo Devoto The Languages of Italy, trans. V. Louise Katainen
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Singleton trans. The rhyme and an unusual density of
phonic repetition in the next canto might have some figural significance. The pas-
sage opens with a nesting of regular rhyme (liete/siete) framing an exact rhyme
(volte/volte) which yields to an end-line rhyme (Dio/rio/mio) presaging internal
rhymes (io/Virgilio). This elaborate play of sameness and difference figures Virgil’s
and Sordello’s Mantuan and hence Italian identities in a way that calls attention to
what they are and are not (“ella è non è,” Purg. .) as writers of Latin and
Provençal with contested relationships to their Italian national identities.
. Opere, pp. ‒; Steven Botterill, trans., De vulgari eloquentia (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . See the critical commentary on
Dante’s vernacular backgrounds in Marianne Shapiro, De vulgari eloquentia:
Dante’s Book of Exile (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, ), pp. ‒ and
‒. For Dante’s text as an argument for language as the instrument of knowl-
edge, history, and moral and legal decision making, see Giuseppe Mazzotta,
Dante’s Vision and the Circle of Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
), pp. ‒ and ‒; for its nonfunctional, hypothetical relation to me-
dieval theories of signification, see Marsha L. Collish, The Mirror of Language, d
ed. (; rpt., Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See De vulgari eloquentia ., for Dante’s censorious comment on Sor-
dello’s choice of Provençal over Italian: “This man of unusual eloquence aban-
doned the vernacular of his home town not only when writing poetry but on every
other occasion” (Botterill, p. ). For Sordello’s political significance, see
Theodolinda Barolini, Dante’s Poets: Textuality and Truth in the “Comedy” (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. The poem has also been attributed to Petrarch’s friends Fazio degli Uberti
and Antonio de’ Beccari. See Natalino Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori del Trecento (Mi-
lan: Riccardo Ricciardi, ), pp. ‒, from which the text is quoted.
. Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori, pp. ‒. Addressed to Charles by a personi-
fied Italy, “la sposa tua, Italia bella” ‘your spouse, beautiful Italy,’ the poem places
blame on Pope Innocent VI “che d’ogni mal s’incolpa” ‘who is guilty of all evil’
(‒). In a later sonnet, “Se a legger Dante” ‘If in reading Dante’ (Sapegno, p.
), Antonio applies Dante’s judgment against Albert to Charles, now reproving
him as “l’avaro ingrato e vile / imperador” ‘the greedy, ungrateful, and vile em-
peror.’ For Charles’s political decision, see Geoffrey Barraclough, The Origins of
Modern Germany (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒.
. Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori, p. . For the political context, see Daniel
Meredith Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti (‒): A Study in the Po-
litical Career of an Italian Despot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. ‒. For Milan’s ascendance, see Marco Fossati and Alessandro Ceresatto,
“Dai Visconti agli Sforza” in Comuni e signorie nell’Italia settentrionale: La Lom-
bardia, ed. Giancarlo Adenna et al. (Turin: UTET, ), pp. ‒. For the suc-
cess of repressive signorie in subduing the feudal countryside in ways that eluded
the republican communes, see Giorgio Chittolini, La formazione dello stato re-
gionale e le instituzioni del contado: secoli XIV–XV (Turin: Einaudi, ).
. Proemio, l. , Sapegno, ed., Poeti minori.
. For the Latin etymology of gens, gentis, see the entry “gigno, gignere” in Al-
fred Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine (Paris:
Klincksieck, ), pp. ‒.
. See Greenfeld, Nationalism, pp. ‒; and Guido Zernatto, “Nation: The
History of a Word,” Review of Politics  (): ‒. For the character of local
medieval communities, see Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in West-
ern Europe, ‒, d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Greenfeld, Nationalism, pp. ‒.
. Ca.  Sir Thomas Smith, Elizabeth I’s ambassador in France, uses the
word nation interchangeably with kingdom and commonwealth when he describes
differences in the social structures of France and England: “And when many cities,
boroughes and villages were by their common and mutuall consent for their con-
servation ruled by that one and first father of them all, it was called a nation or
kingdome,” in De Republica Anglorum (published ), ed. Mary Dewar (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. . The OED cites Shakespeare’s
Hamlet, “The Nation holds it no sinne to tarre them to Controversie” (..);
compare, however, Montaigne’s use in  of the French word nation, already
taken in this sense along with paîe (country); in Florio’s translation (): “There
is nothing in that nation [nation] that is either barbarous or savage: . . . we have
no other aim of truth and reason, than the example . . . of the country [paîe] we
live in,” in Selected Essays (.), ed. Walter Kaiser (New York: Houghton Mifflin,
), pp. ‒. In Tempest .. Shakespeare adapts this passage with the word


 Notes to Pages ‒

commonwealth: “I’ th’ commonwealth I would by contraries / Execute all things.”

For Montaigne’s mediated encounter with the alterity of the New World and his
reflections upon it as a meditation on the politics and social fabric of France, see
Hampton, Literature and Nation, pp. ‒.
. Greenfeld, Nationalism, pp. ‒.
. Geneva Bible, ed. Berry; Greek text from Polyglot Bibel. For the impact of
Scripture and religion upon early modern ideas of English nationhood, see Hast-
ings, Construction of Nationhood, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For ancient, medieval, and early modern examples of ethnic consciousness
as motives for national autarchy in a framework of polycentric myths and memo-
ries, see Anthony D. Smith, Ethnic Origins of Nations, pp. ‒; as well as Smith,
Theories of Nationalism (New York: Holmes and Meier, ), pp. ‒; and
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Na-
tionalism (New York: Routledge, ), pp. ‒.
. See Lazzaro, “Italy as a Garden,” pp.  ff.
. See Kristen Lippencott, “The Art of Cartography in Fifteenth-Century
Florence,” in Lorenzo the Magnificent: Culture and Politics, ed. Michael Mallett and
Nicholas Mann (London: Warburg Institute, ), pp. ‒; and Lazzaro, “Italy
as a Garden,” pp. ‒.
. See Lazzaro, “Italy as a Garden,” pp.  and ‒; Rodney Shirley, The
Mapping of the World: Early Printed Maps, ‒ (London: Holland, );
and Jerry Brotten, Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒; for ancient concepts, see James S.
Romm, The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and
Fiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒; for analogies
among topographic maps, pictograms, and ethnographic consciousness in six-
teenth-century French literature, see Conley, Self-Made Map, esp. pp. ‒; for
political implications, see David Buisseret, “Introduction” and “Monarchs, Min-
isters, and Maps,” in Monarchs, Ministers, and Maps: The Emergence of Cartogra-
phy as a Tool of Government in Early Modern Europe, ed. Buisseret (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For early formations of German identity, see Hajo Holborn, A History of
Modern Germany: The Reformation (New York: Knopf, ), pp. ‒.
. See Germani (Germans), germanitas (brotherhood), and germanus (sibling)
in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Latin Dictionary (; rpt., Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ), p. .
. See der Teutone in Duden: Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 
vols. (Mannheim: Duden, ), .. For the process of ethnogenesis defining
such peoples in late antiquity, see Herwig Wolfram, The Roman Empire and Its
Germanic Peoples, Thomas Dunlap, trans. (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See deutsch in Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm,  vols.
(Munich: Deutsche Taschenbuch, ), .‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. The Gothic adjective tiudisk entered late medieval Latin as theodiscus, whence
its twelfth-century Italian form tedesco; see tedesco in Carlo Battisti and Giovanni
Alessio, Dizionario etimologico italiano,  vols. (Florence: Barbera, ), .‒.
. For fluid, complex, and dynamic processes of imagining these peoples with
cross-bred political rather than pure ethnic identities in late antiquity, see Patrick
Geary, The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the first century of the German monarchy, see Barraclough, Origins,
pp. ‒. For succeeding centuries up to the Thirty Years War, see Rudolf Vier-
haus, Germany in the Age of Absolutism, trans. Jonathan B. Knudsen (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒; and John Gagliardo, Germany
under the Old Regime, ‒ (New York: Longman, ), pp. ‒. For the
medieval kingdoms of Germany based on collective activity and ideas, see
Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, pp. ‒.
. For the development of a national sentiment up to the eve of the Refor-
mation, see Michael Hayes, Early Modern Germany, ‒ (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. ‒. For the influence of the Reforma-
tion upon this self-definition which links moral behavior with civic strength
through the institution of marriage, see Isabel Hull, Sexuality, State, and Civil So-
ciety in Germany (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. A more authentic Castilian form might have been españuelo or espanesco;
see Américo Castro, The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History, trans. Willard
F. King and Selma Margaretten (Berkeley: University of California Press, ),
pp. ‒.
. For texts with an emphasis on fifteenth-century political unification, see
Ciriaco Moron Arroyo, ed., Antologìa de la Lirìca Medieval Castellana (Salamanca:
Publicacciones del Colegio de España, ), esp. pp. ‒.
. Castro, Spaniards, p. .
. Castro, Spaniards, p. . The descent from Tubal appears in an earlier thir-
teenth-century Latin source, the De rebus Hispaniae of Jiménez de Rada, arch-
bishop of Toledo. See Julio Valdeón Baruque, Los conflictos sociales en el reino de
Castilla en los siglos XIV y XV (Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno, ).
. For the perception of Spanish purity and Spanish Catholicism in the eyes
of other nations, see J. N. Hillgarth, The Mirror of Spain, ‒: The Forma-
tion of a Myth (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ), pp. ‒. For
Spanish conceptions of the nation as a universal monarchy set against particular-
ist French designs, see John Lynch, Spain, ‒: From Nation State to World
Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒.
. Antonio de Nebrija, Gramática de la lengua castellana (Salamanca, ),
ed. Ignacio González-Llubera (New York: Oxford University Press, ), pp. .
. Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. ‒ and ‒. Pre-modern ideas
about Frankish origins depend upon the sixth-century account of the Franks by
Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, trans. Lewis Thorpe (Har-


 Notes to Pages ‒

mondsworth: Penguin, ), pp. ‒, based on now lost ancient histories by
Frigeridus and Sulpicius Alexander; for a summary of modern scholarship, see Ian
Wood, The Merovingian Kingdom (London: Longman, ).
. Various versions are recounted in Robert Hanning, The Vision of History
in Early Britain (New York: Columbia University Press, ).
. For French national identity as a product of a collective memory mindful
of powerful polarities, see the essays of various authors in Realms of Memory: Re-
thinking the French Past, under the direction of Pierre Nora, trans. Arthur Gold-
hammer,  vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, ‒), and Rethinking
France, under the direction of Pierre Nora, trans. Mary Trouille, vol.  (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, ). Subsequent endnotes will refer to specific es-
says in these volumes.
. See Anderson, Imagined Communities, esp. pp. ‒; and Greenfeld, Na-
tionalism, pp. ‒.
. Lord Acton, “Nationality” (), in Mapping the Nation, ed. Gopal Bal-
akrishnan (London: Verso, ), pp. ‒: “A State which is incompetent to sat-
isfy different races condemns itself; a State which labours to neutralize, to absorb,
or to expel them, destroys its own vitality; a State which does not include them is
destitute of the chief basis of self-government” (p. ).
. “Une nation est une âme, un principe spirituel. . . . Une nation est donc
une grande solidarité constituée par le sentiment des sacrifices qu’on a faits et de
ceux qu’on est disposé à faire encore,” in Ernest Renan, “Qu’est-ce qu’une Na-
tion?” (), ed. Philippe Foret (Paris: Bordas, ), p. , with useful commen-
tary from Maurice Barrès to Louis-Ferdinand Céline.
. For the fusion of will, culture, and polity in the creation of nationhood, see
Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, pp. ‒.
. For comparisons between Renan and Lord Acton, see Anthony D. Smith,
“Nationalism and the Historians,” in Balakrishnan, Mapping the Nation, pp.
‒. For the contradictions of English nationalism, see Anderson, Imagined
Communities, pp. ‒. For a defense of the French idea, see Julia Kristeva, Na-
tions without Nationalism, trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒. On the limits of assimilation, see Emmanuel Levinas,
In the Time of the Nations, trans. Michael B. Smith (Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒. For comparisons between a French political assim-
ilationist understanding of citizenship and nationhood and a German ethnocul-
tural understanding, see Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France
and Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Fernand Braudel, The Identity of France, trans. Sian Reynolds (New
York: Harper and Row, ), pp. ‒; François Furet and Jacques Ozouf,
Reading and Writing: Literacy in France from Calvin to Jules Ferry (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Eugen Weber, Peasants into
Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, ‒ (Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. See Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity,
), pp. ‒; and Etienne Balibar, “The Nation Form: History and Ideol-
ogy,” and Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Construction of Peoplehood,” in Balibar
and Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (London: Verso, ),
pp. ‒ and ‒, respectively.
. On the formation of national languages through either assimilation or re-
spect of difference, see Françoise Gadet and Michel Pecheux, La langue introuvable
(Paris: François Maspero, ), pp. ‒.
. See Balibar, “Nation Form,” pp. ‒; and Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction:
A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (London: Rout-
ledge, ), pp. ‒. For the relationship between language and society in the
early modern period, see Peter Burke, “Introduction,” in The Social History of
Language, ed. Peter Burke and Roy Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For belief in aristocratic inheritance as a form of genetic determination, see
Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (New York: Harper and Row,
), pp. ‒.
. All quotations from the First Part of Urania refer to Roberts, ed., here
quoted from pp.  and .
. For the importance of vertical descent in earlier medieval ethnology, see R.
Howard Bloch, Etymologies and Genealogies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
), pp. ‒.
. See Emile Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society, trans. Elizabeth
Palmer (London: Faber and Faber, ), pp. ‒, for linguistic evidence that
speakers of a common “mother tongue” do so without legal status in classificatory
systems based on maternal identity.
. For this distinction, see Ghassan Hage, “The Spacial Imaginary of Na-
tional Practices,” Environment and Planning, Series D: Society and Space  ():
‒, esp. pp. ‒. For the importance of historically accurate distinctions
between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” see Maurizio Viroli, For Love of Country:
An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒; for the transformation of these terms from reflecting a fact of nature to as-
serting an act of political will in the eighteenth century, see David A. Bell, The
Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, ‒ (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Walter J. Ong, Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology: Studies in the Inter-
action of Expression and Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a careful distinction between national sentiment traceable to commu-
nal feeling and national consciousness arising from a sense of wounded pride, see
Isaiah Berlin, “Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power,” in Against the Cur-
rent (New York: Viking Press, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒. For poetic lan-
guage as a transitional medium, see Kristeva, Nations without Nationalism, pp.
‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For the formation of the early modern state as a locus of sovereignty aimed
at restoring order over creative forces of self-determination stimulated by Renais-
sance humanism, see Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the state’s need to regulate such claims in order to contain power and
control violence, see Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Ma-
terialism, vol. : Power, Property, and the State (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒; and vol. : The Nation-State and Violence
(Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the double-edged residue of national identification, see Hardt and Ne-
gri, Empire, pp. ‒. For ideological belief not as an interior sentiment but as an
exterior embodiment of the practices of a people, see Slavoj Zizek, The Sublime
Object of Ideology (London: Verso, ), pp. ‒.
. Sabbatino, L’Idioma volgare, pp. ‒. Michele Barbi argues that Trissino
had found the text by ; see Barbi, Della fortuna di Dante nel secolo XVI (Pisa:
Nistri, ), pp. ‒.
. For the concept of proto-elite and its cultivation of linguistic capital, see
Ronald Wardhaugh, Languages in Competition (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp.
‒.
. For applications of game theory to hegemonic social and political pur-
poses, see David D. Laitin, Language Repertories and State Construction in Africa
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Stanley Lieber-
son, Language Diversity and Language Contact (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, ), pp. ‒.

One Petrarch as Commentator

. For Petrarch’s decision to shape his Epystolarum mearum ad diversos liber into
his Rerum familiarum libri, see Giuseppe Billanovich, Petrarca letterato I: Lo scrit-
toio del Petrarca (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, ), pp. ‒; for the
epistolary form as an ideal medium of inquiry into Petrarch’s deepest questions of
moral and aesthetic choice, see Nancy S. Struever, Theory as Practice: Ethical In-
quiry in the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
For Petrarch’s break with formulaic strictures of earlier public letter writing, see
Ronald G. Witt, “In the Footsteps of the Ancients”: The Origins of Humanism from
Lovato to Bruni (Leiden: Brill, ), pp. ‒; for his emphasis on the ethics
of the self in the Familiares, see Giuseppe Mazzotta, The Worlds of Petrarch
(Durham: Duke University Press, ), pp. ‒; for a survey of epistolary
forms and uses, see Najemy, Between Friends, pp. ‒, with close analysis of Fam.
. on pp. ‒.
. See the masterful studies by Thomas M. Greene, The Light in Troy (New
Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒; and The Vulnerable Text (New
York: Columbia University Press, ), pp. ‒. For Petrarch’s ambivalence in


Notes to Pages ‒

accommodating classical notions of temporal circularity to Christian notions of

temporal linearity, see Aldo S. Bernardo, “Petrarch’s Autobiography: Circularity
Revisited,” Annali d’Italianistica  (): ‒.
. For the historical context, see John Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante and Pe-
trarch (New York: Longman, ), pp. ‒; and Ruggiero Romano, Tra due
crisi: L’Italia del Rinascimento (Turin: Einaudi, ), pp. ‒. For speculation
about the impact of the Black Death on demographic behavior and the develop-
ment of new forms of cultural and intellectual life in the vernacular, see David
Herlihy, The Black Death and the Transformation of the West (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. The first page number in parentheses refers to Aldo Bernardo’s magisterial
translation, which I quote throughout; the second refers to the Latin text edited
by Rossi. For Petrarch’s humanist sense of textual recovery, see Carol Everhart
Quillen, Rereading the Renaissance: Petrarch, Augustine, and the Language of Hu-
manism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ), pp. ‒; for Pe-
trarch’s travel writing as an antidote for alienation, see Theodore Cachey, Petrarch’s
Guide to the Holy Land (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ), pp.
‒.
. See Cicero, Selected Letters, trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Harmonds-
worth: Penguin, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For Cicero’s public reputation, see D.
R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Select Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ‒; for shifting structures in his letters to Atticus, see G. O.
Hutchinson, Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s changing attitude toward Cicero, see Giuseppe Billanovich,
“Petrarca e Cicerone” in Petrarca e il primo umanesimo (Padua: Antenore, ),
pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s sense of himself as a wandering exile, see Mazzotta, Worlds of
Petrarch, pp. ‒; and Randolph Starn, Contrary Commonwealth: The Theme of
Exile in Medieval and Renaissance Italy (Berkeley: University of California Press,
), pp. ‒.
. See, for example, “richer but more hampered [ditior/impe-ditior)” (/);
“conflict and contradiction [di-versa/ad-versa]” (/); and “so much about so little
[tam multa de tam parva]” (/). For Petrarch’s simultaneous denial and confir-
mation of his literary language in Fam. ., see Najemy, Between Friends, pp. ‒.
. In Inferno .‒ Ulysses’ rhetorical appeal, “O frati . . . ”, instantiates
his skills in verbal manipulation and therefore the very reason for which he is con-
demned for evil counsel. This allusion to corrosive rhetoric darkens Petrarch’s con-
cern with his own effect on readers.
. For Petrarch’s letters as exemplifying his membership in different commu-
nities of readership with different rules for different audiences, see Quillen,
Rereading the Renaissance, pp. ‒; Struever, Theory as Practice, pp. ‒; and
Erich Auerbach, Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and in the


 Notes to Pages ‒

Middle Ages, trans. Ralph Manheim (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ),
pp. ‒. For St. Augustine’s influence in defining the reader’s role, see Kathy
Eden, Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ), pp. ‒; Brian Stock, “Reading, Writing, and the Self: Petrarch and
His Forerunners,” New Literary History  (): ‒; and Augustine the
Reader: Meditation, Self-Knowledge, and the Ethics of Interpretation (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s sense of the writer as a civilizer and of rhetoric as a tool in
civic matters in Fam. ., see Wayne Rebhorn, The Emperor of Men’s Minds
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For an overview of the growth of the Visconti state, see Bueno de
Mesquita, Galeazzo Visconti, pp. ‒; and Eric Russell Chamberlin, The Count of
Virtue: Giangaleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode,
), pp. ‒. For an ingenious but now disapproved view of the administrative
apparatus of Viscontian governance as a model for the early modern state, see Fed-
erico Chabod, “Was There a Renaissance State?” in The Development of the Mod-
ern State, ed. Heinz Lubasz (New York: Macmillan, ), pp. ‒. For
Francesco Carrara, see Benjamin G. Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, ‒
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s relations with the Visconti lords, see Ernest Hatch Wilkins,
Petrarch’s Eight Years in Milan (Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America,
), pp. ‒. For Milan in Petrarch’s time, see Marco Fossati and Alessandro
Ceresatto, “La Lombardia alla ricerca d’uno stato,” in Comuni e signorie nell’Italia
settentrionale: La Lombardia, ed. Giancarlo Andenna et al. (Turin: UTET, ),
pp. ‒; and Patrizia Mainoni, “Un bilancio di Giovanni Visconti, arcivescovo
e signore di Milano,” in L’età dei Visconti, ed. Luisa Chiappi Mauri et al. (Milan:
La Storia, ), pp. ‒. For the conflict between Viscontian despotism and Flo-
rentine republicanism as shaping Petrarch’s reception by Chaucer, see David Wal-
lace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Images and Associational Forms in England and
Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Even more explicitly in Seniles . dated  and written at Pavia after
leaving the Visconti’s service, Petrarch praises the patience in adversity of “that
greatest man of our sphere, the mighty ruler of Liguria, Galeazzo Visconti the
younger” (Bernardo .). For Milan in Filelfo’s time, see Fossati and Ceresatto,
“Dai Visconti agli Sforza,” in Comuni e signorie, ed. Andenna et al., pp. ‒.
For the shaping of Petrarch’s reputation by academies of humanist initiates, see
Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s contradictory evaluations of Dante, see Aldo S. Bernardo,
“Petrarch’s Attitude toward Dante,” PMLA  (): ‒; Paolo Trovato,
Dante in Petrarca: Per un inventario dei dantismi nel “Rerum vulgarium fragmenta”
(Florence: Olschki, ); Giorgio Orelli, Il suono dei sospiri: Sul Petrarca volgare
(Turin: Einaudi, ), pp. ‒; Domenico De Robertis, Memoriale petrarch-
esco (Rome: Bulzoni, ), pp. ‒; and Guido Capovilla, “Si vario stile”: Studi


Notes to Pages ‒

sul Canzoniere del Petrarca (Modena: Mucchi, ), pp. ‒. For Petrarch’s
language in the context of fourteenth-century developments, see Migliorini, Ital-
ian Language, pp. ‒. For the fragmentation of Latin in early medieval Italy,
see Pei, Italian Language, pp. ‒; and Devoto, Languages of Italy, pp. ‒;
for the transition from Latin to Italian in Dante’s time, see Pulgram, Tongues of
Italy, pp. ‒.
. For Dante’s contribution toward developing the popular literary public to
which Petrarch disparagingly refers, see Erich Auerbach, Literary Language and Its
Public, pp. ‒, ‒. The figure of Dametas refers to the pastoral poetaster
in Virgil’s Eclogue .
. Writing again to Boccaccio in ‒, however, he commends Dante ab-
solutely as “the master of our vernacular literature” (Seniles .; Bernardo trans.,
.) and as a plausible contender for first place in Florence’s literary pantheon.
Here Petrarch suggests that he and Dante excel over Boccaccio in popular esteem:
“Do you bear it so ill to be thus outdone by one or two men, especially fellow cit-
izens?” (.). For Petrarch’s relationship with Boccaccio, see Bilanovich, Petrarca
letterato, pp. ‒; and Vittore Branca, “Petrarch and Boccaccio,” in Francisco
Petrarch: Citizen of the World, ed. Aldo S. Bernardo (Padua: Antenore, ), pp.
‒.
. For Petrarch’s efforts to equal the past, see Giuseppe Velli, Petrarca e Boc-
caccio: Tradizione, memoria, scritture (Padua: Antenore, ), pp. ‒. For Pe-
trarch’s elevation of Latin over the vernacular, a choice followed by later human-
ists, see Riccardo Fubini, Umanesimo e secolarizzazione da Petrarca a Valla (Rome:
Bulzoni, ), pp. ‒.
. The charge has haunted readers and critics ever since. For inextricably
bound elements of fiction and reality in Laura’s identity, see Enrico Carrara, Studi
petrarcheschi e altri scritti (Turin: Il Bottega d’Erasmo, ), pp. ‒; F. J. Jones,
“Further Evidence of the Identity of Petrarch’s Laura,” Italian Studies  ():
‒; Roger Kuin, Chamber Music: Elizabethan Sonnet Sequences and the Plea-
sures of Criticism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ), pp. ‒; and
Gordon Braden, Petrarchan Love and the Continental Renaissance (New Haven:
Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the emblematic representation of Laura
and the physical landscape of Italy and Vaucluse, see Sara Sturm-Maddox, Pe-
trarch’s Laurels (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, ), pp.
‒.
. The phrase “the stage setting of my mind laid bare” is the translation given
by Morris Bishop, Petrarch and His World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
), p. . For Petrarch’s declared inability to escape the condition of intermedi-
ate space and time, see Albert Russell Ascoli, “Petrarch’s Middle Age: Memory,
Imagination, History, and ‘The Ascent of Mount Ventoux,’” Stanford Italian Re-
view  (): ‒.
. For Laura as a figure of creativity, see Aldo S. Bernardo, Petrarch, Laura,
and the “Triumphs” (Albany: State University of New York Press, ), pp. ‒;


 Notes to Page 

for Laura as a figure of philosophy (Laureta = La Verità), see Wilhelm Pötters, Chi
era Laura? Strutture linguistiche e matematiche del “Canzoniere” (Bologna: Il
Mulino, ), pp. ‒. For the abyss separating Petrarch from Laura, motivat-
ing his awareness of limits and his desire to overtake them in the manner of Or-
pheus, who reclaims Eurydice in the labyrinth of his poetry, see Ingrid Rossellini,
Nel trapassar del segno: Idoli della mente ed echi della vita nei “Rerum vulgarium
fragmenta” (Florence: Olschki, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The palindromic amor/Roma may point to the name’s occult ritual signif-
icance, a secret inversion mentioned in Servius’ gloss on Aeneid .; Virgil per-
haps puns on this inversion in Aeneid . when Aeneas exchanges love of Dido
for love of Rome, “hic amor hic patria est”; see Susan Skulsky, “Invitus, regina: Ae-
neas and the Love of Rome,” American Journal of Philology  (): ‒. For
palindromic etymology in Virgil, see James J. O’Hara, True Names: Vergil and the
Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
gan Press, ), pp. ‒, . For visual palindromes of amor/Roma in Pom-
peian graffiti, see Keith Stanley, “Rome, Eros, and the Versus Romae,” Greek, Ro-
man, and Byzantine Studies  (): ‒. For Varronian wordplay throughout
classical Latin poetry, see Frederick Ahl, Metaformations (Ithaca: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, ).
. For Petrarch’s fascination with palindromes, anagrams, and the profound
accord between sound and sense in his vernacular poetry, see Orelli, Il suono dei
sospiri, esp. pp. ‒. For the dominance of moral and political myth over histor-
ical fact in shaping Petrarch’s attitude toward Rome, see Peter Bondanella, The
Eternal City: Roman Images in the Modern World (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, ), pp. ‒. For Dante’s universalist view of Rome as the ju-
risdictional center of the world, see Charles Till Davis, Dante and the Idea of Rome
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Translation by Wilkins, “Coronation Oration,” p. . For Latin text, see
Carlo Godi, “La ’collatio laureationis’ del Petrarca,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica
 (): ‒. For Petrarch’s relationship with King Robert of Naples, who certi-
fied him for coronation, see Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante and Petrarch, pp.
‒. For the importance of the site, see Joseph B. Trapp, “The Poet Laureate:
Rome, Renovatio, and Translatio Imperii,” in Rome in the Renaissance, ed. Paul
Ramsey (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, ), pp.
‒; for Petrarch’s dream of a pan-Italian state with Rome at its nucleus, see
Philip Jacks, The Antiquarian and the Myth of Antiquity: The Origin of Rome in
Renaissance Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a reading of the Oration in theological terms that link the poet’s ca-
pacity for love with that of an Apollonine Christ, see Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle,
Petrarch’s Genius: Pentimento and Prophecy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), pp. ‒. For the significance of the Coronation Oration in Petrarch’s
poetic career, see Ernest Hatch Wilkins, “The Coronation of Petrarch,” in The
Making of the Canzoniere (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, ), pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For Petrarch’s idea of this task in the context of defining his profession as a hu-
manist, see Douglas Biow, Doctors, Ambassadors, Secretaries: Humanism and the Pro-
fessions in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For motifs of civic responsibility and patriotism based on similitudes be-
tween labor and love in the Georgics, see Gary B. Miles, Virgil’s “Georgics”: A New
Interpretation (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒; and Chris-
tine G. Perkell, The Poet’s Truth: A Study of the Poet in Virgil’s “Georgics” (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For salutary reminders that distinctions between late scholasticism and early
humanism have been exaggerated, see Erica Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic De-
bate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, ), pp. ‒; and Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Human-
ity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought,  vols. (London: Constable, ),
.‒.
. The Virgilian “vincet amor patriae” and the narrative of Brutus’ condem-
nation will figure in relation to Joachim Du Bellay’s Deffence et illustration and
Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, with implications for French and English national senti-
ment (see pages ‒).
. For Petrarch’s relationship with Cola di Rienzo, see Fabio Vander, La
modernità italiana: Critica della crisi e percezione del tempo in Dante e Petrarca
(Lecce: Manni, ), pp. ‒; for translated texts, see Mario E. Cosenza,
Francesco Petrarca and the Revolution of Cola di Rienzo, ed. Roland C. Musto, d
ed. (New York: Italica, ), esp. pp. ‒ on the reform of Rome, pp. ‒ on
Cola’s fall, and pp. ‒ on Cola’s defense; for implications in Petrarch’s politi-
cal thinking, see Mazzotta, Worlds of Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. For the conjunction of poetry and history in Petrarch’s figuration of the
laurel, see Stefano Gensini, “Poeta et historicus: L’episodio della laurea nella carri-
era e nella prospetiva culturale di Francesco Petrarca,” La Cultura  (): ‒.
. Quotations refer to Ovid, Heroides and Amores, Grant Showerman, ed. and
trans., Loeb Classical Library edition.
. For an earlier caution about scattered rhymes as a derogation of responsi-
bility, see Dante’s disclaimer in describing the procession of the griffon, “A de-
scriver lor forme più non spargo / rime, lettor” ‘Reader, I am not scattering more
rhymes to describe their forms’ (Purgatorio .‒). For the identification of the
Roman elegiac poets with the female role to the exclusion of conventional male
pursuits in politics, law, and the military, see Ellen Greene, The Erotics of Domi-
nation: Male Desire and the Mistress in Latin Love Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the contrast between epic aspirations and lyric tendencies in Africa, see
Vinicio Pacca, Petrarca (Bari: Laterza, ), pp. ‒. For Ovidian elegy as a
genre of compromise in the context of Petrarch’s writing, see Christopher Martin,
Policy in Love: Lyric and Public in Ovid, Petrarch, and Shakespeare (Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For Petrarch’s panegyric on epideictic rhetoric and its civic functions, see
Stephen Murphy, The Gift of Immortality: Myths of Power and Humanist Poetics
(Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the
impact of Livy upon Petrarch’s thinking about the Republic, see Giuseppe Bil-
lanovich, “Petrarch’s Textual Tradition of Livy,” Journal of the Warburg and Cour-
tauld Institutes  (): ‒. For Petrarch’s displacement of his humanist as-
pirations into the classical matter and style of Africa, see Greene, Vulnerable Text,
pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s efforts to anchor his epic in history, see Aldo S. Bernardo,
Petrarch, Scipio, and the “Africa” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
), pp. ‒; and Nicholas Festa, Saggio sull’ “Africa” del Petrarca (Palermo:
Sandron, ), pp. ‒. For the central position of the study of history in Pe-
trarch’s work, see Raffaele Amaturo. Petrarca, d ed. (Bari: Laterza, ), pp.
‒; Marco Ariani, Petrarca (Rome: Salerno, ), pp. ‒; and Witt, “In the
Footsteps of the Ancients,” pp. ‒. For the poem’s relevance to a contempora-
neous readership, see Vincenzo Fera, Antichi editori e lettori dell’ “Africa” (Messina:
Centro di Studii Umanistici, ).
. The first line number in parentheses refers to the Latin text edited by Nicola
Festa; the second refers to the translation by Thomas Bergin and Alice Wilson.
. For the poetics implied in these lines as one constituted by a relationship
with temporal power, see Stephen Murphy, Gift of Immortality, pp. ‒; for the
cult of Scipio and the active life of civic well-being, see Bernardo, Petrarch, Scipio,
and the “Africa”, pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s affirmation of Plato’s moral philosophy as mediated by the
Church Fathers, see Witt, “In the Footsteps of the Ancients,” pp. ‒. For Pe-
trarch’s probable reading of a Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus and its possible
influence on his separation of rhetoric, subjectivity, and the theology of faith from
metaphysical substance, see Charles Trinkaus, The Poet as Philosopher (New
Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Text and translation by Thomas Bergin in Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio:
Studies in the Italian Trecento in Honor of Charles S. Singleton, ed. Aldo S. Bernardo
and Anthony Pellegrini (Binghamton: Medieval and Early Renaissance Texts and
Studies, ), pp. ‒.
. Notably eclogue  on the death of King Robert, eclogue  on Cola di
Rienzo, eclogues  and  on the Avignon papacy, eclogue  on the Black Death,
and eclogue  on the Hundred Years War. For massive changes in the European
social system precipitated by the effects of these years, see George Huppert, After
the Black Death: A Social History of Early Modern Europe, d ed. (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒. For the Avignon papacy’s pinnacle
of power and prestige at midcentury, see Yves Renouard, The Avignon Papacy,
‒, trans. Denis Bethell (Hamden: Archon, ), pp. ‒. For Petrarch’s
eclogues as part of an integral autobiographical project embracing the Familiares
and the Rime sparse, intimated in Secretum, which he drafted during these years,


Notes to Pages ‒

see Marco Santagata, I frammenti dell’anima: Storia e racconto nel canzoniere del Pe-
trarca (Bologna: Il Mulino, ), pp. ‒ and, for specifically autobiographi-
cal portions of the Rime sparse, pp. ‒.
. See Catherine Edwards, Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for Cola di Rienzo in
this context, see Bondanella, Eternal City, pp. ‒.

Two Petrarchan Totems and Political Taboos

. See Wilkins, Life, pp. ‒, for Petrarch’s repatriation in late May or June
of that year as a major divide in his adult life.
. For Petrarch’s figuration of Vaucluse as an Augustinian Arcadia and its sub-
sequent designation as a pastoral locale in later French literature, see Eve Duper-
ray, L’or des mots: Une lecture de Pétrarque et du mythe littéraire de Vaucluse (Paris:
Publications de la Sorbonne, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Fossati and Ceresatto, “La Lombardia,” pp. ‒. For the Visconti,
see the works by Bueno de Mesquita, Galeazzo Visconti; Chamberlin, Count of
Virtue; and Mainoni, “Un bilancio di Giovanni Visconti.”
. See Herlihy, Black Death and the Transformation of the West, pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s sense of his indenture to the patronage system implied in the
Secretum and other writings dating from , with a good summary of his rela-
tionships with Cola di Rienzo, see Dolora Wojciehowski, Old Masters, New Sub-
jects: Early Modern and Post-Structuralist Theories of the Will (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. This passage tellingly shifts its vocative from the letter’s addressee, Giovanni
Aretino, to the plural “friends”: “This is my response to you, my dear friends, as
many as you may be” (./), in evident reference to the outcry about his mon-
strous inconsistency. For Petrarch’s adaptation of Augustinian theories of the will
to his own poetic voice, see Lisa Frienkel, Reading Shakespeare’s Will: The Theology
of Figure from Augustine to the Sonnets (New York: Columbia University Press,
), pp. ‒. For his Augustinian response to the parable of the prodigal son,
see Jill Robbins, Prodigal Son / Elder Brother: Interpretation and Alterity in Augustine,
Petrarch, Kafka, and Levinas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For an analysis of this letter, see Kennedy, “Versions of a Career: Petrarch
and His Renaissance Commentators,” in European Literary Careers, ed. Patrick
Cheney and Robert De Armas (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ), pp.
‒.
. For Petrarch’s interest in such political matters as a special type of pursuing the
glory proclaimed in the Secretum and Rime sparse, see Aldo Bernardo, “The Impor-
tance of the Non-Love Poems of Petrarch’s Canzoniere,” Italica  (): ‒. For
Petrarch’s diplomatic role in Viscontian Milan, see Carlo Muscetta, “Crisi e
sviluppi della cultura dal comune alle signore,” in Amaturo, Petrarca, pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For Visconti patronage in the context of Milanese dominion and its politi-
cal history as a system of courtly feudatories linked to the ducal estate, see Gregory
Lubkin, A Renaissance Court: Milan under Galeazzo Maria Sforza (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, ), pp. ‒. For literary documents relating to the
long struggle between Florence and Milan illustrating the power of traditional
scholastic polemics under Franco Sacchetti and Giovanni Gherardi against servile
Milanese humanism and the rise of Florentine civic humanism under Salutati, see
Firenze contro Milano: Gli intellettuali fiorentini melle guerre con i Visconti,
‒, ed. Antonio Lanza (Rome: De Rubeis, ), esp. pp. ‒. For the
conflict between Florentine Republican liberty and the dynastic despotism of
Lombardy, see Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, esp. pp. ‒ on the Visconti and pp.
‒ on Petrarch’s construction of a singular and eccentric personality. For
effects on the culture of the Visconti, see Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante and Pe-
trarch, pp. ‒.
. For the poem as a parody of sexual encounters in pilgrim narratives, see
Marco Santagata, Amante e amanti: Figure della lirica amorosa fra Dante e Petrarca
(Bologna: Il Mulino, ), pp. ‒.
. For Pandolfo Malatesta, see Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante and Petrarch,
pp. ‒. For Petrarch’s complex relationship with Pandolfo and the courtly pa-
tronage that he sought from this lord to whom he presented a copy of his Rime
sparse on  January , see Seniles .; and Santagata, I frammenti, pp. ‒.
See also Petrarch’s poem dedicated to Pandolfo, sonnet , with useful notes in
Santagata ed., pp. ‒.
. For Filelfo’s hostility to Florence, see Diana Robin, Filelfo in Milan (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ; and Deborah Parker,
Commentary and Ideology, pp. ‒. For Visconti succession from Petrarch to
Filelfo, see the Enciclopedia di Milano, ed. Guido Aghina (Milan: F. M. Ricci,
), pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s strained relationship with the Colonna family, see Ariani, Pe-
trarca, pp. ‒.
. Castelvetro, for example, names “la terra vostra” as Rome and decides that
the unnamed addressee is a prominent Roman citizen and potential patron:
“L’aspetto della terra di Roma lo’nduceua a deuotione” ‘The sight of Rome moves
him to devotion’ ().
. See Vittore Branca, Boccaccio medioevale (Florence: Sansoni, ), pp.
‒.
. Despite Petrarch’s gravitation to northern Italy, Rome, and Naples, the lin-
guistic features of the Rime sparse are predominantly Tuscan with an overlay of Si-
cilian and Bolognese literary variations inherited from Giacomo da Lentini and
Guido Guinizelli. See the catalog in Maurizio Vitale, La lingua del Canzoniere (Re-
rum vulgarium fragmenta) di Francesco Petrarca (Padova: Antenore, ), with
analysis on pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For the high degree of wordplay and anagrammatic structure that associates
Italy’s saviors with Christ in these poems, see Orelli, Il suono dei sospiri, pp. ‒.
. Only Filelfo and Daniello identify the recently deceased Cino as addressee;
others speculate upon Sennuccio del Bene, Petrarch’s brother Gherardo,
Sagramoro di Pommiers, and even Boccaccio. For a modern reading of these po-
ems as representing Petrarch’s wish to escape the bondage of love in public, see
Sturm-Maddox, Petrarch’s Laurels, pp. ‒.
. For Filelfo’s shift of allegiance from the Visconti to the Sforza regimes as
registered in his epic Sforziad, see Karen Lippencott, “The Neo-Latin Historical
Epics of the North Italian Courts: An Examination of Courtly Culture in the Fif-
teenth Century,” Renaissance Studies  (): ‒.
. Vellutello’s determination perversely counter’s Petrarch’s own obsessive re-
arranging of his canzoniere; for meanings conveyed by his graphetic engineering of
the text, see H. Wayne Storey, Transcription and Visual Poetics in the Early Italian
Lyric (New York: Garland, ), pp. ‒. For Petrarch’s self-conscious
arrangement as subverting both typological function and the passage of time or
change and conversion, see Olivia Holmes, Assembling the Lyric Self: Authorship
from the Troubadour Song to the Italian Poetry Book (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For details, see Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. See Seniles .‒, “My vernacular trifles came to you as a gesture of
friendship. . . . I wish they were worthy of your hands, your eyes, and your judg-
ment” (Seniles .; Bernardo trans. p. ). For Petrarch’s address to Pandolfo
Malatesta in his attempt to reach a double audience, both courtly and noncourtly,
see Santagata, I frammenti, pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒. For patterns of pa-
tronage, see John Larner, Culture and Society in Italy ‒ (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, ), pp. ‒.
. For Petrarch’s attitudes toward various contemporary and earlier vernacu-
lar poets, see Santagata, I frammenti, pp. ‒; and Antonio Lanza, Studi sulla
lirica del trecento (Rome: Bulzoni, ).
. Modern scholarship identifies the recipient as Tommaso Caloiro (Carducci
ed., pp. ‒) or, more convincingly, Giovanni Colonna (Santagata ed., pp. ‒).
. For a recent summation of Petrarch’s relationship to his contemporaries, to
classical poets whom he and they echoed, and to Provençal conventions that they
mutually inherited, see Rosanna Bettarini, Lacrime e inchiostro nel canzoni di Pe-
trarca (Bologna: Cooperativo Libreria Universitaria Editrice, ), pp. ‒ and
‒.
. For Petrarch’s criticism of the papacy, see Boyle, Petrarch’s Genius, pp.
‒; for his discursive writing on the Avignon papacy, see Robert Coogan,
Babylon on the Rhone: A Translation of Letters by Dante, Petrarch, and Catherine of
Siena on the Avignon Papacy (Madrid: J. P. Turanzas, ). For the papacy of
Clement VI and the building of the papal palace at Avignon, see Renouard, Avi-
gnon Papacy, pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. See also Vellutello’s reading of one sonnet and two canzoni that project vi-
sions of a redeemed Europe and a unified Italy. In his view sonnet , “Il succes-
sor di Carlo” ‘The successor of Charles,’ and canzone , “O aspettata in Ciel
beata et bella / anima” ‘O soul awaited in heaven, blessed and beautiful,’ address
the French king Philip VI (‒), the first Valois monarch whose dynasty still
ruled in Vellutello’s era. Both poems support the idea that Petrarch looked to
France as a bulwark of Christendom, as a protection against the Teutonic Roman
Empire, and as a corrector of vices in the papacy. Their speaker exhorts Philip to
rally Europe to a crusade against the Turks, commending Philip’s epithet, “Rex
Christianissimus,” as a title vouchsafed to French kings since the eighth century
which proclaims the power of France, its formative national identity, and a polit-
ical force to reckon with. Pope Stephen II conferred this title upon Pepin in ,
and Pope Innocent IV revived it in the thirteenth century to acknowledge Louis
IX’s help in the Crusades. In  Philip the Fair seized upon it in his conflict with
the papacy to undermine the authority of Boniface VIII; see Colette Beaune, Birth
of an Ideology, pp. ‒. In canzone , addressed to a savior of Rome, “Spirto
gentil che quelle membra reggi” ‘Noble spirit, you who govern those members,’
Vellutello identifies the recipient as Cola di Rienzo. (Modern scholarship identi-
fies the recipient as Bosone da Gubbio, designated a Roman senator just after Pe-
trarch’s arrival there in ; see Carducci, ed., pp. ‒ and ‒; and Santa-
gata ed., pp. ‒.) Petrarch’s anger at Italy, now “vecchia oziosa et lenta” ‘old,
idle, and slow,’ and his lament for “tutto quel ch’ una ruina involve” ‘everything
which this one ruin carries off’ constitute a plea for Rome to be “liberata e con-
seruata dal Tiranno” ‘freed and preserved from the tyrant’ (r), referring to its
corporate body of nobles, including the poet’s Colonna patrons.
. See Wilkins, Life, pp. ‒; for the pioneering use of mercenaries in four-
teenth-century Italy, see Michael Mallett, Mercenaries and Their Masters (Totowa,
N.J.: Rowan and Littlefield, ), pp. ‒; and Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante
and Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. Four years earlier Petrarch’s benefactor Azzo da Correggio had overthrown
Martino della Scala as lord of Parma, and in  he sold the city to Obizzo d’Este,
the marquis of Ferrara. Filippino da Gonzaga, the lord of Mantua, then incited
Luchino Visconti of Milan against Obizzo. By February  each had recruited his
own mercenary army. See Theodore Mommsen, “The Date of Petrarch’s Canzone
‘Italia mia,’” Speculum  (): ‒; and noted in Santagata ed., pp. ‒.
. See Maria Nadia Covini, “Per la storia delle milizie viscontee: I famigliari
armigeri di Filippo Maria Visconti,” in L’età dei Visconti, ed. Luisa Chiappi Mauri
et al. (Milan: La Storia, ), pp. ‒.
. For the impact of the French and Spanish invasions on cultural life and
readings such as Vellutello’s, see Eric W. Cochrane, Historians and Historiography
in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Charles’s goals, see Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies
of Empire in Spain, Britain, and France, c. –c.  (New Haven: Yale Univer-


Notes to Pages ‒

sity Press, ), pp. ‒; for the cultural climate of Italy after  in which ad-
vocates of doctrinal orthodoxy bolstered church authority in the wake of humanist
revisions of church history, see Kenneth Gouwens, Remembering the Renaissance:
Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. ‒.
. Gesualdo dismisses Vellutello’s claim that Petrarch initially admired Lewis,
for nowhere in his writing does the poet mention him: “Ne taciuto haurebbe egli
del Bauaro, s’a tanta speranza per lui si fosse inalzato” ‘Nor would he have been
silent about the Bavarian if he had mounted such hopes for him’ (CLXXVIIv).
The war between Genoa and Venice, however, set the most important leaders of
Italy against one another in taboo strife, and it furnished a plausible motivation
for Petrarch’s poem. Begun in , the conflict disturbed a region already deci-
mated by the Black Death, and it troubled a poet grieving his loss of Laura. Gesu-
aldo speculates that Petrarch could have written the poem after accepting the Vis-
contis’ invitation in  in order to exhort his new patrons to defend Italy: “Il che
fu nel M.cccliiii. nel qual tempo creder si potrebbe, ch’egli facesse questa Canz.”
‘That was in , at which time it could be believed that he composed this can-
zone’ (CLXXVIIIr).
. Compare the recent feminist assessment of wounds inflicted by male de-
sires on the feminized body of Italy by Margaret Brose, “Petrarch’s Beloved Body:
‘Italia mia,’ ” in Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature, ed. Linda
Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Lutheran reform in Modena, where Fausto wrote, and for the impact
of the Sack of Rome on reformational thinking in Italy, see Massimo Firpo, Ri-
forma protestante ed eresie nell’Italia del cinquecento (Bari: Laterza, ), pp. ‒
and ‒. For analogies between Petrarch’s concept of a rhetorical moral counsel
with exhortations to faith and a theology of salvation by grace with predestinarian
overtones, see Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, .‒.
. For the lexical “unitonality” that permits such blurring in the Rime sparse,
see Vitale, La lingua del Canzoniere, pp. ‒.

Three Amor and Patria

. For discussion, see Thomas G. Bergin, Boccaccio (New York: Viking, ),
pp. ‒; Janet Smarr, Boccaccio and Fiammetta: The Lover as Narrator (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, ), pp. ‒; and Braden, Petrarchan Love, pp.
‒. For a finely nuanced study of gender relationships in the Decameron, see
Marilyn Migiel, A Rhetoric of the “Decameron” (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, ).
. Boccaccio had meanwhile begun a collection of Latin eclogues in a quasi-
Virgilian erotic mode, but, upon encountering Petrarch’s early Bucolicum carmen,
especially eclogue  on King Robert’s death, he revised his style to accommodate


 Notes to Pages ‒

the social, moral, and political concerns of the latter; see Giovanni Boccaccio,
Eclogues, trans. Janet Smarr (New York: Garland, ), pp. xxxv–l. For classical
studies at the court of King Robert of Naples likely experienced by Boccaccio, see
Francesco Tateo, “L’incremento degli studi classici,” in Amaturo, Petrarca, pp.
‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. Modern editors have pieced together remnants from manuscripts and an-
thologies. See Le rime di Giovanni Boccaccio, ed. Aldo Francesci Massèra (Bologna:
Romagnoli dall’Acqua, ); and Le rime, ed. Vittore Branca (Milan: Mondadori,
), vol. . of Tutte le opere, ed. Vittore Branca,  vols. (Milan: Mondadori,
‒), pp. ‒, from which I quote. These editions attribute  (Massèra) or
 (Branca) poems to Boccaccio and regard another forty or fifty as doubtful at-
tributions.
. For this code name in Boccaccio’s early prose see Braden, Petrarchan Love,
pp. ‒. For autobiographical references in the Rime, see Rosario Ferreri, “Studi
sulle rime del Boccaccio,” Studi sul Boccaccio  (): ‒.
. In the fiction of Filocolo . the daughter of the king of Franconarcos has a
child fathered by the Tuscan shepherd Eucomos, identified by commentators as
Boccaccio’s father; see Il Filocolo, trans. Donald Cheney (New York: Garland Press,
), pp. ‒. See also . and . (pp. , ) for the analogous story of Florio
and Biancafiore, which the royal beloved asks her lover to narrate to her.
. Freud, Standard Works, p. . Freud earlier speculates that “the liberation
of an individual, as he grows up, from the authority of his parents is one of the
most necessary though one of the most painful results brought about by the
course of his development. It is quite essential that it should occur and it may be
presumed that it has been to some extent achieved by every one who has reached
a normal state” (.).
. See Branca, ed. For later writings on these Greco-French origins, see Stefano
Ugo Baldassarri and Arielle Saiber, eds. and trans., Images of Quattrocento Florence
(New Haven: Yale University Press, ), esp. Poliziano’s summary and revision
of Boccaccio’s account, pp. ‒. Lorenzo de’ Medici might have had a similar
mythology in mind when he composed his family emblem, “Le tems revient”
‘Time returns’; for relations between Lorenzo’s emblem and Botticelli’s “La Pri-
mavera,” see Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (New York: W. W.
Norton, ), pp. ‒.
. In Angelo Solerti, ed., Le vite di Dante, Petrarca, e Boccaccio (Milan:
Francesco Vallardi, ), pp. ‒, quoted from p. ; trans. in David
Thompson and Alan Nagel, The Three Crowns of Florence (New York: Harper and
Row, ), p. .
. In Solerti, ed., pp. ‒.
. For Neapolitan cosmopolitanism resulting from Spanish Aragonese efforts
to create a Mediterranean empire that would divorce Naples from northern Italy,
see Steven Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World in


Notes to Pages ‒

the Later Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp.
‒; and Helene Wieruszowski, Politics and Culture in Medieval Spain and Italy
(Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, ), pp. ‒. For Spanish impact
upon the language and culture of Naples, see Caterina Tristano, “Scrivere il vol-
gare in Italia medidionale (secole XII–XV),” in Lingue e culture dell’Italia merid-
ionale, ‒, ed. Paolo Trovato (Rome: Bonacci, ), pp. ‒; and Livio
Petrucci “Il volgare a Napoli in età angiona,” in the same volume, pp. ‒. For
Boccaccio’s estimate of Naples, see Pasquale Alberto De Lisio, Gli anni della svolta
(Salerno: Società Editrice Salernitana, ), pp. ‒.
. See Rosario Ferreri, “Ovidio e le Rime di Giovanni Boccaccio,” Forum
Italicum  (): ‒.
. For Petrarch’s canonical pantheon as explained by Vellutello, see earlier dis-
cussion . For Boccaccio’s relationship with Petrarch, see Billanovich, Petrarca let-
terato, pp. ‒, esp. pp.  ff. and p.  for Sennuccio’s responsibility in lead-
ing him to Petrarch’s Rime sparse and Bucolicum Carmen; Branca, Boccaccio
medioevale, pp. ‒; and Velli, Petrarca e Boccaccio, pp. ‒.
. In a letter written at that time Boccaccio celebrated Dante’s immersion in
poetry and philosophy, “omissum a multis retroactis seculis fontem” ‘a fountain
abandoned by many past ages,’ but he proclaimed a yet closer relationship with
Petrarch, “preceptor meus” ‘my guide’ in having restored their “pristinam clari-
tatem” ‘original brilliance”; see Epistle  in Opere ., ed. Branca, pp. . Curi-
ously, in a letter written upon Petrarch’s death, Boccaccio praises Africa (“celeste
opus” ‘a heavenly work’) and the Trionfi (“quid de libello” ‘especially that small
book’) but neglects to mention the Rime sparse; see Epistole  in Opere ., ed.
Branca, pp. ‒.
. Quoted from Boccaccio, Opere, ed. Branca, vol. : Esposizioni sopra la Co-
media, ed. Giorgio Padoan (Turin: Einaudi, ), p. . For studies of these lec-
tures, see Giorgio Padoan, L’ultima opera di Giovanni Boccaccio: Le Esposizioni so-
pra il Dante (Padua: Cedan, ), pp. ‒; and Giorgio Padoan, Il Boccaccio, le
muse, il Parnaso e l’Arno (Florence: Olschki, ), pp. ‒.
. For a survey of Florentine cultural developments, see Riccardo Fubini,
Quattrocento fiorentino: Politica, diplomazia, cultura (Pisa: Pacini, ); the com-
prehensive collection of essays by various scholars in La Toscana al tempo di
Lorenzo il Magnifico: Politice, economia, cultura, arte,  vols. (Pisa: Pacini, ),
esp. Paolo Trovato, “Il libro toscano dell’età di Lorenzo,” .‒; McLaughlin,
Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance, pp. ‒; and Peter Godman, From
Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, ).
. For Leonardo Bruni’s Republican account in his Historiae of its foundation
by Sulla, see Baldassarri and Saiber, eds., Images, pp. ‒, and, for Angelo
Poliziano’s imperialist account of its foundation by Augustus, expressed in a letter
to Piero de’ Medici, see pp. ‒; for other texts discussed in the following pages,
see pp. ‒ and ‒.


 Notes to Page 

. For the published works, see Lorenzo de’ Medici, Opere, ed. Attilio
Simioni,  vols. (Bari: Laterza, ‒). See the generous selection of translations
from these texts in Jon Thiem, Lorenzo de’ Medici: Selected Poems and Prose (Uni-
versity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, ). The most comprehensive
study of Florentine poetry from  to  remains Francesco Flamini, La lirica
toscana del Rinascimento anteriore ai tempi del Magnifico (Pisa: T. Nistri, ), with
reference to the Petrarchism of Giovanni da Prato, Niccolò Tinucci, and Roselli
Rosello on pp. ‒; and Mariotto Davanzati, Domenico da Prato, and others
on pp. ‒. For a selection of various poetic forms, see Antonio Lanza, ed.,
Lirici toscani del Quattrocento (Rome: Bulzoni, ). For a superb analysis of fif-
teenth-century love poetry as historical documentation responding to the stresses
of particular times and places, see Lauro Martines, Strong Words: Writing and So-
cial Strain in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Lorenzo’s efforts to enhance his public image and display his effective-
ness as the master of a collaborative bottega (workshop) of politicians and intellec-
tuals, see Melissa Meriam Bullard, Lorenzo Il Magnifico: Image and Anxiety, Poli-
tics and Finance (Florence: Olschki, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For changing
modes of literary patronage in Florence in the s encouraging such experi-
ments, see Alison Brown, The Medici in Florence: The Exercise and Language of
Power (Florence: Olschki, ), pp. ‒. For contemporary estimation of
Lorenzo’s poetry, see Paolo Orvieto, Lorenzo de’ Medici (Florence: La Nuova Italia,
), pp. ‒. For Lorenzo’s development in the company of Pulci, Ficino,
Pico, and Poliziano, see Mario Martelli, “La cultura letteraria nell’età di Lorenzo,”
in Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Michael Mallett and Nicholas Mann (London:
Warburg Institute, ), pp. ‒.
. For the chronology of Lorenzo’s composition, see Tiziano Zanato, Saggio
sul “Comento” di Lorenzo de’ Medici (Florence: Olschki, ). Zanato postulates
an early composition of some poems in the late s and the rest with prose com-
mentary in three stages, first between ‒, then between ‒, and revi-
sions in ‒. For the predominance of Petrarchan antithesis, anaphora, and
lexical choices in Lorenzo’s lyrics, see Tiziano Zanato, “Lorenzo lirico,” in Lorenzo
de’ Medici: New Perspectives, ed. Bernard Toscani (New York: Peter Lang, ), pp.
‒.
. See James Wyatt Cook’s introduction to his translation (retitled from the
original), The Autobiography of Lorenzo de’ Medici The Magnificent: A Commentary
on My Sonnets (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies,
), pp. ‒. I quote Cook’s translation throughout this chapter. For earlier
views on Lorenzo’s poetic ambitions, see Bruno Maier, “Il realismo letterario di
Lorenzo il Magnifico,” in Lorenzo de’ Medici, Opere scelte, ed. Bruno Maier (No-
vara: Istituto Geografico de Agostini, ), pp. ‒.
. For the social and moral climate of Petrarchan poetry before Lorenzo, one
might consider the work of Francesco Alberti (‒). A kinsman of Leon Bat-


Note to Page 

tista Alberti, a friend of Cristoforo Landino, and an ally of the Medici, Alberti was
raised in a wealthy merchant milieu, was exiled for his partisan attachments but
was later vindicated and was alternately attracted to the poesia giocosa and poesia
burlesca dominating Florence’s bourgeois culture. Perhaps because his sentiments
about Florentine politics were so mobile, Alberti could parody Petrarch’s canzone
, “Italia mia,” in “Firenze mia,” in which he gloats that “alfin ti se’ ridotta / scel-
erata e corretta” ‘finally you [Florence] are in dire straits, infamous, and depraved’
(Lanza, ed., Lirici toscani, poem XCIII, ll. ‒, p. ). In a sonnet addressed to
a friend detained at Avignon, he suggests that there rather than in Florence his
friend can prosper near “di Valchiusa il fonte ornato e degno, / che fé ’l nostro Pe-
trarca uscir di schiera” ‘the adorned and worthy fountain of Vaucluse that sepa-
rated Petrarch from the crowd’—and he concludes that southern France trumps
invidious Florence, “ché quella è patria sua ch’è più tranquilla” ‘because one’s true
fatherland is the place that is more tranquil’ (Lanza ed., poem XCIV, p. ). Just
as Petrarch had distinguished his spiritual home from his ancestral progenitors’ site
of origin, so Alberti distinguishes his patriotic feelings from tribal attachment. For
Alberti’s cultural context, see Flamini, Lirica toscana, pp. ‒. For Alberti’s use
of various styles and genres as a mode of solace, self-inquiry, and oblique revenge,
see Martines, Strong Words, pp. ‒. For poesia giocosa and poesia burlesca, see
Alan K. Smith, “Fraudomy: Reading Sexuality and Politics in Burchiello,” in
Queering the Renaissance, ed. Jonathan Goldberg (Durham: Duke University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. The poetry of Mariotto Davanzati (–?) exemplifies this culture. As an
ally of Piero di Cosimo, Davanzati pursued a low-key political career, but he con-
tributed enthusiastically to the literary circle of Feo Belcari, Francesco Accolti, and
Antonio di Meglio. His poetry regularly associates Petrarch’s high style with the
cultural exclusivity of this circle. Thus he commends one of his fellow poets as “del
Petrarca ver figlio adottivo, / ché dal vulgo ti veggo isciolto e privo” ‘true adoptive
son of Petrarch, because I see you free and separated from the common crowd’
(Lanza, ed., poem XII, p. ). In a group of poems about the death of his
beloved, her virtues exceed those of Beatrice and Laura: “Onde Dante m’arossa e
’l mio Petrarca, / veggendo or posto alle lor donne un velo / per lei” ‘Whence Dante
and my Petrarch blush, seeing now a veil laid over their ladies by her’ (poem
XXXII, p. ). Her spiritual refinement redeems the material vulgarity of his am-
bition and lessens the moral scruples that he is beginning to have about accumu-
lated wealth and conspicuous consumerism in his native city. Davanzati’s Petrar-
chism exposes fissures within the individualist values which drive Florentine
politics. For Davanzati’s historical context, see Flamini, Lirica toscana, pp. ‒.
For the heterodox reception of Petrarchism, see Giancarlo Mazzacurati, Il prob-
lemo storico del petrarchismo italiano (Naples: Liguori, ), pp. ‒. For the
rise of consumerism and the demand for religious art in response to moral anxiety
about wealth, see Richard Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy,
‒ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒, ‒,


 Notes to Pages ‒

and ‒. For the circulation of poetry in printed as well as handcrafted books
as a fetishized commodity at the end of the fifteenth century, see Lisa Jardine,
Worldly Goods (New York: Nan A. Talese, ), pp. ‒; and Paula Findlen,
“Possessing the Past: The Material World of the Italian Renaissance,” American
Historical Review  (): ‒. For estimates of the cultural milieu in
Cosimo’s republic by different generations of Florentine humanists, see Brown,
Medici in Florence, pp. ‒.
. See William J. Kennedy, “Humanist Classifications of Poetry among the Arts
and Sciences,” in Glyn Norton, ed., The Renaissance, vol.  of The Cambridge His-
tory of Literary Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Anthony Grafton, Defenders of the Text (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For a precedent by Donizio
Calderini whose Observationes on Propertius () had abandoned the format of
line-by-line commentary in favor of various treatises on limited topics, see
Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship,  vols. (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, ‒), .‒.
. Actual practices of late medieval reading of course varied considerably
among the aristocracy, clergy, gentry, and commercial populace according to spe-
cific contexts, but among professional exegetes in a Scholastic setting this Augus-
tinian principle prevailed at least in theory. For St. Augustine, see chap.  n. . For
varied practices based on Augustinian hermeneutics, see Brian Stock, Implications
of Literacy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the
rhetorical character of academic commentary as hermeneutic performance, see
Rita Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for classical texts in the
service of scriptural literacy, see Suzanne Reynolds, Medieval Reading: Grammar,
Rhetoric, and the Classical Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. ‒; and, for pragmatic examples of such reading, see Christopher Baswell,
Virgil in Medieval England: Figuring the “Aeneid” from the “Divine Comedy” to
Chaucer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒, ‒, and
‒; and Laurel Amtower, Engaging Words: The Culture of Reading in the Later
Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, ), pp. ‒. For Bernard of Sylvester’s ar-
chetypal privileging of poetic ambiguity and indeterminacy over historical or
philological context, see Peter Godman, The Silent Masters: Latin Literature and
Its Censors in the High Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ),
pp. ‒. For the uneven emergence of private silent reading calculated by word
separation to foster quicker comprehension, see Paul Saenger, Space between
Words: Origins of Silent Reading (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp.
‒; for late-fifteenth-century preferences for reading aloud in groups, see
Joyce Coleman, Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England
and France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For con-
crete examples of late medieval and early humanist theory and criticism, see A. J.
Minnis and A. B. Scott, eds, Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, c. ‒: The


Notes to Pages ‒

Commentary Traditions (New York: Oxford University Press, ); and Michael
Caesar, ed., Dante: The Critical Heritage, ‒ (London: Routledge, ).
. See Craig Kallendorf, “Cristoforo Landino’s Aeneid and the Humanist
Critical Tradition,” Renaissance Quarterly,  (): ‒; Francesca La Brasca,
“Tradition exégétique et vulgarisation néoplatonicienne dans la partie doctrinale
du commentaire dantesque de C. Landino,” in Culture et société en Italie du moyen-
âge á la Renaissance: Homage à André Rochon (Paris: Université de la Sorbonne
Nouvelle [CIRRI], ); and “Du prototype à l’archétype: lecture allégorique . . .
dans le commentaire dantesque de C. Landino,” in Scritture di scritture / Testi,
generi, modelli nel Rinascimento, ed. Giancarlo Mazzacurati and Michel Plaisance
(Rome: Bulzoni, ).
. Disputationes Camaldulenses, ed. Peter Lohe (Florence: Sansoni, ), pp.
‒; trans. Thomas H. Stahel, S.J., “Cristoforo Landino’s Allegorization of the
‘Aeneid’: Books III and IV of the ‘Camaldolese Disputations’” (Ph.D. diss., Johns
Hopkins University, ), p. . For analysis, see Mario Di Cesare, “Cristoforo
Landino: The Virgilian Commentator and Critic as Hero,” in The Early Renais-
sance, Acta, vol.  (), ed. Anthony L. Pellegrini (Binghamton, N.Y.: Center for
Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, ), pp. ‒.
. Publii Vergilii Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis, with the commentaries of Servius,
Donatus, Probus, and Cristoforo Landino (Venice: Bernardino Stagnin, ), sig.
Cvir. Arthur Field speculates that Landino had already composed some of his
notes in the s, “A Manuscript of Cristoforo Landino’s First Lectures on Vir-
gil,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒.
. See Vittore Branca, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin: Einaudi,
), pp. ‒; for the scientism of the Paduan school, see John Herman Randall
Jr., The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science (Padua: Antenore,
). Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric would remain largely unknown in Italy and
throughout Europe, the former until Francisco Robortello’s commentary and Segni’s
Italian translation, both in , the latter overshadowed by Cicero and Quintilian
despite Latin translations of it by George of Trebizond in ‒ and Ermolao
Barbaro in . See George Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Sec-
ular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, ), pp. ‒. For Poliziano’s alternative “Alexandrian” focus
on critical pluralism, historical relativism, and attention to noncanonical minor
texts as the antithesis of neo-Aristotelian dogmatism, see Godman, From Poliziano
to Machiavelli, pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. The Miscellanea revolutionized classical scholarship and literary criticism
with the quality and the quantity of its precise observation. In a celebrated entry
on the proper spelling of Vergil rather than Virgil, for example, Poliziano describes
his inductive approach of collecting hard and conclusive evidence about the past,
and he compares it to gathering seashells at random on the beach, “ceu si littoribus
ex commodo inambulans, conchas interim colligam securus” ‘as if walking care-
free at leisure along the shores, I would sometimes gather shells.’ Information may


 Notes to Pages ‒

come to the fore in unlikely ways, and it may lead to startling conclusions. Thus
Poliziano recounts that he has found proof about the ancient spelling of the poet’s
name in an inscription of Vergilius on a Roman tomb. Hard stone has withstood
the passage of time better than haphazardly transcribed medieval texts, and it
therefore carries more authority: “Monimenta ista tanta seculorum uetustate rob-
orata, mihi satis ad presidium sint” ‘Monuments of this sort, reinforced by such du-
ration through the centuries, should be proof enough for me’ (). The poet, he
reasons, should henceforth be known as “Vergil,” not “Virgil.” Quotations from
Poliziano, Opere, ed. Ida Maier,  vols. (Turin: Bottega d’Erasmo, ‒), p. .
. “Commentary on the Commedia,” in Nagel-Thompson, trans., Three
Crowns, pp. ‒. For the conflict between Landino’s Italian nationalism and
Dante’s imperialism, see Deborah Parker, Commentary and Ideology, pp. ‒.
. The date was ‒, one year before he revised his first lectures on Vir-
gil; see Arthur Field, “Cristoforo Landino’s First Lectures on Dante,” Renaissance
Quarterly  (): ‒. esp. pp. ‒. For political motives, see Mario San-
toro, “Cristoforo Landino e il Volgare,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 
(): ‒; and Cecil Grayson, “Lorenzo, Machiavelli, and the Italian Lan-
guage,” Italian Renaissance Studies, ed. Ernest Fraser Jacob (London: Faber and
Faber, ), pp. ‒.
. Cristoforo Landino, Scritti critici e teorici, ed. Roberto Cardini,  vols.
(Rome: Bulzoni, ), ..
. Landino extends this program the following year when in the prolusion to
his lectures on Virgil he addresses Lorenzo’s father, Piero de’ Medici. Landino wants
this commentary to provide useful instruction “in que parens tuus Laurentius haec
investigans inducitur” ‘in whatever your son Lorenzo might be persuaded as he in-
vestigates them’ (). Both in Virgil’s poetic text and in the Medici’s political rule
Landino finds examples of the highest order: “Hoc auctore ac duce maiestatis pub-
licae dignitas, quae pene iam extincta esset, non solum in pristinum gradum revo-
cata est, sed amplior multoque illustrior reddita” ‘In this author and this ruler the
worth of public greatness, which is now almost extinguished elsewhere, is not only
called back to its original condition, but is also restored more fully and more
clearly’ (). Literature provides a mirror for the ruler’s actions and a rhetoric by
which to justify them. For Lorenzo’s ideas on the usefulness of a philosophically
literate citizenry, see Arthur Field, The Origins of the Platonic Academy of Florence
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the attribution to Poliziano, see Mario Santoro, “Poliziano o il Mag-
nifico,” Giornale italiano di filologia  (): ‒; but see also Sara Sturm, “The
Case for Lorenzo’s Authorship of the Epistola,” Renaissance and Reformation 
(): ‒. For Lorenzo’s political interests in , see Mazzacurati, Problema,
pp. ‒; and Judith Bryce, “Lorenzo de Medici, Piombino, and Naples: Cul-
tural Politics from the Raccolte Aragonese to the Comento” in Essays in Italian Lit-
erature and History in Honour of Doug Thompson, ed. George Talbot and Pamela
Williams (Dublin: Four Courts Press, ), pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. Compare Lorenzo’s sensitivity to contingency in the figurative language of

his letters analyzed in Bullard, Image and Anxiety, pp. ‒.
. For analysis of specific texts, see William J. Kennedy, “Petrarchan Figura-
tions of Death in Lorenzo de’ Medici’s Sonnets and Comento,” in Life and Death
in Fifteenth-Century Florence, ed. Marcel Tetel, Ronald G. Witt, and Rona Goffen
(Durham: Duke University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the political background, see Nicolai Rubinstein, The Government of
Florence under the Medici,  to , rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ),
pp. ‒. For a superb analysis of Lorenzo’s sensitivity to contingency in the
figurative language of diplomacy, see Bullard, Image and Anxiety, pp. ‒, based
upon a detailed study of the Medici letters.
. For the ritual significance of Lorenzo’s public displays of innocence and
martyrdom linking the Medici to the fate of the community, see Richard Trexler,
Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York: Academic Press, ), pp. ‒,
esp. pp. ‒. For rituals promoted in the confraternities, see Ron Weissman,
Ritual Brotherhood in Renaissance Florence (New York: ), pp. ‒.
. For Lorenzo’s creative recycling of multiple forms, see Giancarlo Mazzacu-
rati, “Storia e funzione della poesia lirica nel Comento di Lorenzo de’ Medici,”
MLN  (): ‒. For Lorenzo’s analogous efforts to incorporate monu-
ments of earlier culture in the Medici palace as a museum of rare antiquities, see
Trexler, Public Life, pp. ‒. For a shift of emphasis from authority to self-
knowledge and personal experience, see Sherry Roush, Hermes’ Lyre: Italian Poetic
Self-Commentary from Dante to Campanella (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For the influence of Ficino’s Neoplatonism on Petrarchan modes of conso-
latio, see George McClure, Sorrow and Consolation in Italian Humanism (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Historically, this figure has its basis in Platonic philosophy, in which the
skills of the medicus/therapos become obsolete as soon as the patient is cured. In
the Latin translation of Plato by Ficino, who advertised himself as a man of med-
icine, a medicus, the figure functions as a trope for the plight of Socrates. Medicine
is a science of love, the art of generating harmony and concord among opposites.
Socrates himself is a physician of love (Symposium c–e). In Philebus, how-
ever, he confronts the limit of his own powers. After physicians establish a healthy
ratio between warring opposites, they do not try to make the patient healthier by
passing beyond this ratio. If they did, they would only upset the balance and give
the patient a new disease. Having reached the end, physicians must release their
patients. In a healthy state of body and soul, including that of the body politic and
the communal soul, these medici, along with Socrates, will become obsolete
(Philebus d). References to Ficino’s Latin translations of Plato are to Plato,
Opera, ed. R. B. Hirtschig,  vols. (Paris: Ambrosio Firmin-Didot, ). For Fi-
cino’s self-representation as a medicus who condemns not the poets but their mis-
interpreters, thereby placing the poets in the company of philosophers, see


 Notes to Pages ‒

Michael J. B. Allen, Synoptic Art: Marsilio Ficino on the History of Platonic Inter-
pretation (Florence: Olschki, ), pp. ‒. For Ficino’s conception of exegesis
and use of exegetical technique as apologetics, see James Hankins, Plato in the Ital-
ian Renaissance,  vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), .‒.
. For the pun on Medici, see Kennedy, “Petrarchan Figurations.” For ex-
amples of the pun in visual art, see John Shearman, Raphael’s Cartoons in the Col-
lection of Her Majesty the Queen and the Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel (London:
Phaidon, ), pp. ‒; and Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici
Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ; for
Poliziano’s account of Lorenzo’s death, see Godman, From Poliziano to Machi-
avelli, pp. ‒.
. For Lorenzo’s vision of a new sort of state with a new sort of leader as
imagined by Guicciardini, see Alison Brown, “Lorenzo and Guicciardini,” in Mal-
lett and Mann, Lorenzo the Magnificent, pp. ‒.
. See Trexler, Public Life, pp. ‒; and Martines, Strong Words, pp.
‒.
. For critical text with detailed biography, see Le Rime di Benedetto Gareth,
detto il Chariteo, ed. Erasmo Pèrcopo,  vols. (Naples: Accademia delle Scienze,
). For Cariteo in the context of Neapolitan humanism, see Antonio Altamura,
L’Umanesimo nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia (Florence: Bibliopolis, ), pp. ‒. For
artistic background, see George Hersey, Alfonso II and the Artistic Renewal of
Naples (New Haven: Yale University Press, ). For political background, see
Ernesto Pontieri, Per la storia del regno di Ferrante I d’Aragona, d ed. (Naples: Edi-
zione Scientifiche Italiane, ), pp. ‒; and Nino Cortese, Cultura e polit-
ica a Napoli dal Cinque al Settecento (Naples: Edizione Scientifiche Italiane, ),
pp. ‒.
. For the evolution of Cariteo’s style between these editions, see Enrico
Fenzi, “La lingua e lo stile del Cariteo dalla prima alla seconda redazione dell’Endi-
mione,” Studi di Filologia e Letteratura  (): ‒.
. For the political self-consciousness of Naples in the early sixteenth century,
see Aurelio Lepre, Storia del mezzogiorno d’Italia, vol. : La lunga durata e la crisi
‒ (Naples: Liguori, ), pp. ‒; for its feudal character, see Tommaso
Astarita, The Continuity of Feudal Power: The Caracciolo di Brienza in Spanish
Naples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the structure of the sequence, see Marco Santagata, La lirica aragonese
(Padua: Antenori, ), pp. ‒. For a further analysis of these texts, see
William J. Kennedy, “Citing Petrarch in Naples: The Politics of Commentary in
Cariteo’s Endimione,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒.
. For the fusion of Petrarchan diction with Horatian and Ovidian motifs, see
Rino Consolo, “Il libro di Endimione: Modelli classici, ‘inventio’ ed ’elocutio’ nel
canzoniere del Cariteo,” Filologia e critica  (): ‒; for Cariteo’s debt to
Propertius, see Claudia Fanti, “L’elegia properziana nella lirica amorosa del Cari-
teo,” Italianistica  (): ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For a detailed reading of Endimione in the context of Neapolitan poetry, see
Santagata, La lirica aragonese, pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒. For a selection of
Neapolitan poetry with critical commentary, see Antoni Altamura, ed., La lirica
napoletana del Quattrocento (Naples: Società editrice Napoletana, ). For addi-
tional background, see Antonio Altamura, L’umanesimo nel mezzogiorno d’Italia
(Florence: Bibliopolis, ), pp. ‒; and Mario Santoro, “Humanism in
Naples,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil
Jr., vol. : Humanism in Italy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For these political events, see Lepre, Storia del mezzogiorno, pp. ‒.
. For the crisis of Italian legitimization founded on the collective desire of
subjected citizens for political stability and economic prosperity, see Pierangelo
Schiera, “Legitimacy, Discipline, and Institutions: Three Necessary Conditions for
the Birth of the Modern State,” in Kirshner, Origins of the State, pp. ‒. For the
monarchical model of the Papal States as an alternative to the courtly model of the
northern communes, see Paolo Prodi, The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls:
The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe, trans. Susan Haskins (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The monarchy of Aragonese Naples had been the major source of artistic
patronage in the old days, and its preferences continued to dominate the tastes of
the Neapolitan Academy after the Spanish installation; see Jerry H. Bentley, Poli-
tics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
), pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒; Francesco Tateo, L’Umanesimo meridionale
(Bari: Laterza, ), pp. ‒ and ‒; and Pasquale Alberto de Lisio, Gli
Anni della svolta: Tradizione umanistica e viceregno nel primo Cinquecento napoli-
tano (Salerno: Società Editrice Salernitana, , pp. ‒.
. For the choice of the northern Italian dialect over the Spanish language in
Neapolitan court poetry, see Mario Compagna, Perrone Capone, and Lia Vozzo
Mendìa, “La scelta dell’italiano tra i scrittori iberici alla corte Aragonese,” in
Lingue e culture dell’Italia meridonale, ed. Paolo Trovato (Rome: Bonacci, ),
pp. ‒; and Francesco Sabatini, Napoli angioina: cultura e società (Naples: Edi-
zioni Scientifiche Italiane, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For Sannazaro’s precedent in revising his Neapolitan sonnets, some of
which may have been composed as early as , so as to conform to Bembo’s pre-
cepts about Petrarchan diction, see Gianfranco Folena, La crisi linguistica del quat-
trocento e “Arcadia” (Florence: Olschki, ); Pier Vincenzio Mengaldo, “La lirica
volgare del Sannazaro e lo sviluppo del linguagio poetico rinascimentale,” La
rassegna della letteratura italiana  (): ‒; Carlo Dionisotti, “Appunti
sulle rime del Sannazaro,” Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana  ():
‒; and William J. Kennedy, Jacopo Sannazaro and the Uses of Pastoral
(Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, ), pp. ‒.
. See Raymond A. Prier, “Naming the Rose: Petrarch’s Figure in and for the
Text and Texts,” in Countercurrents: On the Primacy of Texts in Literary Criticism,


 Notes to Pages ‒

ed. R. A. Prier (Albany: State University of New York Press, ), pp. ‒; and
Prier, “Neapolitan Imitationes Propertianiae: Ancient Sound in the Verses of Pontano
and Chariteo,” in Reconsidering the Renaissance, ed. Mario Di Cesare (Binghamton,
N.Y.: Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies and Texts, ), pp. ‒.
. For Gonsalvo, see Lepre, Storia del Mezzogiorno, pp. ‒; and Aurelio
Cernigliaro, Sovrantà e feudo nel Regno di Napoli, ‒,  vols. (Naples: Jovene,
), .‒.
. For the development of a distinctively Neapolitan sense of statehood in re-
sponse to its political domination by a distant Spain and its cultural attachment to
the rest of Italy, see Aurelio Musi, Mezzogiorno spagnolo: la via napoletana allo stato
moderno (Naples: Guida, ), pp. ‒.
. For the sixteenth-century infiltration of Petrarchism into the Neapolitan
Academy, especially in the commentaries of Gesualdo and Sylvano da Venafro, in
the theory of Minturno, and in the poetry of Bernardino Rota, Angelo di
Costanzo, Luigi Tansillo, and Galeazzo di Tàrsia, see Giulio Ferroni and Amedeo
Quondam, La locuzione artificiosa: Teoria ed esperienza della lirica a Napoli nell’età
del mannierismo (Rome: Bulzoni, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For formative notions of Italian identity in the early sixteenth century, see
Schiera, “Legitimacy, Institutions, and Discipline.” For the papacy as a protona-
tional model for pan-Italian bonding, see Prodi, The Papal Prince, pp. ‒ and
‒. Owing to its distance from Naples, Spain was impelled to grant regional
satellites of the viceregal government large measures of autonomy. For the feudal-
ization of the Neapolitan periphery in response to this condition, see Cernigliaro,
Sovranità e feudo, .‒.
. For the function of the viceregal administration as a central government
and its relation to local powers, see Musi, Mezzogiorno spagnolo, pp. ‒.
. For Ludovico il Moro, see Angelo Cellerino, “Il ducato di Milano dalla
morte di Galeazzo Maria Sforza alla fine dell’ independenza,” in Andenna, Co-
muni e signorie, pp. ‒.
. For the stabilization of political power and of social and commercial inter-
ests under Spanish governance, see Musi, Mezzogiorno spagnolo, pp. ‒.
. For the theme of adversity and bad fortune as a recurrent topos in Neapoli-
tan literature, see Mario Santoro, Fortuna, ragione, e prudenze nella civiltà letter-
aria del cinquecento (Naples: Liguori, ), pp. ‒.
. For the emergence of a Petrarchan voice expressive of moral conscience,
see Aldo Scaglione, “Classical Heritage and Petrarchan Self-Consciousness in the
Literary Emergence of the Interior I,” in Modern Critical Views: Petrarch, ed.
Harold Bloom (New York: Chelsea Press, ), pp. ‒. For poetic theory in
early sixteenth-century Naples, see De Lisio, Gil anni della svolta, pp. ‒.
. See Pèrcopo, ed., “Introduzione,” pp. xl–xli; and “Documenti,” pp.
cclxxiv; and Giovanni Parenti, Benet Garet: Profilo (Florence: Olschki, ).
. For mannerist uses of Petrarchan symmetries, antitheses, and oxymorons,
see Aldo Scaglione, “Cinquecento Mannerism and the Uses of Petrarch,” in-


Notes to Pages ‒

Medieval and Renaissance Studies V, ed. O. B. Hardison (Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press, ), pp. ‒; and Amedeo Quondam, La parola nel
laberinto: Società e scrittura del Manierismo a Napoli (Bari: Laterza, ), pp.
‒.
. For courtly alternatives to Bemboism in the Academy, see Riccardo Drusi,
La lingua “cortigiana romana” (Venice: Il Cardo, ), pp. ‒.

Four Du Bellay and the Language of Empire

. For biography, see Henri Chamard, Joachim Du Bellay, ‒ (Lille,
; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, ); for Charles V and his universalist aims to-
ward dynastic consolidation rather than political domination, see Helmut
Koenigsberger, The Hapsburgs and Europe, ‒ (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. ‒; for Charles’s guiding principles and economic realities, see
Manuel Fernández Alvarez, Charles V: Elected Emperor and Hereditary Ruler, trans.
T. A. Lalaguna (London: Thames and Hudson, ), pp. ‒; for his imperial
career as king of Spain, see A. W. Lovett, Early Hapsburg Spain, ‒ (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Joseph Pérez, Carlos V (Madrid:
Temas de Hoy, ), pp. ‒; for the blend of medieval constitutionalism, Re-
naissance humanism, and Neoscholasticism in his foreign policy, see J. A. Fernán-
dez-Santamarìa, The State, War, and Peace: Spanish Political Thought in the Renais-
sance, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and
John Lynch, Spain, ‒: From Nation State to World Empire (Oxford: Black-
well, ), pp. ‒. Phantom empire is the term of Frances Yates, Astrea (Lon-
don: Routledge and Kegan Paul, ), pp.  ff.
. For the historical site of Augustan poetry as a discourse generating within it-
self a political context, see Duncan Kennedy, The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the
Discourse of Roman Love (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), esp. pp.
‒ on Propertius; for political perceptions of Augustan poetry and the social
status of Roman poets, see Peter White, Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Au-
gustan Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒; for
metonymic modes that enable political allegory, see Gordon Williams, Figures of
Thought in Roman Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒.
For Roman poetry as representing counterfactual worlds in critical relation to the
historical world, see Lowell Edmunds, Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman
Poetry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. I do not want to exaggerate the analogy, but the emphasis on a predomi-
nantly male-defined readership concerned more with personal loyalties than ama-
tory situations has precedent in Provençal Troubadour poetry three centuries ear-
lier. For the androcentric vocabulary of masculine loyalties and proprietary
relationships which overshadows amatory relationships between men and women
in Provençal Troubadour poetry, see Rouben Cholakian, The Troubadour Lyric: A


 Notes to Page 

Psychological Reading (Manchester: Manchester University Press, ), pp.

‒; for notions of status dictated by a competitive masculine economy with
conditions of performance which encouraged fictional constructions of the poet’s
role, see Sarah Kay, Subjectivity in Troubadour Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the shift from the knight’s individualistic
ethos toward becoming a diplomatically adroit servant of rulers, see Linda Peter-
son, The World of the Troubadours: Medieval Occitan Society c. ‒ (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the courtly idealiza-
tion of the woman as an overdetermined deprecation of the feminine in love lyrics
that have less to do with women than with the poet’s relation to the self and supe-
riors, see R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Ro-
mantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒; and Gale Si-
gal, “The Pit or the Pedestal? The Dichotomization of the Lady in Troubadour
Lyric,” Romanic Review  (): ‒. For feminine tastes in the French court
under the influence of Catherine de’ Medici, Diane de Poitiers, and Marguerite de
Valois, see Marie-Madeleine Fragonard, Les dialogues du prince et du poète (Paris:
Gallimard, ), pp. ‒.
. For divisions of rank in sixteenth-century northern French society, see
Robert Mandrou, An Introduction to Modern France, trans. R. E. Hallmark (New
York: Holmes and Meier, ), pp. ‒. For appurtenances of kinship, lineage,
race, and household, see Jean-Louis Flandrin, Families in Former Times, trans.
Richard Southern (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for
the rise of a new social class of officeholders intermediary between the merchant
bourgeoisie and the older nobility, with aspirations toward the privileges but not
the way of life of the latter, see George Huppert, Les Bourgeois Gentilhommes: An
Essay on the Definition of Elites in Renaissance France (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒. For a highly differentiated quadripartite division
of society on three levels based on the fourteenth-century account of Petrarch’s
friend Philippe de Mézières, see Philippe Contamine, La France au XIVe et XVe siè-
cles (London: Variorum Reprint, ), pp. ‒. Modern discussions of class dis-
tinctions owe much to Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, trans. L. A. Manyon,  vols.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), esp. .‒, .‒, and .‒.
See Thomas Bisson, “The ‘Feudal’ Revolution,” Past and Present  (): ‒.
For the anachronism of the term feudal in such contexts, and its compromising us-
age by sixteenth-century academic lawyers to reconcile customary law with the au-
thority of Roman Law, see Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For the transposition from the ideology of ad-
venture to an ideology of courtliness, see Michael Nerlich, Ideology of Adventure:
Studies in Modern Consciousness, ‒, trans. Ruth Crawley,  vols. (Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The major complicating factor in this changing social order was an emerg-
ing distinction between the long-standing military and largely provincial noblesse


Notes to Page 

d’épée and the emerging courtly and bureaucratic noblesse de robe, as detailed in
John H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century (London:
Methuen, ), pp. ‒; for ties that bind these orders, see Claude de Seyssel’s
delineation “of the harmony and agreement of the three estates” in La grande
monarchie . (; published ) translation in The Monarchy of France, trans.
J. H. Hexter (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), p. . Seyssel understands
social mobility positively in terms of cooperative rather than rivalrous relations
among various factions: “If there were no hope of mounting from one to the other
[estate] or if it were too difficult, overbold men could induce others of the same
estate to conspire against the other two” (., p. ). For bargaining power and
space to maneuver across these orders, see Kristen Neuschell, Word of Honor: In-
terpreting Noble Culture in Sixteenth-Century France (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The sixteenth-century nobility thought of its privileges as attached to the
traditional profession of arms, with its claims to wealth inhering in fixed land and
property rights. The developing bureaucratic nobility thought of its privileges as
attached to the person, with ideas of fluid, malleable, mobile wealth conferred
through favor and attachment. For the resilience of the nobility in adapting to
changing economic conditions, see Jonathan Dewald, The European Nobility,
‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the turn
to an interiorized ethical model in Montaigne, see Timothy Hampton, Writing
from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ),
pp. ‒. For the increasingly problematic historical position of the nobility in the
emerging nation-state with the resulting imperative to display the public perfor-
mance of nobility, see David M. Posner, The Performance of Nobility in Early Mod-
ern European Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, The Royal French State: Louis XI to Henri IV,
‒, trans. Juliet Vale (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒.
. For the duty of the military nobility to react against danger to the patrie
even if its source is the monarch, see Arlette Jouanna, Le devoir de revolte: La no-
blesse française at la gestation de l’état moderne (Paris: Fayard, ), pp. ‒; for
the diversity and hierarchy of noble groups, see Jouanna, La France du XVIe siècle
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, ), pp. ‒; for the structure and
composition of the court as the family of the king, see Jean Marie Constant, La
vie quotidienne de la noblesse française aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Paris: Hachette,
), pp. ‒.
. For Du Bellay’s origins and cadet rank among four brothers, see Chamard,
Joachim Du Bellay, pp. ‒; for his relationship to Cardinal Jean du Bellay, see
pp. ‒; for the broader literary context, see Henri Chamard, Histoire de la
Pléiade,  vols. (Paris: Henri Didier, ‒) .‒.
. For differences of rank in the mid-sixteenth-century court, see Jean Barbey,
Etre roi: Le roi et son gouvernement en France de Clovis à Louis XVI (Paris: Fayard,
), pp. ‒, ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. Russell Major, From Renaissance Monarchy to Absolute Monarchy (Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒. After , when François I
began centralizing the treasury, commoners trained in commercial and notarial
skills at regional and municipal schools gained access to administrative office
which brought eligibility for competitive favors previously dispensed to aristocrats.
For training in municipal schools and colleges throughout northern France, see
George Huppert, Public Schools in Renaissance France (Urbana: University of Illi-
nois Press, ), pp. ‒. For an inventory of such schools, see Dominique Ju-
lia and Marie-Madeleine Compère, Collèges français, XVIe–XVIIIe siècles,  vols.
(Paris: INRP/CNRS, ‒); for patterns of enrollment in medicine, law, and
theology in universities throughout France, see D. Julia, Jacques Revel, and Roger
Chartier, eds., Les universités européennes du XVIe au XVIIIe siècles: Histoire sociale
des populations etudiantes,  vols. (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en
Sciences, ‒), .‒; for specific educational practices, see Julia, Com-
père, and Chartier, eds., L’Education en France de e au e siècles (Paris: Société
d’Edition d’Enseignement Supérieur, ), pp. ‒. For the rise of an am-
phibious cultural class of educators, schoolmasters, and higher preceptors, see
Gilbert Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle dans la France des humanistes: Guillaume
Budé et François I (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Chamard, Du Bellay, pp. ‒, for his years spent in Poitiers; pp.
‒, for his time spent at Coqueret. For the profession of law as an academic
discipline and as a set of power structures, see Donald R. Kelley, The Beginning of
Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Du Bellay had family connections in Italy; his cousin Cardinal Guillaume
du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, had served as governor of Piedmont before his
death in , while Guillaume’s brother, Cardinal Jean du Bellay, served as am-
bassador to the papal court of Paul IV. See Chamard, Du Bellay, pp. ‒,
‒; and V. L. Bourrilly, Guillaume du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey (‒)
(Paris: Société Nouvelle de Librairie et d’Edition, ), pp. ‒. For Du Bel-
lay’s diplomatic activity in Rome, see Gladys Dickinson, Du Bellay in Rome (Lei-
den: E. J. Brill, ), pp. ‒.
. The most notable of these positions were those of secretaries of state
(though the term was not used until ), to which Henry II had appointed four
members of the nobility and a staff of assistants to provide liaisons between him-
self and the administrators of eleven frontier governments. See Nicola M. Suther-
land, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de’ Medici (London:
Athlone: ), pp. ‒. For the evolution of the term état (state) from desig-
nating the king’s private status or estate in the Middle Ages to designating an ap-
paratus to enforce the public good and common welfare as ratio status (reason of
state) in the early sixteenth century, see Alain Guéry, “The State,” in Rethinking
France, under the direction of Pierre Nora, vol. : The State, trans. Mary Trouille
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. Quotations refer to Aris and Joukovsky, Oeuvres poétiques, p. . For Du


Notes to Pages ‒

Bellay’s sense of the exchange value of poetry as linked to its evidence of technical
mastery, see Hampton, Literature and Nation, pp. ‒.
. For efforts to assert aristocratic distinction, see Mark Motley, Becoming a
French Aristocrat: The Education of the Courtly Nobility (Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒; and Ellery Schalk, From Valor to Pedigree: Ideas of
Nobility in France in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, ), pp. ‒. For academic capital and cultural pedigree as
ingredients in social standing, see Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction, trans. Richard Nice
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Castiglione (“Not only do the French not esteem, but they abhor letters,
and consider all men of letters to be very base,” Book of the Courtier .; Single-
ton, trans., p. ) and later Montaigne (in “Of the Education of Children,” Essays
.; Frame, trans., p. ) evoke the aversion of the French provincial nobility to
learning, with its smug dismissal of education as unnecessary for its professional
advancement; see Posner, Performance of Nobility, pp. ‒. For Italian and
French views of France as a “cultural Sparta,” see Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle,
pp. ‒ and, for the slow development of education among its nobility, pp.
‒. For provincial education in both upper and lower classes, see Emmanuel
Le Roy Ladurie, The French Peasantry, ‒, trans. Alan Sheridan (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ), pp. ‒; and Huppert, Public Schools, pp.
‒ and ‒.
. Like Du Bellay and Ronsard, the latter were petty country seigneurs or
landless members of the lesser aristocracy whose dreams of advancement were
challenged by the rise of the bourgeoisie and the prosperity of the military elite
during the Italian campaigns; see Salmon, Society in Crisis, pp. ‒. For literary
implications, see Margaret Ferguson, Trials of Desire (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ), pp. ‒; and Thomas M. Greene, “Regrets Only: Three Poetic Par-
adigms in Du Bellay,” Romanic Review  (): ‒.
. Motley, Becoming a French Aristocrat, pp. ‒.
. See Le Roy Ladurie, Royal French State, pp. ‒; and Fernand Braudel,
The Identity of France, trans. Sian Reynolds,  vols. (New York: Harper and Row,
), .‒. For interfaces between popular and elite culture in sixteenth-cen-
tury France, see Robert Muchembled, Popular Culture and Elite Culture, trans. Ly-
dia Cochrane (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. The first numeral in parenthesis refers to quotations from La Deffence, ed.
Chamard; the second numeral refers to Gladys Turquet’s translation, which I
quote throughout.
. Braudel, Identity of France, pp. ‒. For the clash of originary identity
between Gallic and Frankish ancestry, see Krzysztof Pomian, “Franks and Gauls,”
Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, under the direction of Pierre Nora,
trans. Arthur Goldhammer,  vols. (New York: Columbia University Press,
‒), .‒. For dialectology and place names as indicators of diversity
among these ethnic groups, immigrant foreigners, and territorial units, see Pierre


 Notes to Pages ‒

Bonnaud, Terres et langues, peuples et régions,  vols. (Clermont-Ferrand: Euvernhà

Tarà d’Oc, ), .‒.
. For the development in the writing of Pasquier, Bodin, and others of a self-
consciousness about being French viewed as a sign of divine favor toward the na-
tion, see Myriam Yardeni, La conscience nationale en France pendant les guerres de
religion (Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, ), pp. ‒; and Bell, Cult of the Nation
in France, pp. ‒.
. See Le Roy Ladurie, Royal French State, p. . For historical roots of the
French idea of citizenship as political and assimilationist rather than ethnocentric,
see Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cam-
bridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. ‒; and Braudel, Identity of
France, pp. ‒. The German etymology may derive dialectically from the
name of a weapon: cf. Old English franka (spear, javelin) used by the ancient
Franks, conferring upon them their reputation for ferocity and enabling them to
remain free from Roman domination. See franc in Le grand Robert de la langue
française,  vols. (Paris: Robert, ), .‒.
. For the etymology of franche (free), see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp.
‒. For Etienne Pasquier’s search for a national past through historical schol-
arship, see Donald R. Kelley, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Lan-
gauge, Law, and History in the French Renaissance (New York: Columbia University
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For literary intimations of national identity in sixteenth-century France by
Ramus, Pasquier, Montaigne, and Bodin, see George Huppert, Idea of Perfect His-
tory: Historical Erudition and Historical Philosophy in Renaissance France (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, ), pp. ‒. See also Philippe Desan, Penser l’his-
toire à la Renaissance (Caen: Paradigme, ), esp. pp. ‒.
. Homer mentions only Astyanax as a son of Hector, prompting sixteenth-
century Hellenists to invent various explanations for Francus’ identity. For such
uses of the Trojan myth, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. ‒. For the con-
tributions of Pasquier, Postel, and Hotman in moving source study about the
Franks and Gauls away from legends about the Trojan Francus and toward re-
search based on humanist philology and documents about the Gauls, see George
Huppert, The Style of Paris (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ), pp.
‒; and Huppert, The Idea of Perfect History, pp. ‒.
. The idea of the Greeks as descendants of the French Celts animates his Il-
lustrations de Gaul et singularitez de Troye (‒) and La Concorde des deux lan-
gages () with its praise of the “Troyenne nation” as one with the “peuple hardi”
and “illustre sang” of France; see Zumthor, Anthologie, p. . For Lemaire’s con-
tribution to Gallic patriotism and Rabelais’s later parody of patriotic sophistry in
reaction to the imagined universal history of Annius of Viterbo, see Stephens, Gi-
ants in Those Times, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The title “Rex Christianissimus” was conferred upon Pepin by Pope


Notes to Pages ‒

Stephen II in  to acknowledge Pepin’s campaign against the Lombards and his
conferral of the Papal States upon the pope. See Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp.
‒.
. Greenfeld, Nationalism, pp. ‒. For the evolution of French boundaries
and borders from the twelth to the fifteenth centuries, see Bernard Guenée, “From
Feudal Boundaries to Political Borders,” in Rethinking France, ed. Nora, pp.
‒; for the consolidation of boundaries in the mid-sixteenth century, see
Daniel Nordman, “From the Boundaries of the State to National Borders,” in Re-
thinking France, ed. Nora, pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒. For a sense of community
in the French medieval kingdom, see Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communi-
ties, pp. ‒.
. J. Russell Major, The Growth of Representative Government in Renaissance
France (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. Seyssel, Monarchy, ., p. . For Seyssel’s concept of limited monarchism,
see Le Roi Ladurie, Royal French State, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle, ‒.
. For the imperial ambitions of the Valois to resume the inheritance of
Charlemagne which spurred Charles V’s revenge at Pavia in  and his increased
efforts against France two decades later, see Gaston Zeller, Aspects de la politique
française sous l’Ancien Régime (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, ), pp.
‒; and Jean-Daniel Pariset, Les relations entre la France et l’Allemagne au milieu
du XVIe siècle (Strasbourg: Istra, ), pp. ‒. For French expression of ties
with Germanic rather than Mediterranean identity, see Gadoffre, La révolution
culturelle, pp. ‒.
. For “Soit ce nom / D’Olive véritable ou non,” see Du Bellay’s Divers jeux
rustiques, ed. V. L. Saulnier (Geneva: Droz, ), p. . For Mme or Mlle de Vi-
ole, see Chamard, Du Bellay, pp. ‒. For various anagrammatic possibilities,
including ones on the motif of vol (flight) and vie (life), “O l’âme de ma vie /
Madame Olive,” “violé (tyran),” “and “viole (la liberté),” see François Rigolot, Poé-
tique et onomastique (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒. For Minerva’s sacred
branch whose picking requires strenuous effort, see Floyd Gray, La poétique de Du
Bellay (Paris: Nizet, ), pp. ‒.
. See Armstrong, Nations before Nationalism , pp. ‒, ‒, and
‒. For the Spanish Empire, see Lynch, Spain, ‒, pp. ‒; and John
H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, ‒ (London: Edward Arnolds, ), pp. ‒.
. The defeat of the separatist Castilian Comuneros in  and the incorpo-
ration of Castile and Aragon into a greater Spanish political entity fueled their sen-
timent. See Perez, Carlos V, pp. ‒; and Elliott, Imperial Spain, pp. ‒. For
cultural implications measured in the rise of Castilian poetry and the decadence of
its Catalan counterpart, see Joan Ramòn Resina, “The Role of Discontinuity in
the Formation of National Culture,” in Cultural Authority in Golden Age Spain, ed.
Marina Brownlee and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For close analysis of their relationship, see Ignacio Navarrete, Orphans of
Petrarch (Berekeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Juan Boscán, Obras, ed. William Knapp,  vols. (Madrid:
Murielo, ).
. For the subsequent widening of Petrarchan figures of love to take in prob-
lems of exploration, conquest, and rule, see Roland Greene, Unrequited Conquests,
esp. pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The proposition of a translatio studii assumes, despite Petrarch’s declaration
of its impossibility, that Greco-Roman cultural supremacy has passed in a legiti-
mate descent to sixteenth-century France and that modern forms such as the son-
net and canzone overtake not only medieval forms but classical ones as well. See
Franco Simone, The French Renaissance, trans. H. Gaston Hall (London: Macmil-
lan, ), pp. ‒. For a sense of French autonomy as arising from compari-
son with Italy, see Lionello Sozzi, “La polémique anti-italien en France au XVIe
siècle,” Atti della Accademia delle Scienzie di Torino  (): ‒.
. See Navarrete, Orphans of Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Garcilaso de la Vega, Obras completas, ed. Elias Rivers
(Madrid: Castalia, ).
. For the logic of knowing the national self through knowing others, see
Benedict Anderson, The Spectre of Comparisons (London: Verso, ), pp. ‒.
. For economic figurations implicit in this idea of enriching the language,
building cultural capital, and selling poetry, see Philippe Desan, L’imaginaire
économique de la Renaissance (Mont-de-Marsan: Editions Inter-Universitaires,
), pp. ‒.
. For polemics about the Deffence, see Kees Meerhoff, Rhétorique et poétique
au XVI siècle en France: Du Bellay, Ramus, et les autres (Leyden: E. J. Brill, ),
pp. ‒.
. Text in Traités de poétique et de rhétorique de la Renaissance, ed. Francis
Goyet (Paris: Livre de Poche Classique, ), pp. ‒, quoted from p. .
. For such discussions, see Erica Rummel, The Humanist Scholastic Debate
in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
), pp. ‒; and Jill Kraye, “Philologists and Philosophers,” Cambridge Com-
panion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Krey (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the reception of Horace in Du Bellay’s time, see Ann Moss, “Horace in
the Sixteenth-Century: Commentators into Critics,” in Cambridge History of Lit-
erary Criticism, vol. : The Renaissance, ed. Glyn Norton (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Raymond Lebègue, “Horace en France
pendant la Renaissance,” Humanisme et Renaissance  (): ‒, ‒, and
‒. For Du Bellay’s ideas on Latin imitation, see Marc Bizer, La poésie au
miroir: Imitation et conscience de soi dans la poésie latine de la Pléiade (Paris: Cham-
pion, ), pp. ‒. For Du Bellay’s acute sense of linguistic difference, see
Greene, Light in Troy, pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. In Cicero’s De oratore Crassus advocates this method for training orators:
“The result of [translating] was that in rendering into Latin what I had read in
Greek, I not only found myself using the best words—and yet quite familiar
ones—but also, coining by analogy certain words such as would be new to our
people,” De oratore, trans. E. W. Sutton and T. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Li-
brary (London: Heinemann, ), .., p. . Cicero had translated whole
texts by Aratus, Aeschines, and Demosthenes and passages from Plato, Homer,
and the Greek dramatists in his various treatises. Horace in his ars poetica (Epistle
to the Pisos, .) promises a fair outcome “nec verbo verbum curabis reddere fidus /
interpres; nec desilies imitator in artum” ‘if you do not seek to render word for
word as a slavish translator, and if in your copying you do not leap into the nar-
row well’ (Epistle, . pp. ‒, in Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica, ed. and trans.
H. Rushton Fairclough, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, ]). Horace had sought to project a metrical voice similar to Pin-
dar’s in his imitation of Greek Alcaics, Sapphics, and Asclepiadeans and thus to vie
with Virgil in alternative genres for the voice of the empire’s poet.
. For Dolet’s Ciceronian response to Horatian precept, see Glyn Norton,
The Ideology and Language of Translation in Renaissance France and Their Human-
ist Antecedents (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒.
. Speroni’s Bembo comes to modify the historical Bembo’s celebrated posi-
tion about Petrarch and Boccaccio as models for Italian style. Speroni’s interlocu-
tor admits that the contemporary vernacular, especially as spoken and written in
elite circles of the courts and academies, ought to supplement these models. In his
metaphor language grows like a tree “la quale non ha a pieno fiorito, non che i
frutti prodotti, che ella può fare” ‘that has hardly bloomed, much less borne the
fruit of which it is capable’ (p. /). See Ignacio Navarrete, “Strategies of Ap-
propriation in Speroni’s Dialogo and Du Bellay’s Deffence,” Comparative Literature
 (): ‒. For Speroni’s dialogual form, see Jon Snyder, Writing the Scene
of Speaking: Theories of Dialogue in the Late Italian Renaissance (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, ), pp. ‒. For a representative passage from Speroni’s di-
alogue on rhetoric, see Wayne A. Rebhorn, trans., Renaissance Debates on Rhetoric
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒. For sixteenth-century convic-
tions about language as arbitrary and conventional rather than natural, enabling
Du Bellay to impute equal value to all languages, see Marie-Luce Demonet, Les
voix du signe: Nature et origine du langage à la Renaissance (Paris: Honoré Cham-
pion, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For Horatian techniques of self-presentation and multiple address in
changing circumstances, see Gregson Davis, Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian
Lyric Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, ); and Randall L. B.
McNeill, Horace: Image, Identity, and Audience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. The line is quoted on the title page of Olive and the Vers lyriques and again


 Notes to Pages ‒

after the final poem in the Vers lyriques, the epigram to Marot. For comment, see
Dorothy Gabe Coleman, The Chaste Muse (Leyden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. ‒.
. For comment, see Henri Weber, La création poétique au XVIe siècle en
France,  vols. (Paris: Nizet, ), p. .
. Text of Peletier’s Art poétique in Francis Goyet, ed., Traités, pp. ‒:
“L’Oeuvre Héroïque est celui qui donne le prix, et le vrai titre de Poëte” (p. ).
. Although Petrarch disavowed the idea, as noted earlier, translatio studii is
an old legend in France. See Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. ‒. At the end
of the first century St. Denis brought to Paris not only Christianity but also the
learning of Greco-Roman antiquity. At the beginning of the ninth century Charle-
magne had Alcuin bring more ancient learning to France. Since the twelfth cen-
tury the University of Paris housed not just the philosophy, law, and rhetoric of
the ancients but also the theology of Christendom. Chrétien de Troyes proposed
that “pre-eminence in chivalry and learning once belonged to Greece” but has now
passed to France; see the prologue to Cligés, ll. ‒, Chrétien de Troyes,
Arthurian Romances, trans. W. W. Comfort (New York: Dutton, ), p. .
. Volker Hoffmann, “Donec totum impleat orbem: Symbolisme impérial au
temps de Henri II,” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de l’Art Française  ():
‒. The imperial ambitions of the Valois to resume the inheritance of Charle-
magne extended from François I’s  candidacy for the Imperial throne (which
spurred Charles V’s revenge at Pavia) to Henri II’s plan to rule Metz, Toul, and
Verdun as “Imperial Vicar.” See Zeller, Aspects de la politique française, pp. ‒.
. For historical discussions, see Le Roy Ladurie, Royal French State, pp.
‒; David Potter, A History of France, ‒ (New York: St. Martin’s Press,
), pp. ‒; and Frederic J. Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, ), pp. ‒; see also Kelley, Foundations, pp.
‒; and Salmon, Society in Crisis, pp. ‒.
. For Jean du Bellay’s politics between  and , see Dickson, Du Bel-
lay in Rome, pp. ‒. Joachim Du Bellay’s Gallican and evangelical sympathies
appear consonant with those of his uncle. They are politically pragmatic and doc-
trinally progressive but firmly opposed to the rigid theology of Calvinism, even as
the Gallican Church appeared headed for schism from Rome. In matters of belief
the poet inclined to some reformist positions on the workings of divine grace, but
he disdained radical reform that emphasized human depravity, and he despised the
hypocrisy of Calvin and his Geneva circle. Sonnet  of Les Regrets, “Je les ai vus,
Bizet, et si bien m’en souvient” ‘I saw them, Bizet, and so well I remember it,’ for
example, takes sharp aim at Calvin’s intolerance and the bigotry of his followers.
In matters of relationship between church and state Joachim Du Bellay clearly
aligned himself with the Gallican cause. See Gilbert Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré
(Paris: Gallimard, ), pp. ‒.
. For the rhetorical import of this figure, see Rebhorn, Emperor, pp. ‒.
. See Marie-Madeleine de La Garanderie, Christianisme et letters profanes


Notes to Pages ‒

(‒): Essai sur les mentalités des milieux intellectuels parisiens et sur les pensées
de Guillaume Budé,  vols. (Paris: Champion, ), .‒ and .‒; and
Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle, pp. ‒. For the relationship between ex-
amples and practical advice, see Hampton, Writing from History, pp. ‒.
. Lucian of Samosata, Works, ed. and trans. A. M. Harmon et al.,  vols., Loeb
Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ‒), . .
. The myth of the Gallic Hercules has a complicated evolution. In the Illus-
trations de Gaule et singularitéz de Troye (‒) Jean Lemaire de Belges had told
the story of the great Hercules of Libya, tenth king of Gaul. Drawing upon the
hero’s adventures in Annius of Viterbo’s Commentaria super Opera Diversorum
Auctorum (), which in turn depended upon Diodorus Siculus’s biography of
Hercules, Lemaire related the hero’s exploits in Spain and France. While passing
through France, this Hercules fathered Galathes, who gave his name to Gaul as
ancestor of all its people. Hercules thus figures as progenitor of the French royal
family, the mythic head of a ruling dynasty that traces its descent through Gallic
history. Contaminations of Lucian’s account became famous in France through
Geoffroy Tory’s translation of the Prolakia in Champfleury () and through its
inclusion in Andrea Alciati’s Emblemata (/). See Stephens, Giants in Those
Days, pp.  ff .,  ff . For transformations in the identity of France as personi-
fied by figures from Celtic and Germanic myth which supplement those from
Greco-Roman myth, see Godoffre, La révolution culturelle, pp. ‒.
. See Marie-Rose Logan, ed. and trans., “The Poetics of Persuasion: Guil-
laume Budé’s Commentary on the Digest, XI..,” Annals of Scholarship  ():
. For Budé’s achievement, see Marie-Rose Logan, “Writing the Self: Guillaume
Budé’s Poetics of Scholarship,” in Contending Kingdoms, ed. M.-R. Logan and Pe-
ter Rudnytsky (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, ), pp. ‒.

Five Totems for Defense

. For the emergence of a cultured nobility and bourgeoisie at such centers, see
Jouanna, La France du XVIe siècle, pp. ‒ and ‒; Jean-Marie Constant,
La société française aux XVI e XVII siècles (Gap: Ophrys, ), pp. ‒; and
Robert Harding, Anatomy of a Power Elite (New Haven: Yale University Press,
); see also Schalk, From Valor to Pedigree, pp. ‒ and ‒; Motley, Be-
coming a French Aristocrat, pp. ‒; Neuschel, Word of Honor, pp. ‒; for
aristocratic doubts about the moral underpinnings of its society as noble writers
contemplate social change and cultural contradiction after , generating mod-
ern ideas about the self, see Jonathan Dewald, Aristocratic Experience and the Ori-
gins of Modern Culture in France, ‒ (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), pp. ‒; for the aristocracy in the Bourbon monarchy, see Roland
Mousnier, The Institutions of France under the Absolute Monarchy, trans. Brian
Pierce,  vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), .‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. Baumgartner, Henry II, pp. ‒; for Du Bellay’s polemical misrepresenta-

tion of contemporary literary history, see Donald Stone Jr., Mellin de Saint-Gelais
and Literary History (Lexington, Ky.: French Forum, ), pp. ‒.
. The French case ending in changent permits either reading, but the sub-
junctive mood of the analogous tengano in Petrarch’s text implies that Du Bellay’s
verb is subjunctive.
. For the ideological and artistic opposition of Guillaume and Jean with at-
tention to the former’s open-minded contamination of lyric and romance which
generates its own need for revision and continuation, see David Hult, Self-Fulfilling
Prophecies: Readership and Authority in the First “Roman de la Rose” (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒.
. For Machaut’s pivotal role in fusing the courtly “I” with new concepts of
composition including the making of the codex and the business of patronage, see
Kevin Brownlee, Poetic Identity in Guillaume de Machaut (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, ), esp. pp. ‒. For conditions of performance in earlier
Troubadour poetry which encouraged efforts to fix texts and control circulation,
see Amelia Van Vleck, Memory and Re-Creation in Troubadour Lyric (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ), pp. ‒. For the evolution of a first-person
poetry from generalizing abstraction of the troubadours to the narrative theatri-
cality of later periods, see Michel Zink, The Invention of Literary Subjectivity, trans.
David Sices (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For poetry associated with la grande rhétorique, see Paul Zumthor, Le
masque et la lumière: Poétique des grands rhétoriqueurs (Paris: Seuil, ); and
François Rigolot, Le texte de la Renaissance (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒. For
associating the second rhetoric with verbal music, or rithmique, see Warner Forrest
Patterson, Three Centuries of French Poetic Theory: A Critical History of the Chief
Arts of Poetry in France, ‒,  vols. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, ), .‒ and .‒.
. For the movement from a performative oral poetics to a writerly textual po-
etics evidenced in the Roman’s careful planning and reception as a book, see Sylvia
Huot, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyrics and Lyrical
Narrative Poetry (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For
reworkings of the text by Gui de Mori, who accepted differences between Guil-
laume and Jean and added his own voice as a third author, and by an anonymous
“B remanier,” who aims to harmonize Jean’s voice with Guillaume’s, see Sylvia
Huot, The “Romance of the Rose” and Its Medieval Readers: Reception, Interpreta-
tion, Manuscript Transmission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), esp.
pp. ‒.
. Texts in Eric Hicks, Le débat sur le “Roman de la rose” (Paris: Champion,
), pp. ‒, with translations by Joseph L. Baird and John R. Kane, La
Querelle de la Rose: Letters and Documents (Chapel Hill: University of North Car-
olina Press, ), pp. ‒. For the development from a Querelle de Rose into a


Notes to Pages ‒

Querelle des femmes as grounded in humanist pedagogical training rather than in

gender polemics, and especially as a promotional event in the history of publish-
ing, see Floyd Gray, Gender, Rhetoric, and Print Culture in French Renaissance Writ-
ing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la rose, ed. Félix Lecoy,
 vols. (Paris: Champion, ‒).
. Quoted from Molinet’s preface in Romant de la rose moralisié cler et net
(; rpt., Geneva: Slatkine, ), biir (originally published in Paris, ; rpt.,
Lyon,  and Paris ). For Molinet’s allegorical scheme, see Rosmund Tuve,
Allegorical Imagery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒. For
its date of composition based on references to Philippe de Clève’s unmarried sta-
tus in , see Francis William Bourdillon, The Early Editions of the Roman de la
Rose (London: Chiswick, ), pp. , ‒; others argue for a date closer to
its publication in ; see Noel Dupire, Jean Molinet: La vie, les oeuvres (Paris:
Droz, ), pp. ‒; and Jean Devaux, Jean Molinet, Indiciare bourguignon
(Paris: Champion, ), pp. ‒, ‒, ‒, . For the tendency of
Molinet’s flamboyant style to complicate rather than clarify the allegorical resem-
blance between carnal and spiritual love, see Michael Randall, Building Resem-
blances: Analogical Imagery in the Early French Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quoted in Bernard Weinberg, ed., Critical Prefaces of the French Renaissance
(Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, ), p. . Marot subsequently
iterates his public purposes as a sort of cultural mission, “Pour laquelle chose
restituer en meilleur estat et plus expediente forme pour l’intelligence des lecteurs
et auditeurs” ‘To restore it to a better condition and more useful form for the com-
prehension of readers and listeners’ (Weinberg, ed., p. ). For discussion about
the extent to which the revision is Marot’s, see Philipp August Becker, “Clément
Marot und der Rosenroman,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatschrift  ():
‒; and Bernard Weinberg, “Guillaume Michel, dit de Tours, the Editor of
the  Roman de la Rose,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance  ():
‒. For Marot’s approval of allegorizing the Rose as a figure for Divine Sapi-
ence or Grace or the Virgin Mary, see Huot, “Romance of the Rose” and Its Read-
ers, pp. ‒.
. For various clienteles in the Parisian book trade, see Nancy Vickers, “The
Unauthored  Volume in Which Is Printed the Hecatomphile,” in Subject and
Object in Renaissance Culture, ed. Margreta de Grazia (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ), pp. ‒. For subsequent changes in production and
distribution during the Wars of Religion, see Henri-Jean Martin, The French Book:
Religion, Absolutism, and Readership, ‒, trans. Paul Saenger and Nadine
Saenger (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Stephen Nichols Jr., “Marot, Villon, and the Roman de la Rose: A Study
in the Language of Creation and Recreation,” Studies in Philology  ():
‒, and  (): ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For Marot one might consider the additional influence of cartographic
writing that inscribes new relations of individuals to space and to an emerging
sense of national identity; see Tom Conley, The Self-Made Map: Cartographic
Writing in Early Modern France (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
), pp. ‒.
. Les Oevvres de Françoys Villon de Paris, in Weinberg, Critical Prefaces, pp.
‒. For comparisons of inconsistencies between Marot’s revisions of the Rose
and of Villon, see Pauline M. Smith, Clément Marot, Poet of the French Renaissance
(London: Athlone, ); and C. A. Meyer, Clément Marot (Paris: Nizet, ),
pp. ‒. For an “aesthetics of return” implied in such revisions, with pleasure
found in vicissitudes of recognition, see Bernard Cerquiglini, In Praise of the Vari-
ant: A Critical History of Philology, trans. Betsy Wing (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. According to Defaux, Oeuvres poétiques, ., the poem was composed in
March –February  and was followed in Roffet’s edition of Salel by an epi-
gram of Mellin de Saint-Gelais. It was republished as number  in Marot’s Qua-
trième livre des epigrammes, printed at Poitiers in  by the brothers Jean et En-
guibert de Marnef.
. See Peter Rickard, La langue française au seizième siècle: Etude suivie de textes
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Zumthor, Le masque et la lumière, pp. ‒, for their social origins, im-
plying their “carrierères incertaines, tourmentes” under fickle patrons (p. ), and
pp. ‒, for an emphasis on the diversity of their practices. For dependence
upon patronage affecting creative powers in representing political concerns and for
the gradual emergence of strong authorial voices, especially Jean Marot and Jean
Lemaire, see Cynthia Jane Brown, Shaping of History and Poetry in Late Medieval
France: Propaganda and Artistic Expression in the Works of the Rhétoriqueurs (Birm-
ingham, Ala.: Summa Publications, ), esp. pp. ‒; for the decline in royal
patronage as generating an intensified authorial self-consciousness and reshaping
propagandistic modes into self-advertisement, see Cynthia Jane Brown, Poets, Pa-
trons, and Printers: Crisis of Authority in Late Medieval France (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Huges Salel, Oeuvres poétiques completes, ed. Howard H. Kalwoes (Geneva:
Droz, ), pp. ix.
. Alain Chartier and Jean Marot mapped a route that others followed. Born
at Bayeux around  but educated at the University of Paris, Chartier entered the
service of the dauphin (later Charles VII) at Bourges in . He became chanoine
(canon) of Paris in  and the dauphin’s secretary in . As poet and chroni-
cleer of the Hundred Years War, he fostered national sentiment and resistance
against England. See his pamphlet Quadrilogue invectif (), ed. E. Droz (Paris:
Champion, ). For Chartier’s poetry, see Poetical Works, ed. J. C. Laidlaw
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), with biographical and critical
study on pp. ‒. Jean Marot proved typical of this group in his social origins and


Notes to Pages ‒

service to the Crown. Born around  at Caen and employed at various noble
households for his rhetorical skills, he became secretary in  to Anne of Brit-
tany, widow of Charles VIII and wife of Louis XII; he later served Louis and his
successor François I as propagandist for their Italian expeditions, providing entree
for his son into the highest court society. Thus he celebrates Louis in La Blason de
foy as “le treschrestien roy, / Loys, XIIe, en triumphant au roy faulsée.” See Les deux
recueils Jehan Marot de Caen, ed. Gérard Defaux and Thierry Mantovani (Geneva:
Droz, ), pp. ‒ and ‒, quoted from p. .
. In truth they never considered themselves as members of a school, nor did
they ever refer to themselves as “rhétoriqueurs,” a term that the nineteenth-century
editor Charles d’Héricault took from Guillaume Coquillart’s Droit nouveaux (),
in which it refers to the sophistic skills of bureaucratic ministers of justice; d’Heri-
cault subsequently used it to describe Coquillart’s “école littéraire bourgeoise” char-
acterized by “les curieuses tournures, les gestes bizarres, les postures grotesques, les
habits extravagans,” in Les oeuvres poétiques de Guillaume Coquillart, ed. Charles
d’Héricault,  vols. (Paris: P. Jannet, ), .xii. For the rhetoric of “équivoque” as
a serious attempt to repair the breakdown ( fracture) of language through crafts-
manship (facture) of poetry, see François Cornilliat “Or ne mens”: Couleurs de
l’eloge et du blâme chez les ‘grands rhétoriqueurs’ (Paris: Honoré Champion, ),
pp. ‒; for the arbitrary nature of the sign implied in the biblical story of Babel
and affirmed by Aristotle as dominating sixteenth-century linguistic thought, see
Demonet, Les voix du signe, pp. ‒. For the importance of expressive layouts
and displayed rhyme that highlight formal features in early printed editions, see
Adrian Armstrong, Technique and Technology: Script, Print, and Poetics in France,
‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. Jean Meschinot (?–), son of a petit seigneur from Brittany, became
maitre d’hôtel for Anne of Brittany. Echoing the terminal gasps of feudal opposi-
tion to a centralized monarchy, he wrote Les Lunettes des princes (‒) as a
spokesman for the miserable populace against Louis XI’s efforts to control and
subdue the opposing nobility. See Christine Martineau-Genieys, Les Lunettes des
princes de Jean Meschinot (Geneva: Droz, ), with biographical and critical
study on pp. ix–cxxxvi. See in this macaronic text the poetic dialogue between
Louis XI and a personified France; formerly attributed to Charles d’Orléans, it is
assigned to Meschinot by Paul Zumthor:
—Or dy.—Je suy . . .—Qui?—La destruicte France.
—Par qui?—Par vous.—Comment?—En tous estats.
—Tu mens!—Non fay.—Qui le dit?—Ma souffrance.
(Zumthor ed., )
Octovien de Saint-Gelays (?–), a lesser nobleman from Cognac, served
at the courts of Louis XI, Charles VIII, and Louis XII, where he produced transla-
tions of Virgil and Ovid and other occasional poetry, including a panegyric for the
House of Valois entitled Le séjour d’Honneur (‒). In  Octovien took holy


 Note to Page 

orders to receive the bishopric of Angoulême. See Henri Joseph Molinier, Essai bi-
ographique et littéraire sur Octavien de Saint-Gelays (; rpt., Geneva: Slatkine,
). For Octovien’s efforts as one of the first published authors to secure privilege
for publication, see Elizabeth Armstrong, Before Copyright: The French Book Privi-
lege System, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Originating outside noble circles of the Ile-de-France were Georges
Chastellain, Jean Molinet, and Jean Lemaire de Belges. Each came from cities in
Hainault and served dukes of Burgundy, but, whether by anticipation or by subse-
quent reconstruction, each facilitated Burgundy’s absorption into France upon the
death of Charles the Bold in . Georges Chastellain (?–), born at Alost,
served Philip the Fair of Burgundy (d. ) and Charles the Bold ( ff.) as in-
diciaire, or official chronicler, of the House of Burgundy, reinforcing its connec-
tions with the Valois monarchy of France. See Georges Chastellain, Oeuvres, ed.
Kervyn de Lettenhove,  vols. (Brussels: Heussner, ‒). Jean Molinet (‒
), born at Boulogne-sur-Mer, succeeded Chastellain as indiciaire and upon
Charles the Bold’s death served the latter’s daughter Marie and her husband, Max-
imilian of Austria, urging them toward union with France; his Art de rhétorique
vulgaire codified some of the Rhétoriqueurs’ major tenets about the separation of
poetry from song and the beguilements of verse rhythm. Consider the ringing ex-
hortation in Le naufrage de la pucelle, written upon Charles’ death in :
Gentilz enfans, joindés vous avec France. . . .
Obéissiés à vostre roy;
Gens trébuchiés, temporissiés.
Recognoissiés le franc terroy
Dont vous issiés, recognoissiés.
(Zumthor, ed., )
Compare in L’arbre de Bourgogne () the Francophile version of the demise
of the House of Burgundy, “Qui, non content de son propre héritaige, / Gaigna la
mort par soy trop loing estendre” (Zumthor, ed., ; FD ). See Noel Dupire,
Jean Molinet: La vie, les oeuvres (Paris: Droz, ); and Jean Devaux, Jean Molinet:
Indiciaire bourguignon (Paris: Champion, ), pp. ‒. See also the
Chronique, ed. Georges Doutrepont and Omer Jodogne,  vols. (Brussels: L’A-
cadémie Royale de Belgique, ‒). Jean Lemaire de Belges (‒?), born
at Bavay, was Molinet’s godson and succeeded him as indiciaire for Marguerite
d’Autriche, the daughter of Marie and Maximilian; his immense compilation of
fact, fiction, myth, and legend about France, the Illustrations de Gaule at singular-
ités de Troye (‒), earned him an appointment at the court of Louis XII in ,
though he evidently fell out of favor with François I after . See J. Stécher, ed.,
Oeuvres de Jean Lemaire de Belges,  vols. (‒; rpt., Geneva: Slatkine, ),
.i–xciii; and Pierre Jodogne, Jean Lemaire de Belges, écrivain franco-bourguignon
(Brussels: Palais des Académies, ). An important factor in Louis XII’s recogni-
tion of Jean Lemaire was the latter’s commendation of the French language and its


Notes to Pages ‒

literature as superior to modern Tuscan and ancient Latin products in La Concorde

des deuz langaiges (): “Vostre hauteur de ce l’esjouira / Dedens brief temps: car
j’en voy les apprestz, / Dont un chacun vostre nom bénira” (Zumthor, ed., ).
For Chastellain’s and Lemaire’s efforts to secure privilege for publication, see Eliz-
abeth Armstrong, Before Copyright, pp. ‒.
. Other members of Marot’s pantheon served the church in various capaci-
ties. Arnoul Gréban (ca. ‒) became choirmaster of Notre Dame in Paris and
with his brother Simon wrote and produced mystery plays. Guillaume Coquillart
(‒), the archepiscopal bursar of Reims, wrote spiritual and satiric verse.
Guillaume Cretin (?–), cantor of Saint Chapelle, composed various patri-
otic poems including an unfinished versified Chronique françoise and a Ballade
contre le Pape Julius II (). For Arnoul Gréban, see Le Mystère de la Passion
(Angers, ), ed. Omer Jodigne (Gembloux: Duculot, ). For Guillaume Co-
quillart, see Oeuvres suivies d’oeuvres attribuées à l’auteur, ed. M. J. Freeman
(Geneva: Droz, ). For Cretin, see Kathleen Chesney, Oeuvres poétiques de
Guillaume Cretin (Paris: Slatkine Reprint, ).
. The map of France as Du Bellay knew it came into shape only after these po-
ets’ services to the Crown. The Orléanais of Jean de Meun, for example, did not pass
to the Crown until , nor did the Brittany of Jean Meschinot pass to the Crown
until . The Hainault of Molinet, Lemaire, and Chastellain, part of the feudal
domain controlled by the duke of Burgundy until , belonged to the House of
Hapsburg in Du Bellay’s time.
. For the concern of such new classes with the honorific privileges, public
precedence, and polite salutation that accompanied their rise in status, see
Jouanna, L’idée de race, pp. ‒ and ‒; Schalk From Valor to Pedigree, pp.
‒; Harding, Anatomy of a Power Elite pp. ‒; and Davis Bitton, French
Nobility in Crisis (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Marot’s involvement in Evangelism and efforts to establish a recogniz-
able and indelible style for voice as a mirror of the soul echoing Divine logos, see
Gérard Defaux, Marot, Rabelais, Montaigne: L’écriture comme présence (Paris:
Champion-Slatkine, ), pp. ‒; and Michael Screech, Marot évangélique
(Geneva: Droz, ). Marot’s most notable contribution to the reformist move-
ment was his translation of fifty Psalms (Geneva, , completed by Théodore de
Bèze in ), now available in a facsimile edition, Clément Marot and Théodore
de Bèze, Les Psaulmes en vers français avec leurs melodies, ed. Pierre Pidoux (Geneva:
Droz, ), with critical introduction on pp. ‒.
. For Marot’s relationship to Virgil, see C. A. Meyer, Clément Marot (Paris:
Nizet, ), pp. ‒; Pierre Jourda, Marot (Paris: Hatier, ), pp. ‒;
Smith, Clément Marot; and Robert Griffin, Clément Marot and the Inflections of
Poetic Voice (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Du Bellay’s attitude toward Marot at the time of sending the first Olive
to press, see Chamard, Histoire, .; and Marc Whitney, “Du Bellay in April,
: Continuum and Change,” French Review  (): ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. See Marot’s “Epistre à Madame de Soubize, partant de Ferrare pour s’en
venir en France,” with its nod to “Jan Le Maire Belgeois, / Qui l’ame avoit
d’Homere le Gregeois” (ll. ‒).
. Pierre Jodogne grounds the poem’s composition in  (published )
when Louis XI sought an alliance with Florence against the papacy; for Lemaire’s
antipathy to Petrarch’s amatory sentiment and his preferences for Jean de Meun’s
religious, moral, and historical orientation, see Jodogne, Jean Lemaire de Belges,
Ecrivain Franco-bourguignon (Brussels: Palais des Académies, ), pp. ‒.
For the loyalty of Lemaire, Gringoire, and Jean Marot to royal policy, see Cynthia
Brown, Shaping History and Poetry, pp. ‒.
. See the superb psychoanalytic and paraphonic study of Petrarchism as a site
of transcultural anxiety in Alan K. Smith, “Scopia: Visual and Oral Fantasies of Self-
Invention in La Concorde des deux langaiges,” in Repossessions: Psychoanalysis and the
Phantasms of Early Modern Culture, ed. Alan K. Smith and Timothy Murray (Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ), pp. ‒. For Lemaire’s writerly in-
vestment in his work, see Adrian Armstrong, Technique and Technology, pp. ‒.
. Quoted from La Concorde des deuz langaiges, ed. Jean Frappier (Paris: Droz,
). For the circumstances of its composition, see Jodogne, Jean Lemaire de
Belges, pp. ‒; Donald Stone, “Some Observations on the Text and Possible
Meanings of La Concorde,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et de Renaissance  ():
‒; and Jacques Abélard, “Les Illustrations de Gaule de Jean Lemaire de Belges:
Quelle Gaule? Quelle Nation?” Nouvelle Revue du Sezième Siècle  (): ‒.
. For the Rhétoriqueurs’ relatively anonymous forms of rhymed verse and
their gradual displacement by first-person forms typical of classical elegies, epi-
grams, and epistles, see Gray, Gender, Rhetoric, and Print Culture, pp. ‒.
. For the Rhétoriqueurs’ manipulations of visual form to convey their own
sense of self-identity, see Conley, Self-Made Map, pp. ‒. For their increasing
use of self-promotional strategies in appending dedicatory prefaces, see Brown,
Poets, Patrons, and Printers, pp. ‒.
. Clément Marot’s father, Jean Marot, for example, had shaped poems in the
form of rebuses in which the design of words on the page figures their meaning in re-
lation to space and sight. The typographical layout in the following lines, for example,
suppresses the prepositions sur, sous, and entre so that, where they should function in
compound forms, the root or affix appears above, below, or within the phrase:
De De(ssus) on (top of )
= =
l’honneur l’honneur the honor

And:
il pr, avoit, is = il avois (entre)pris = he ta, had, ken
(under)
= he had undertaken
(Zumthor, Anthologie, p. )


Notes to Pages ‒

For the Rhétoriqueurs’ self-conscious techniques reflecting their creative in-

vestment in textual production and their position as writers, see Adrian Arm-
strong, Technique and Technology, with attention to Molinet on pp. ‒ and
Lemaire on pp. ‒.
. For Marot’s purifying of genres, see Defaux’s introduction to Marot, Oeu-
vres poétiques. For patterns of graphic opening and circular closure which nonethe-
less impinge upon poetic, structural, and historical meanings in Marot, see Tom
Conley, The Graphic Unconscious in Early Modern French Writing (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and “A Late Spending of Rhé-
torique: Reading Marot ‘Par Contradictions,’” Esprit Créateur  (): ‒.
. For the Rhétoriqueurs’ repersonalizing of the lyric in direct contravention
to the depersonalized conventions of genre according to the Second Rhetoric, see
Rigolot, Le texte de la Renaissance, pp. ‒.
. In  Charles VIII had brought from Italy to France a dozen manuscripts
of the Trionfi and commissioned George de la Farge and Simon Bourgouyn to
translate them; Robertet based his poem upon these manuscripts; see Simone,
French Renaissance, pp. ‒. Its six nine-line stanzas convey the flavor of Pe-
trarch’s text, as in its rendering of the Triumph of Death:
Combien que l’omme soit chaste et tout pudicque
Les seurs fatalles par leur loy auctentique
Tranchent les nerfz et filletz de la vie;
A ce le Mort tous les vivans convie.
However chaste and modest a person might be, the fatal sisters by their inex-
orable law cut the spirit and the threads of life. To this, Death invites all living
persons. (Qtd. in Les six Triumphes de Petrarque, in Les oeuvres de Jean Robertet,
ed. C. M. Zsuppan [Geneva: Droz, ], p. )
For a similar exercise by Jean’s son François designed to be incorporated into ta-
pestry representations of the Petrarchan Triumphs, see C. A. Mayer and D. Bent-
ley-Cranch, “François Robertet: French Sixteenth-Century Civil Servant, Poet,
and Artist,” Renaissance Studies  (): ‒.
. Quoted from Le Parnasse satirique, in Zumthor, Anthologie, p. .
. Epistre XXVI, ll. ‒, in ., Defaux, ed.
. Epigram LXII in ., Defaux, ed., written before , first published by
Dolet in .
. Maurice Scève staged his “discovery” at Avignon to attract the king’s atten-
tion while the latter was at nearby Marseilles to welcome to France the arrival of
Catherine de’Medici as bride of the future Henri II. The event was is honored by
several Petrarchan poems in Les Fleurs de poésie (ed. François Brodeau, ); see
Defaux “Des poèmes oublis de Clément Marot: Le ‘Prince des poètes françoys’ et
Les Fleurs de Poésie de ,” Travaux de la littérature, :‒. For uses of Petrar-


 Notes to Page 

chan figuration at the courts of Louis XII and François I, see Anne-Marie Lecoq,
François I imaginaire (Paris: Macula, ), pp. ‒.
. See, for example, the Petrarchan contrarieties in his rondeau “Par contra-
dictions,” folded in with his absorption of a Rhétoriqueur-like equivocal rhyme of
desespere and tresprospere, the assonance and consonance of tourmentant and con-
tentant, and the internal phonic play of esperant, espoir, and desespere:
En esperant, Espoir me desespere,
Tant que la mort m’est vie tresprospere,
Me tourmentant de ce, qui me contente,
[Me contenant de ce, qui me tourmente,]
Pour la douleur de soulas que j’espere.
Amour hayneuse en aigreur me tempere:
Puis temperance aspre comme Vipere,
Me refroidist soubz chaleur vehemente,
En esperant.
Hope makes me despair in hoping; so that death constitutes a very kind life for
me, tormenting me with what contents me, contenting me with what torments
me for the suffering of the joy that I hope. Full of hatred, Love tempers me in
sourness; then temperance, sharp as a viper, chills me with a violent heat while
I hope.
For Marot’s sense of Petrarch mediated by the fifteenth-century Petrarchism of
Cariteo, Serafino, and others, see Mia Cocco, Tradizione cortese e il petrarchismo
nella poesia di Clément Marot (Florence: Olschki, ), esp. pp. ‒; see also
C. A. Meyer and D. Bentley-Cranch, “Clément Marot, poète pétrarquiste,” Bib-
liothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance  (): ‒; and Meyer, Clément Marot,
pp. ‒.
. For Marot’s evangelism, see Defaux, Marot, Rabelais, Monatigne, pp. ‒.
. Dates are offered by Defaux in his edition (.). Marot’s direct transla-
tions from Petrarch follow their originals with admirable closeness, though their
sestets incorporate a distinctive rhyme scheme—perhaps derived from Saint-
Gelais—beginning with a couplet ccdeed which Marot had devised for his sonnet
honoring Renée of France. See Cocco, Tradizione, p. . Weber speculates that
Marot translated Petrarch as early as , Création, p. . For Marot’s careful
choice of representative sonnets, see Sara Sturm-Maddox, Ronsard, Petrarch, and
the “Amours” (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ), p. .
. Both of these published sonnets reflect his passage through Lyon in
‒ en route to Fontainebleau from Italy. One sonnet, published in his Oeu-
vres of  and designated as epigram , celebrates the governor of Lyon, Pom-
ponio Trivulce, by comparing him to a planet or star that astrologically guides hu-
man conduct: “Au ciel n’y a ne planette ne signe” ‘There is neither planet nor star


Notes to Page 

in the heavens.’ Marot’s second Lyonnais sonnet, published in his Oeuvres of 
as epigram , deals with a literary topic. It addresses two young men who have
praised Marot’s poetry: “Adolescens qui la peine avez prise / De m’enrichir de loz
non merité” ‘Young men who have made an effort to endow me with unmerited
praise.’ The speaker suggests that they should instead direct their commendation
to someone else, cryptically named “Louise”: “Laissez moy là, et louez moy Loyse”
‘Leave me aside and praise Louise for me.’ Meyer suggests that the woman might
be Louise Labé: “C’est le doulx feu dont ma Muse est esprise” ‘She is the sweet fire
with whom my muse is captivated.’ In , while in Italy, he addressed a sonnet
to his protector, Renée of France, wife of Ercole d’Este, duke of Ferrara. Renée’s
power comes from her lineage, rooted in her genealogy and etymologically in-
scribed in the words race and racine: “O cueur sans fiel, o race d’excellence” ‘O
heart without malice, o race of excellence.’ Published posthumously in , it ap-
pears now in his Oeuvres as epigram . Yet another of Marot’s sonnets, not dis-
covered until , was surely unknown to Du Bellay. It sketches a comparison be-
tween François I and Charles V, all to the latter’s detriment.
. Marot entered her service in . Throughout the s Marguerite en-
couraged patriotic reform-minded work by Erasmians such as Lefevre d’Etaples,
Bishop Briçonnet, and Gérard Roussel, and in  she gave assylum to Jean
Calvin. See Pierre Jourda, Marguerite d’Angoulême, duchesse d’Alençon, reine de
Navarre,  vols. (Paris: Champion, ); André Winandy, “Piety and Humanistic
Symbolism in the Works of Marguerite,” Yale French Studies  (): ‒;
and Robert D. Cottrell, The Grammar of Silence: A Reading of Marguerite de
Navarre’s Poetry (Wadhington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, ),
pp. ‒.
. For revisions of national and political aims as a result of the Calvinists’ in-
creasing antiroyalism, see Nancy L. Roelker, One King, One Faith: The Parlement
of Paris and the Religious Reformations of the Sixteenth-Century (Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press, ), pp. ‒, for Parlement’s conservative constitu-
tional limitations on the king’s power; Dale Van Kely, The Religious Origins of the
French Revolution: From Calvinism to the Civil Constitution, ‒ (New
Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒; Le Roy Ladurie, Royal French State,
pp. ‒; Robert Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in
France, ‒ (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒; Quentin Skinner, The Founda-
tions of Modern Political Thought, vol. : The Age of Reformation (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Kelley, Beginning of Ideology,
pp. ‒. In the long run, of course, Calvin’s theory bent under the weight of
its prior claim that Divine Providence determines every outcome. According to
this logic, no system of human government, however strong or weak, wise or fool-
ish, just or unjust, could be anything but fallible. It might function only as an in-
strument of God’s will.
. Scripture provides a model in the magistracy of the twelve judges of an-
cient Israel, instituted “by the authority of the Lord himself ” (Institutes .;


 Notes to Pages ‒

.). For political implications in the administration of provincial France, where

Calvinism had some impact, see Le Roy Ladurie, French Peasantry, pp. ‒.
. See, for example, the nationalist tenor of Petrarchan figurations in The En-
try of Henry II into Paris,  June , ed. I. D. McFarlane (Binghamton, N.Y.:
Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. In the spirit of this ode the volume also presents original epigrams, odes,
chansons, blazons, and epitaphs, including ones addressed to Ronsard and Mellin
de Saint-Gelais. See Marcel Françon’s introduction and appendices to Les oeuvres
poétiques de Jacques Peletier du Mans, photo reproduction of Paris: Gilles Corrozet,
, ed. Françon (Rochecorbon, Indre et Loire: Charles Gay, ), pp. ‒ and
‒.
. See the editors’ introduction to the translation of Petrarch by Vasquin
Philieul, Laure d’Avignon, extraict du Poète florentin (), ed. Pierre Lartigue and
Jacques Roubaud (Paris: Actes Sud-Papiers, ). Philieul was born at Carpentras,
the town where Petrarch had been raised as a child.
. Quotations from Lartigue and Roubaud, Lavre d’Avignon.
. For the crisis between France and the papacy which reached its height in
, see Kelley, Foundations, pp. ‒. For the later emergence within France of
political divisions based on theological differences, see Ann W. Ramsey, Liturgy,
Politics, and Salvation: The Catholic League in Paris and the Nature of Catholic Re-
form (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, ), pp. ‒.

Six Illustrations of Taboo

. For Du Bellay’s deliberate positioning of poems about art at the center of the
sequence, see Richard A. Katz, The Ordered Text: The Sonnet Sequences of Du Bel-
lay (New York: Peter Lang, ), pp. ‒; for sonnet  as a meditation on
Olive’s excellence, see JoAnn DellaNeva, “Illustrating the Deffence: Imitation and
Perfection in Du Bellay’s Olive,” French Review  (): ‒; for Du Bellay’s
emphasis on art and craft over inspiration and furor, see Edwin M. Duval, “Wrest-
ing Petrarch’s Laurels: Scève, Du Bellay, and the Invention of the Canzoniere,” An-
nals of Scholarship  ().
. For identifications, see the detailed notes in Ernesta Caldarini, Olive.
. The first volume, edited by Lodovico Domenichi and printed at the press of
Gabriel Giolito in Venice, appeared in  with the title Rime Diverse di molti ec-
cellentissimi Autori nvovamente raccolte; it opens with a selection of sixteen sonnets
and one canzone by Pietro Bembo as models for those that follow. The second vol-
ume, edited by Giolito himself, appeared in  and follows a similar format.
Other volumes adopting Giolito’s format but not always published by him include
volume , edited by Andrea Arrivabene and printed by Bartolomeo Casano at
Venice in ; volume , edited by Ercole Bottrigari and printed at Bologna by
Anselm Giaccarello in ; volume  (actually the sixth volume in order of publi-


Notes to Pages ‒

cation), edited by Lodovico Dolce and printed by Giolito at Venice in ; vol-
ume  (actually the fifth volume in order of publication), edited by Arrivabene
with a discourse by Girolamo Ruscelli, printed by Degno del Pozzo at Venice in
; volume , explicitly focused on Neapolitan poets, Rime di diversi signori
napolletani, e d’altri, edited by Ludovico Dolce and printed by Giolito at Venice in
; and volume  (actually the eighth volume; there is no volume  formally des-
ignated as such), edited and printed by Vincenzo Conti at Cremona in . See
Louise George Clubb and William G. Clubb, “Building a Lyric Canon: Gabriel
Giolito and the Rival Anthologists, ‒,” Italica  (): ‒; and
JoAnn DellaNeva, “Variations in a Minor Key: Du Bellay’s Imitations of the
Giolito Anthology Poets,” French Forum  (): ‒. A volume devoted to
women’s poetry, titled Rime diverse d’alcune nobilissime et virtuosissime donne, ap-
peared at Venice in . For other anthologies devoted to women’s poetry, see
Amedeo Quondam, Petrarchismo mediato: Per una critica della forma antologia
(Rome: Bulzoni, ), pp. ‒.
. The Treaty of Crépy (September ) signaled a high point in Charles V’s
hold over northern Italy even as it nominally addressed Charles’s French and Ger-
man problem. Throughout the s Charles tried to secure the German nobility’s
allegiance to the Hapsburgs, a goal that he could reach only by undoing Lutheran
sympathies that had fused German princes in such blocs as the Schmalkaldic
League. After the abortive Diet of Regensburg in , Charles resolved to use
force. To prevent François I from aiding the Protestants, he attacked France in
. At Crépy he agreed to generous terms that would neutralize France by ced-
ing Milan as a dowry to the duc d’Orléans. By awarding Parma and Piacenza to
the pope’s nephew in May , he later pressured Pope Paul III to call a general
council at Trent in order to end the theological conflict. See Lynch, Spain,
‒, pp. ‒.
. See, for example, the sonnet in praise of Rome as a patriotic center by Bal-
dassare Castiglione, “Superbi colli, e voi sacre ruine” (.).
. For Diego’s extraordinary career as imperial ambassador and papal legate,
see Erika Spivakovsky, Son of the Alhambra: Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza,
‒ (Austin: University of Texas Press, ), pp. ‒. Diego was a friend
of Boscán, and he wrote a volume of poetry published posthumously at Madrid in
; he is also a contender for the authorship of Lazarillo de Tormes, published in
; see Spivakovsky, Son of the Alhambra, pp. ‒.
. A good example is a sonnet by Giulio Camillo Delminio which exemplifies
the volume’s iconoclasm. The poem celebrates Gian Matteo Giberti (‒),
the papal datary of Pope Clement VII:
Tu, che secondo l’alta Roma honora;
Sol coglier puoi per quelle riue ombrose
Le piu fresche uiole, & dilettose
Nate ad un parto con la bella Aurora.


 Notes to Pages ‒

You, whom high Rome honors as second in esteem, alone can gather on these
shady banks the freshest and most delightful violets delivered in their birth
with beautiful Dawn.
A brilliant humanist and a no less astute politician, Giberti formulated a pol-
icy of resistance to Charles V’s Italian plans which the papacy failed to heed. De-
moralized after the Sack of Rome in , he left the papal court and attended to
spiritual reform in his bishopric of Verona, hospitable to progressive religious
views that Charles and later Pope Paul III despised. See Adriano Prosperi, Tra
evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (Rome: Liguori, ); and Peter Part-
ner, Renaissance Rome: ‒ (Berkeley: University of California Press, ),
pp. ‒ and .
. For Du Bellay’s ambiguous attitude, see V. L. Saulnier, Du Bellay, l’homme
et l’oeuvre (Paris: Boivin, ), pp. ‒.
. For the native genius of the French vernacular used by Marot and before
him by the Rhétoriqueurs and late Medièval poets to effect a bond among social
orders, a bond undone by Du Bellay’s anxiety about the distance between ancient
and modern, see Marc Fumaroli, “The Genius of the French Language”, in Realms
of Memory, ed. Nora, . ‒, especially pp. ‒.
. Peter Rickard, A History of the French Language (London: Routledge,
), pp. ‒. For the role of rhetoric and poetics in canonizing this standard,
see Mireille Huchon, Français de la Renaissance (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, ), pp. ‒.
. For the confluence of economic and cultural influences in defining a na-
tional identity, see John McGovern, “The Rise of New Economic Attitudes: Eco-
nomic Humanism, Economic Nationalism during the Later Middle Ages and the
Renaissance,” Traditio  (): ‒. For the urban culture of Paris and other
regional centers, see Muchembled, Popular Culture and Elite Culture, pp. ‒;
and Huppert, Style of Paris, pp. ‒.
. Rickard, History, pp. ‒; and Henriette Walter, French Inside Out, trans.
Peter Fawcett (London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒. For Rabelais’s contempora-
neous representation of vernacular dialects as destroying Christendom’s unity even
while they created new forms of national community, see Hampton, Literature
and Nation, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Walther von Wartburg, Evolution et structure de la langue française
(Berne: Franke, ), pp. ‒. For artificial interventions by humanists to
force the development of the language, see Michel Jeanneret, Perpetual Motion:
Transforming Shapes in the Renaissance from da Vinci to Montaigne, trans. Nidra
Poller (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Meigret and Du Bellay, see Yves Citton and André Wyss, Les doctrines
orthographiques du XVIe siècle en France (Geneva: Droz: ), pp. ‒; Nina
Catach, L’orthographe française à l’époque de la Renaissance (Geneva: Droz, ),
pp. ‒; Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la langue française, vol. : Le seizième siè-


Notes to Pages ‒

cle (Paris: Armand Colin, ), .‒, ‒; and Rickard, History, pp. ‒.
For Palsgrave, see Sven Gösta Neumann, Recherches sur le français des XVe et XVIe
siècles (Lund: Gleerup, ), pp. ‒. Other orthographical reforms came from
Thomas Sebillet (L’art poetique françoeze, ), Pierre de Ronsard, Jacques Peletier
du Mans (Dialogue de l’ortografe, ), Pierre de Rammé (Petrus Ramus) (Gram-
mère, ), and Jean Antoine de Baif (Entrénes de poézie fransoeze, ). At the
opposite extreme Guillaume des Autels initiated a movement to change pronun-
ciation so as to match normative spelling.
. B. L. Ullman, Ancient Writing and Its Influence (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, ), pp. ‒. For example, to feue, which could be understood as
either feue (fire) or feve (fever), scribes added an etymological b (corresponding to the
b of Latin faba) to compose febve (fever). See Walter, French Inside Out, pp. ‒.
. It sustained seven different languages and a host of dialects and patois: three
largely non-Romance languages at the northern frontiers with Germanic, Dutch,
and Flemish elements; Gallo-Celtic Breton in the west; and non-Indo-European
Basque in the southwest. In the center of France the two major oc and oil forms of
French subdivided into Provençal, Languedocien, Gascon, Bearais, Limousin, and
Auvergnat in the south and Normand, Picard, Bourguignon, Bourbonnais, Cham-
penois, Berrichon, Orléanais, Tourangeau, Angevin, and Francien in the north,
with the dialects of Poitou and Saintonge on the border between north and south.
. For the variety of dialects in sixteenth-century French and for the role of
the Protestant Reformation in stabilizing their number, see Marie-Madeleine Frag-
onard and Eliane Kotler, Introduction à la langue du XVIe siècle (Paris: Nathan,
), pp. ‒ and ‒. In  Ronsard and in  Henri Estienne compared
French dialects favorably to Italian ones on the grounds that French speakers freely
mix and conjoin their variant forms in order to understand one another, whereas
Italian speakers do not; see Brunot, Histoire, pp. ‒.
. Rickard, La langue française, p. . For Tory’s effort to map the French lan-
guage upon a national and historically founded space that charts new relations be-
tween the subject and the world, see Conley, Self-Made Map, pp. ‒.
. Brunot, Histoire, .‒.
. Preface “au Lecteur” to his translation of “L’art poétique d’Horace” ()
in Rickard, La langue française, p. . For sixteenth-century debates on orthogra-
phy and syntax, see Catach, L’orthographie, pp. ‒; Huchon, Le français de la
Renaissance, pp. ‒; and Fragonard and Kotler, Introduction, pp. ‒. For
contested theories of language as natural (based on Plato’s Cratylus) or conven-
tional (based on the biblical myth of Babel, reinforced by St. Augustine and
Scholasticism) within which Du Bellay situates his idea of language as a product
of fantasie (Deffence .) and arbitrary convention (.), see Demonet, esp. pp.
‒ and ‒.
. For Héroët’s lineage and education, see the biography by Colletet in Oeu-
vres poétiques, ed. Ferdinand Gohin, Société des Textes Françises Modernes (Paris:
Cornély, ), pp. vii–xliv.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. Composed and circulated in manuscripts at court in , collected, pub-

lished, and republished in a single volume edited by Jean de Tournes at Lyon in
 and , Opuscules d’Amour, par Heroet, la Borderie, et autres divins poetes.
Quotations from Ferdinand Gohin, ed.
. See James V. Mirollo, Mannerism and Renaissance Poetry: Concept, Mode,
Inner Design (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Elizabeth
Cropper, “On Beautiful Women: Parmigianino, Petrarchismo, and the Vernacular
Style,” Art Bulletin  (): ‒. For Cellini’s poetry, see Margaret Galluci, “A
New Look at Benuvenuto Cellini’s Poetry,” Forum Italicum  (): ‒. But,
for the intellectual sophistication of Fontainebleau as evidenced by its library and
other cultural trappings, see Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle, pp. ‒, esp. pp.
‒.
. Quotations from Opere toscane di Lvigi Alamanni al Christianissimo rè
Francesco Primo,  vols. (Lyon: Sebastian Gryphius, ‒), in which the sonnets
appear in vol. , pp. ‒, and vol. , pp. ‒.
. Benvenuto Cellini, invited to Fontainebleau a decade later but with no toler-
ance for Petrarchan gravity, describes how Alamanni set the tone for his poetry with
his sheer physical elegance “since he was very handsome, had a well-proportioned
body, and spoke with a charming voice,” in The Autobiography of Benvenuto
Cellini, trans. George Bull (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ), p. . For Cellini’s
aversion to Petrarch and endorsement of Dante, see Galluci, “New Look”; Bruno
Maier, “Le rime di Benvenuto Cellini,” Annali Triestini  (): ‒; and
Deborah Parker, Bronzino’s Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
), pp. ‒. For the largesse of François I who was pleased by Alamanni’s
translation of one of his sonnets into Italian and for possible influences of Ala-
manni’s classicism on early Pléiade theory, see Henri Hauvette, Un exilé florentin
à la cour de France au XVIe siècle (Paris: Hachette, ), pp. ‒, ‒.
. These lines in the Recueil follow upon Du Bellay’s praise for the melliflu-
ous qualities of Saint-Gelais’s verse in a series of Marotic puns on his name:
“Mellin, tes vers emmiels / Qui aussi doulx que ton nom coulent, / Au nectar des
Muses meslez / L’honneur de tous les autres foulent” ‘Mellin, your honeyed verses
which flow as sweetly as your name, mixed with the nectar of the muses, crush the
honor of all others’ (ode .‒).
. For Saint-Gelais’s experiments in the epigram as leading toward stanzaic
verse without repeated rhymes and toward a disparagement of medieval fixed
forms, see Donald Stone Jr., Saint-Gelais and Literary History, pp. ‒. For
Marot’s experiments with French epigram, see Mayer, Marot, pp. ‒; and
Gérard Defaux’s introduction to his edition, : xxi–xxiv. For Du Bellay’s defense
of the sonnet form as superior to the epigram based upon evaluations of their re-
spective topical matters, see François Rigolot, “Le sonnet et l’epigramme, ou: L’en-
jeu de la ‘superscription,’ ” in Pre-Pléiade Poetry, ed. Jerry Nash (Lexington Ky.:
French Forum, ), pp. ‒.
. See Mellin de Saint-Gelais, Oeuvres poétiques françaises, ed. Donald Stone


Notes to Pages ‒

Jr.,  vols. (Paris: Société des Textes Français Modernes, ), pp. ix–xxvii; of the
twenty-two extant sonnets, Stone dates twelve between ‒, of which seven
were published before , including one in La fleur (#) and one in the Oeuvres
of  (#): ‒. Quotations from Stone, ed.
. C. A. Mayer, “Le premier sonnet français,” Revue d’Histoire Littéraire
Française  (): ‒.
. Mellin de Saint-Gelais, Sonnets, ed. Luigia Zilli (Geneva: Droz, ), pp.
xiii–xvii and ‒.
. For Scève’s relationship to Petrarch, see Joann DellaNeva, Song and Coun-
tersong: Scève’s “Délie”; and Petrarch’s Rime (Lexington, Ky.: French Forum, );
Deborah Lesko Baker, Narcissus and the Lover: Mythic Recovery and Reinvention in
Scève’s “Délie” (Saratoga, Calif.: Anma, ); and Jerry C. Nash, The Love Aes-
thetics of Maurice Scève: Poetry and Struggle (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ).
. See Timothy Hampton, “Criticism in the City: Lyons and Paris,” in Cam-
bridge History of Literary Criticism, ed. Glyn Norton, vol. : The Renaissance
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the social impact
of commerce on the hierarchy of elites, see Richard Gascon, Grand commerce et vie
urbaine au XVIe siècle: Lyon et ses marchands (environs de ‒),  vols. (The
Hague: Mouton, ), .‒; Jacqueline Boucher, Présence italienne à Lyon à
la Renaissance (Lyon: LUGD, ), pp. ‒; and Roger Doucet, “Le XVIe siè-
cle à Lyon,” in Histoire de Lyon, ed. Arthur Jean Kleinclausz,  vols. (Lyon: Pierre
Masson, ‒), .‒.
. The “discovery” was not really a discovery. In a note in his edition of Vir-
gil, Petrarch cites Laura’s burial place in the charterhouse of the Brothers’ Minor
at Avignon. Bucolicum Carmen figures this site (“Ille locus tua damna tegit” ‘That
place shelters your loss’), and Benvenuto da Imola’s fourteenth-century commen-
tary identifies it “hac parte . . . fratruum minorum” ‘in this plot of the Brothers’
Minor.’ See Antonio Avena, Il Bucolicum carmen e i suoi commenti (Padua: Società
Cooperativa Tipografica, ), pp. ‒. The first published account of Scève’s
discovery occurs in Jean de Tournes’s preface to his edition of Petrarch’s Rime
sparse published at Lyon in  on the eve of Henri II’s coronation and of Scève’s
preparations for the spectacle of the king’s entry into the city. See Verdun L.
Saulnier, Maurice Scève,  vols. (Paris: Klincksieck, ), .‒; and Olivier Mil-
let, “Le tombeau de la morte et la voix du poète: La mémoire de Pétrarque en
France autour de ,” in Regards sur la poésie dans l’Europe des XVIe–XVIIe siècles
(Bern: Lang, ), pp. ‒.
. See, for example, dizains ‒, , , and .
. See Thomas M. Greene, “Styles of Experience in Scève’s Délie,” Yale French
Studies  (): ‒; and William J. Kennedy, “The Unbound Turns of Mau-
rice Scève,” in Creative Imitation, ed. David Quint (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval
and Renaissance Texts and Studies, ), pp. ‒.
. For the publication of Délie, see Chamard Histoire . and .. For


 Notes to Pages ‒

echoes from the Roman de la rose, see dizains , , , , and . For echoes
from Lemaire, see dizain . The preponderance of Scève’s echoes are Italian:
from Petrarch, of course, and from Dante (dizain ), Sannazaro (dizain ), Ser-
afino (dizains  and ), Cariteo (dizains  and ), Bembo (dizains  and
), Vittoria Colonna (dizains  and ), and Sperone Speroni (dizains ‒).
. The rhyme of  dizains in Délie repeats this scheme, and Du Bellay in
turn uses it in his epigram to Marot printed at the end of the Vers lyriques.
. See Doranne Fenoaltea, “Scève’s Délie and Marot: A Study of Intertextual-
ities,” in Pre-Pléiade Poetry, ed. Jerry Nash (Lexington, Ky.: French Forum, ),
pp. ‒; and François Rigolot, “L’intertexte Scèvien: Pétrarque et Marot,”
CAIEF  (): ‒.
. See JoAnn DellaNeva, “Du Bellay: Reader of Scève, Reader of Petrarch,”
Romanic Review  (): ‒.
. See, for example, “L’obscure nuyt de ma triste pensée” ‘The obscure night
of my sad thought’ (Olive ), echoing “Fuyant la nuict de ma pensée obscure”
‘fleeing the night of my dark thought’ (Délie ); “J’abisme au fond de l’eternelle
nuit” ‘I sink to the bottom of eternal night’ (Olive ), evoking “Je m’appercoy la
memoire abismée” ‘I feel my memory engulfed’ (Délie ); and “Ainsi la nuit tes
baisers favorise” ‘This night favors your kisses’ (Olive ), evoking “Comme la
lune aux amants favorise” ‘As the moon is favorable to lovers’ (Délie ). Other
echoes inhabit O  > D , O  > D , O  > D , O  > D , O  > D
, O  > D , O  > D . For Du Bellay’s cordial relationship with Scève
at Lyons in ‒, see Enzo Giudici, “Du Bellay et l’école lyonnaise,” Esprit
Créateur  (): ‒; and Josiane Rieu, L’esthétique de Du Bellay (Paris:
SEDES, ), pp. ‒.
. For efforts similar to Du Bellay’s by other French writers appreciative of
Italian achievements but rivalrously seeking to overgo them, see Jean Balsamo, Les
rencontres des muses: Italianisme et anti-italiansime dans les lettres françaises de la fin
du XVIe siècle (Geneva: Slatkine, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For the dialectical
relationship of various voices and lyric forms to Du Bellay’s anxiety about his lim-
inal position between France and Italy, see Hampton, Literature and Nation, pp.
‒.
. See Floyd Gray, La poétique de Du Bellay (Paris: Nizet, ), pp. ‒, for
an intertextuality that refuses blind passion, a “poétique d’anonymat” that domi-
nates instead of surrendering to furor. For Du Bellay’s fascination with writing in
a difficult style in Olive, see Saulnier, Du Bellay, pp. ‒.
. For its calendrical structure compared with that of Spenser’s Amoretti, see
Anne Lake Prescott, “Spenser (Re)Reading du Bellay: Chronology and Literary
Response,” in Spenser’s Life and the Subject of Biography, ed. Judith H. Anderson,
Donald Cheney, and David Richardson (Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Press, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. I quote from Veronica Gambara, Le rime, ed. Alan Bullock (Florence:
Olschki, ), pp. ‒. For Gambara’s cultural and political relationship to the


Notes to Pages ‒

reformist movement in Italy, see Antonia Chimenti, Veronica Gambara, gentil-

donna del rinascimento: Un intreccio di poesia e storia (Reggio Emilia: Magis, ),
pp. ‒; and Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. Leo Spitzer’s masterly analysis, “The Poetic Treatment of a Platonic-Christian
Theme,” Comparative Literature  (): ‒, shows how its rhythmic organ-
ization inscribes a net of correspondences around the soul’s ascent toward the Pla-
tonic Idea, while its anaphorical repetitions condense a host of scriptural and
philosophical topoi. Roman Jakobson’s contrasting analysis in Questions de la poé-
tique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, ), pp. ‒, shows how its syntactic subtleties
sharpen the polarity of otherworldly and terrestrial oppositions. For the preteri-
tional turn that enables one to say what has conditionally been termed inexpress-
ible, see Philip E. Lewis, Turns of Mind: Seeing through the Mother Goose Tales
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See the lines from Héroët’s L’androgyne; and Saint-Gelais’s sonnet , p.
xxxxx.
. Du Bellay visited him at Lyon in May  and October ; see Les Re-
grets . Tyard took holy orders and in  became canon of the cathedral of Mâ-
con, where he devoted himself to study and publication. In  he was named
aumônier of Henri III and in  bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône. See Silvio Baridon,
Pontus de Tyard (‒) (Milan: Viscontea, ), pp. ‒ and .
. For dates of their respective publications, see Chamard, Histoire, .‒,
.‒, and .‒.
. In his preface to the edition of  Tyard refers to “le fil de ceste longue
continuation commencée il ya trente ans” ‘the thread of this longue continuation
begun thirty years ago’ (p. ), implying its inception in . The volume’s dedi-
catory sonnet to Maurice Scève assures the latter that “tu y pourras recongnoitre la
flame” ‘here you will be able to recognize the flame of love.’
. See Eva Kushner, “Le système symbolique dans la poétique de Pontus de
Tyard,” Saggi e Ricerche della Letteratura Francese  (): ‒. For comparisons
between Du Bellay and Tyard, see Robert V. Merrill, The Platonism of Joachim Du
Bellay (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For Tyard’s poetic “errance” as a topos that replaces Petrarch’s moral errancy,
see Jean-Claude Carron, Discours de l’errance amoureuse (Paris: J. Vrin, ), pp.
‒ and ‒. For Du Bellay’s adaption of Platonic love to Christian concepts
of heavenly love with Augustinian overtones, see Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré,
pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For reciprocal influences of Olive and the Erreurs on each other and of the
Erreurs on Sonnets d’honneste amour, see Baridon, Pontus de Tyard, pp. ‒ and
‒. For Neoplatonic influences on both poets, see Robert V. Merrill and
Robert J. Clements, Platonism in French Renaissance Poetry (New York: New York
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See George Hugo Tucker, The Poet’s Odyssey (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
), pp. ‒; and Guy Demerson, “Le Songe de Joachim Du Bellay et les sens


 Notes to Pages ‒

des recueils romains,” in Le Songe à la Renaissance, ed. Françoise Charpentier

(Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, ), pp. ‒.
Demerson relates Les Antiquitez de Rome and Songe to Les Regrets as the prelude to
an extended Petrarchan sequence that embraces all these sequences in depicting
the ruins of ancient Rome (Les Antiquites de Rome), the depravities of the Holy
Roman Empire (Songe), and lost ideals in modern Italy and France (Les Regrets).
. See Ellen Zetzel Lambert, Placing Sorrow (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, ), pp. ‒, for the adaptation of the classical elegy
into French by Marot, Scève, and Ronsard.
. See Wayne Rebhorn, “Du Bellay’s Imperial Mistress: Les Antiquitez de
Rome as Petrarchist Sonnet Sequence,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒; for
Rome as a female figuration threatening impotence, see Margaret Ferguson, “The
Afflatus of Ruin,” Roman Images: Selected Papers of the English Institute, ed.
Annabel Patterson (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Charles’s imperial trappings, see Anthony Pagden, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. See Julia Conway Bondanella, Petrarch’s Visions and Their Renaissance Ana-
logues (Madrid: José Porrùa Turanzas, ). For Du Bellay’s retrospective use of
the myth of chaos to figure contemporary events in a universal perspective here
and in Les Antiquitez, see Jeanneret, Perpetual Motion, pp. ‒.
. For a reading of Songe as a sequence of sonnets narrating this history with
a Gallican critique of dangers attendant upon it, see Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré,
pp. ‒. For Du Bellay’s courage in the face of ethical shabbiness and the pil-
laging of antiquity around him, see Greene, Light in Troy, pp. ‒.
. See Charles Béné, “Des visions de Pétrarque au Songe de Du Bellay,”
Recherches et Travaux de l’Université de Grenoble  (): ‒; for a reading of
Songe as a formal puzzle, see Michael Riffaterre, “Le tissu du texte: Du Bellay’s
Songe,” Poétique  (): ‒; for its preoccupation with religion, satire, and
personal statement which later poets would develop, see Yvonne Bellenger, La
Pléiade (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, ), pp. ‒.

Seven Mon semblable, mon frère

. For Du Bellay’s expression of triumph over adversity in writing poetry as op-
posed to Ronsard’s facility, see Gray, La poétique de Du Bellay, pp. ‒ and
‒; and Weber, Création, pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒. For comparisons of
Du Bellay’s later poetry with Ronsard’s, see Josiane Rieu, L’esthétique de Du Bellay
(Paris: SEDES, ), pp. ‒; and Tucker, Poet’s Odyssey, pp. ‒. For Ron-
sard’s early adversarial relationship with Du Bellay based on a comparison of Ron-
sard’s imitations of Ariosto with those by Du Bellay, see JoAnn DellaNeva,
“Teaching Du Bellay a Lesson: Ronsard’s Rewriting of Ariosto’s Sonnets,” French
Forum  (): ‒. For their poetic rivalry as registered in Les Regrets, see
Marc Bizer, Les lettres romaines de Du Bellay (Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université
de Montréal, ), pp. ‒.

Notes to Pages ‒

. Chamard, Du Bellay, pp. ‒. See the preface to the Recueil de Poésie (
November ) with its sense of gloom about his prospects for support and inti-
mations of a family crisis that would be worsened by the death of his brother René
the following year and legal battles that it initiated with the latter’s heirs.
. For a fine analysis of this opening poem, see Sara Sturm-Maddox, Ronsard, Pe-
trarch, and the “Amours” (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ), pp. ‒.
. For Ronsard’s similarities with and differences from Du Bellay concerning
the creation of a national poetic language, see Isidore Silver, The Intellectual Evo-
lution of Ronsard, II: Ronsard’s General Theory of Poetry (St. Louis: Washington
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Lines ‒; quotation from Poemata, ed. Geneviève Demerson, vol.  of
Joachim Du Bellay, Oeuvres, gen. ed. Henri Chamard, Société de Textes Littéraires
Français (Paris: Nizet, ); translation in Nichols, ed. Anthology of Neo-Latin Po-
etry. For Du Bellay’s artistry in Latin verse, see Bizer, Poésie au miroir, pp. ‒.
. For Ronsard’s fantasies of escape from Petrarch, see Greene, Light in Troy,
pp. ‒. For the impression in Ronsard’s early poetry of errant verbal ana-
grams breaking the symmetries of fixed forms with dispersive energies, see Conley,
Graphic Unconscious, pp. ‒.
. For the alleged preeminence of France in music, see Larner, Culture and So-
ciety in Italy, pp. ‒; and Howard Mayer Brown, Music in the Renaissance (En-
glewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, ), pp. ‒; and Leeman L. Perkins,
Music in the Age of the Renaissance (New York: W. W. Norton, ), pp. ‒
and ‒.
. Quotations from Ronsard, Oeuvres complètes, ed. Paul Laumonier,  vols.,
th ed. (Paris: Nizet-Didier, ‒), .‒. Besides poems addressed to Du
Bellay in Odes ., ., ., ., and ., the volume addresses poems about tech-
nical poetic skill to such poets as Jacques Bouju (.), Jean Dorat (.), Jean An-
toine de Baif (.), Jean Martin (.), Guillaume Des Autels (.), Denys Lam-
bin (.), and Maclou de la Haie (.).
. Laumonier, ed., .. For Ronsard’s oral performance of his Odes at
Fontainebleau, where he subsequently incurred the enmity of his rivals, see
Gadoffre, La révolution culturelle, pp. ‒.
. Laumonier, ed., ..
. Laumonier, ed., .. This poem first appeared in Les Amours () and
was incorporated into Les Odes . in .
. Quotations from Weber, ed.
. Laumonier, ed., ..
. Laumonier, ed., ..
. For Ronsard’s pursuit of high patronage and poetic enrichment, see Desan,
L’Imaginaire économique, pp. ‒. For schemes of imbrication in the Odes
which suggest Ronsard’s effort to fashion a cultural program fulfilling Du Bellay’s
Deffence, see Doranne Fenoaltea, Du palais au jardin: L’architecture des Odes de
Ronsard (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For the topos of the ship of state in Petrarch’s sonnet  and its later imi-
tations, see Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. Ronsard’s subsequent Continuation du discours (also ) likewise attacks
Calvinist arrogance and pride, while his Remonstrance and Response aux injures
(both ) defend Catholic orthodoxy; see Francis Higman, “Ronsard’s Political
and Polemical Poetry,” in Ronsard the Poet, ed. Terence Cave (London: Methuen,
), pp. ‒. Ronsard’s earlier Exhortation au camp du roy pour bien combatre
and his Exhortation pour paix (), anticipating the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis,
express conventional Erasmian sentiments about peace; see James Hutton, Essays
on Renaissance Poetry, ed. Rita Guerlac (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp.
‒. Du Bellay’s contributions to these genres shortly before his death were his
prose Ample discours au roy sur le faict des quatre estats de royaume de France and his
Latin poem Xenia.
. “Appeal to the Ruling Class,” in Luther, Selections, p. .
. For the complicated differences between Gallican evangelical movement,
which supported moderate reform, and the Ultramontane Papist faction, which
urged unqualified adherence to Rome, and between both these groups and the
radical reform of Luther or Calvin, see Salmon, Crisis, pp. ‒; and Baumgart-
ner, France in the Sixteenth Century, pp. ‒. For Du Bellay’s Gallicanism and
evangelism in opposition to Calvinism and ultramontane Catholicism, see
Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré, pp. ‒.
. See Baumgarten, Henry II, pp. ‒; Knecht, Francis I, pp. ‒; Pot-
ter, History of France, pp. ‒ and ‒; Le Roy Ladurie, Royal French State,
pp. ‒.
. For Ronsard’s movement from academic classicism to civic humanism and
finally, through the pressures of religious dispute, to courtly culture, see Daniel
Ménager, Ronsard: Le roy, le poète, et les hommes (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒.
For his pursuit of princely favor as an extreme version of condign dependence ear-
lier expressed by Marot, see Ulrich Langer, Divine and Poetic Freedom in the Re-
naissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Cf., for example, Aurora’s lament for Memnon in Ovid’s Metamorphoses:
“ille color, quo matutina rubescunt tempora” ‘those bright hues by which morn-
ing skies flush rosy red’ (.).
. For Ronsard’s profound faith in cosmic energy strengthened by his intuition
of Ovidian flux and evidenced in his representation of labyrinthine dances through-
out his oeuvre, see Thomas M. Greene, “Labyrinthine Dances in the French and
English Renaissance,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. Marc-Antoine de Muret, Commentaires au premiere livre des Amours de
Ronsard, ed. Jacques Chomaret, Marie-Madeleine Fragonard, and Giselle Math-
ieu-Castellani (Geneva: Droz, ), p. . The poem is sonnet  in the  edi-
tion of Ronsard’s Oeuvres, “Me souvenant du nom” [sonnet  in Les Amours]; the
other poem that Muret cites is sonnet  in the  edition, “Du bord d’Es-
pagne” [sonnet  of Les Amours]. For Ronsard’s interest in the mutable forms


Notes to Pages ‒

implied in these poems, see Kathleen Anne Perry [Long], Another Reality: Meta-
morphosis and the Imagination in the Poetry of Ovid, Petrarch, and Ronsard (New
York: Peter Lang, ), pp. ‒; for metonymic confusions of gender which
push mutability to the limits of androgyny, see Lawrence D. Kritzman, The
Rhetoric of Sexuality and the Literature of the French Renaissance (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a detailed study of this doctrine and its relationship with mania and
melancholy, see Olivier Pot, Inspiration et mélancholie: L’épistémologie poétique dans
“Les Amours” de Ronsard (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For Ron-
sard’s fascination with the transformative energies of a flexible Greco-Roman
world as opposed to the regimented universe of a Judeo-Christian world, see Jean-
neret, Perpetual Motion, pp. ‒.
. The date of his work on “Contre les Petrarquistes” is uncertain, but it was
published as poem  of Divers jeux rustiques ( January, ).
. For Du Bellay’s protestation against hypocritical friendships at court, see
Pauline M. Smith, The Anti-Courtier Trend in Sixteenth-Century French Literature
(Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒. For his preoccupation with the economic order
in the uncertain domain of patronage intimated in sonnet  of Les Regrets, see
Timothy Hampton, “‘Trafiquer la louange’: L’économie de la poésie dans Les Re-
grets,” in Du Bellay et ses sonnets romains, ed. Yvonne Bellinger (Paris: Champion,
), pp. ‒. For his rejection of genres apt to please his patrons, see Cathleen
M. Bauschatz, “Du Bellay’s Changing Attitude toward Reading from the Deffence
to the Regrets,” L’Esprit Créateur  (): ‒.
. For epistolary conventions that in Les Regrets shape Du Bellay’s criticism of
court and his statement of a new poetics in relation to Ronsard’s practice, see Marc
Bizer, “Letters from Home: The Epistolary Aspects of Joachim Du Bellay’s Les Re-
grets,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒; and Bizer, Les lettres romaines, pp.
‒. For a statistical study of Du Bellay’s lyrical subjectivity and literary inter-
textuality as expressed both in his epistolary prose and in mixed forms of satire, el-
egy, and eulogy in Les Regrets, see Françoise Argod-Dutard, L’écriture de Joachim Du
Bellay (Geneva: Droz, ), pp. ‒, with transcriptions of letters on pp. ‒.
. Cardinal du Bellay actively assisted the treaty between France and Spain
negotiated at Vaucelles. Carlo Carafa, nephew of Pope Paul IV, a Neapolitan who
was determined to provoke France into driving the Spanish from southern Italy,
enlisted the Guise faction to prevent du Bellay from ending the strife. Their ma-
neuvers resulted in the cardinal’s fall from power. For the political context of Les
Regrets, see François Roudaut, Joachim Du Bellay: Les Regrets (Paris, Presses Uni-
versitaires de France, ), pp. ‒; Gadoffre, Du Bellay et le sacré, pp. ‒;
and Baumgartner, Henry II, pp. ‒.
. Dedication ‒. Quotations from Les Regrets refer to Michael Screech,
ed., with translations (occasionally modified) from The Regrets, trans. C. H. Sisson
(Manchester: Carcanet, ).
. For Du Bellay’s dialogue with Ronsard in Les Regrets as an effort to estab-


 Notes to Pages ‒

lish the autonomy of his own poetry, see Gray, La poétique de Du Bellay, pp. ‒;
and Eric Macphail, The Voyage to Rome in French Renaissance Literature (Saratoga,
Calif.: ANMA Libri, ), pp. ‒.
. Subtle borrowings from Marot inform Les Regrets. The rhyme of sonnet 
(“France mere des arts”) recalls Marot’s Eglogue au roy souz les noms de Pan et Robin
(“Las, tes autres aigneaux n’ont faute de pasture, / Ils ne craignent le loup, le vent,
ny la froidure”: “Qui conservas de ses prez la verdure, / Et qui gardas son troupeau
de froidure”). In sonnet  the homey figuration of chimney smoke (“Quand
revoiray-je helas, de mon petit village / Fumer la cheminee”) echoes Marot’s Epistre
à la Royne de Navarre, “veu de loingson village fumer.” See the detailed notes in
Aris and Joukovsky, Oeuvres poétiques.
. For Du Bellay’s contamination of the Petrarchan sonnet form with the epi-
grammatic voice of the satirist, see Hampton, Literature and Nation, pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Demerson, Poemata; translations from Nichols, Anthol-
ogy of Neo-Latin Poetry.
. For Du Bellay’s turn to Latin as an effort to escape the shadow of Ronsard’s
French poetry, see Geneviève Demerson, “Les obsessions linguistiques de Joachim
Du Bellay,” in Troisième congrès international d’études néo-latines, ed. Jean Claude
Margolin,  vols. (Paris: Vrin, ), .‒.
. For the shift from real geography to allegorical or emblematic space dra-
matizing the plight of the court poet removed from the cultural economy in
which he defines himself, see Hampton, Literature and Nation, pp. ‒.
. For Du Bellay’s inclination toward satire in these poems, see Philippe De-
san, “De la poésie de circonstance à la satire: Du Bellay et l’engagement poétique,”
in Actes du Colloque International d’Angers du  au  mai , ed. Georges Ces-
bron (Angers: Presse de l’Université, ), pp. ‒. For his satiric use of the
epistolary mode to suggest a profound mistrust of national stereotypes, see Bizer,
Les lettres romaines de Du Bellay, pp. ‒, and Argod-Dutard, L’écritrere de
Joachim Du Bellay, pp. ‒.
. For a parallel critique of Petrarchism in “Le poète courtisan” as an expres-
sion of his freedom to establish social and literary conventions, see Ulrich Langer,
Divine and Poetic Freedom, pp. ‒. For Du Bellay’s resistance to elegant formal
structures such as Ronsard’s as a kind of moral criticism, see Greene, “Regrets
Only”; for Du Bellay’s originality in strategies of negation, see François Rigolot
“Du Bellay et la poésie du refus,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 
(): ‒.
. Sonnets  and  eulogize Catherine de’ Medici and Jeanne d’Albret, the
daughter of Marguerite of Navarre, neither with any apparent bid for patronage.
For the contrast between Du Bellay’s use of satire in earlier poems of Les Regrets
and eulogy in later poems, see Yvonne Bellenger, Du Bellay: Ses Regrets qu’l fit dans
Rome (Paris: Nizet, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For sublimation in sonnets , , and , see Roudaut, Joachim Du
Bellay, pp. ‒.


Notes to Page 

Eight Courtly and Anti-Courtly Sidneian Identities

. The proclamation (quoted from Geoffrey R. Elton, England under the Tu-
dors [London: Methuen, ], p. ) was issued in the context of Henry VIII’s
declaration of England’s legal and political freedom from papal jurisdiction. For
the development of national state forms of bureaucratic government and a politi-
cal culture built upon a national economic space, see Elton, The Tudor Revolution
in Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; with
literary implications discussed in Alistair Fox, Politics and Literature in the Reigns
of Henry VII and Henry VIII (Oxford: Blackwell, ). For social structure and
national change under the Tudors and Stuarts, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Emer-
gence of a Nation-State: The Commonwealth of England, ‒ (London: Long-
man, ), pp. ‒. For the formation of the national state as animated by a
particular moral ethos, in this case based on a high degree of involvement by local
ruling elites, see Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer, The Great Arch: English State
Formation and Cultural Revolution (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒. For struc-
tures of regional authority in sixteenth-century towns, cities, and country bor-
oughs, see David Loades, Tudor Government: Structures of Authority in the Six-
teenth Century (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒. For the fortunes of the late
Tudor and early Stuart monarchy, see Loades, Politics and Nation: England
‒ (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. ‒.
. For the cultural division of the populace from its past as a generator of na-
tional identity, see Richard Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writ-
ing of England (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒; for com-
peting voices in the public sphere and imagined community of the nation, see
Andrew Hadfield, Literature, Politics, and National Identity (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for religious culture as a catalyst of na-
tional identity, see Claire MacEachern, The Poetics of English Nationhood ‒
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Biographical information in Josephine Roberts, ed., The Poems of Lady
Mary Wroth (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, ), pp. ‒; for
Mary Wroth in the context of the Sidney family, see Gary Waller, The Sidney
Family Romance (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, ); Margaret P. Han-
nay, “‘Your Vertuous and Learned Aunt’: The Countess of Pembroke as Mentor to
Mary Wroth,” in Reading Mary Wroth: Representing Alternatives in Early Modern
England, ed. Naomi J. Miller and Gary Waller (Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press, ), pp. ‒; and Naomi J. Miller, Changing the Subject: Mary Wroth and
the Figuration of Gender (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, ), esp. pp.
‒.
. For Philip Sidney, see the biography by Katherine Duncan-Jones, Sir Philip
Sidney: Courtier Poet (New Haven: Yale University Press, ); for Mary Sidney,
see Margaret Patterson Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix: Mary Sidney, Countess of Pem-
broke (New York: Oxford University Press, ); for Robert Sidney, see Millicent


 Notes to Pages ‒

V. Hay, The Life of Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester (Washington, D.C.: Folger
Books, ). For William Herbert, see Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Leslie
Stephen and Sidney Lee,  vols. (London: Smith Eller, ‒), .‒
(signed by Lee); and Michael Brennan, Literary Patronage in the English Renais-
sance: The Pembroke Family (London: Routledge, ).
. For the range of English styles enfolding the Sidneys’ efforts, see Heather
Dubrow, Echoes of Desire: English Petrarchism and Its Counterdiscourses (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For this background, see Blair Worden, The Sound of Virtue: Sir Philip Sid-
ney’s “Arcadia” and Elizabethan Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, ),
pp. ‒; Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I
(London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒; and Wallace T. MacCaffrey, Queen Eliza-
beth and the Making of Policy, ‒ (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. In , for example, Philip Sidney visited the Holy Roman Emperor to ex-
plore the possibility of forming a Protestant League between England and various
German states; its failure ended his political dreams until the Flushing mission in
; see James Osborn, Young Philip Sidney, ‒ (New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒. For qualification of the term Protestant League, see
Ronald Rebholz, The Life of Fulke Greville (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒.
. See Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix, pp. ‒.
. For the Arcadia as veiled criticism against monarchs who delay public action
while they seek to pursue peace at the expense of virtuous results, see Annabel Pat-
terson, Criticism and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early
Modern England (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, ), pp. ‒. For
Arcadia as directed to a readership other than the conventionally assumed female
audience, see Helen Hackett, Women and Romance Fiction in the English Renais-
sance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the gravitation toward Italy and its various forms including drama and
chivalric epic, see Alistair Fox, The English Renaissance: Identity and Representation
in Elizabethan England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ), pp. ‒; Robin Kirk-
patrick, English and Italian Literature from Dante to Shakespeare (London: Long-
man, ), pp. ‒; and A. Bartlett Giamatti, Exile and Change in Renaissance
Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒. For England’s grav-
itation toward French lyric poetry, see Anne Lake Prescott, French Poets and the
English Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. xi–xiv and
‒; for the cultural work of French references in the interconnected social
worlds of courtiers, lawyers, scholars, and writers in Tudor and Stuart England, see
Prescott, Imagining Rabelais in Renaissance England (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ). For cross-cultural literary production in an age when skills in literacy
almost always entailed polyglot competence, see A. E. B. Coldiron, “Toward a
Comparative New Historicism,” Comparative Literature  (): ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For English Protestantism as contending not so much against Catholicism

as against boisterous rituals in theaters and other public entertainment, see Patrick
Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, ‒ (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, ); for the continued strength of Catholic ritual, see Ea-
mon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, ‒
(New Haven: Yale University Press, ); for the persistence of Catholic liturgy
and the rise of recusancy among yeomen, artisans, and husbandmen during Eliz-
abeth’s reign, see Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and
Society under the Tudors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒; for internal
struggles between presbyterianism and episcopal conformism and their effects on
the Puritan cause, see Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans: Presbyterianism and Eng-
lish Conformist Thought (London: Unwin and Hyman, ), pp. ‒; and
Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, ). For Elizabeth’s via media negotiated between episcopacy and
Puritan demands, see Penry Williams, The Later Tudors: England ‒ (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒.
. So Freud construes the practice of religion itself as an attempt to solve the
problem of deferred obedience through self-justification: “In this fashion
totemism helped to smooth things over and to make it possible to forget the event
to which it owed its origin” (.).
. See Fox, English Renaissance, pp. ‒.
. David Starkey, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (London:
G. Philip, ); and Elton, Tudor Revolution, pp. ‒. For Ricardian and Lan-
castrian interest in the proto-absolutist paradigms of Visconti despotism, see Wal-
lace, Chaucerian Polity, pp. ‒.
. For the politics of linguistic standardization in England, France, and else-
where, see R. D. Grillo, Dominant Languages: Language and Hierarchy in Britain
and France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), with a focus on
France on pp. ‒, a focus on England on pp. ‒, and comparisons on pp.
‒; Ronald Wardhaugh, Languages in Competition (Oxford: Blackwell, ),
pp. ‒; Robert Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See the restatement about these origins from a European perspective in
Norman Davies, The Isles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), with a focus on
the Celtic, Roman, and Germanic migrations on pp. ‒ and on Tudor per-
spectives on pp. ‒; for the sense of British national identity based on dan-
gers from without in conflicts with France, see Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the
Nation, ‒ (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒. For me-
dieval English kingdoms identified as separate communities, see Reynolds, King-
doms and Communities, pp. ‒. For representations of these conflicts in me-
dieval chronicles, see Thorlac Turville-Petre, England the Nation: Language,
Literature, and National Identity, ‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒ and ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For a reading of this passage as celebrating the civility of the English (radi-
ating from London and associated with the monarchy) while disparaging the
Britons (associated with the Welsh, Irish, and Scots), see Hadfield, Literature, Poli-
tics, and National Identity, pp. ‒. For the double structure of memory and the
fantasy of a still uncertain future implied here, see Patricia Clare Ingham, Sover-
eign Fantasies: Arthurian Romance and the Making of Britain (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For varieties of Early Modern English and its historical foundations, see
Cambridge History of the English Language, general ed. Richard M. Hogg, vol. :
Cambridge History of the English Language, ‒, ed. Roger Lass (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ); Manfred Görlach, Introduction to Early Mod-
ern English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; Görlach,
“Regional and Social Variation” in Lass, Cambridge History of the English Lan-
guage, pp. ‒; and Albert Baugh and Thomas Cable, A History of the English
Language, th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, ). For the rise of the
London model as a response of high-status speakers to the influx of low-status mi-
grants, see Norman F. Blake, A History of the English Language (New York: New
York University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the standardization of English based
on the style of chancery documents, see John Hurt Fisher, The Emergence of Stan-
dard English (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, ), esp. pp. ‒; and
Thomas Cable, “The Rise of Standard English,” in The Emergence of National
Languages, ed. Aldo Scaglione (Ravenna: Longo, ), pp. ‒.
. Letter to Thomas Hoby in The Book of the Courtier by Count Baldassare
Castiglione, done into English by Sir Thomas Hoby anno  (London: J. M. Dent,
), p. .
. For Chaucer’s language as a traditional literary vernacular rather than as in-
novative or originary, see Christopher Cannon, The Making of Chaucer’s English:
A Study of Words (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for
the fifteenth-century laureation of Chaucer, see Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Read-
ers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒; see also Fisher,
Emergence, pp. ‒.
. William Thynne The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer and Others, Being a Repro-
duction in Facsimile of the First Collected Edition , intro. Walter W. Skeat (Lon-
don: A. Moring, Ltd., ), Aiiv. Tuke had been unable to profit from the work
of Laurence Nowell (d. ), dean of Lichfield and one of the earliest students of
Old English texts retrieved upon the dissolution of the monasteries. Nowell’s
name appears with the date  in the unique manuscript of Beowulf later obtained
by Sir Robert Bruce Cotton (‒). For Old English antiquarianism sponsored
by Archbishop Parker and Lord Burleigh, Nowell’s patron, see F. J. Levy, Tudor His-
torical Thought (San Marino: Huntington Library, ), pp. ‒.
. For the canonization of Chaucer, Gower, and Hoccleve as a deliberate Lan-
castrian policy, see Fisher, Emergence, pp. ‒; for the style of legal documents
based upon scriptural parallelisms, parataxis, and sententiae, see Janel M. Mueller,


Notes to Pages ‒

The Native Tongue and the Word: Developments in English Prose Style, ‒
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. The Art of Rhetoric ( edition), ed. Peter E. Medine (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, ), p. .
. Thomas O. Sloane, On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, ), pp. ‒.
. George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, ed. Gladys Doidge Willcock
and Alice Walker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), p. .
. For late-sixteenth-century London English as an amalgam of three distinct
regional dialects rooted in Old Saxon, Mercian, and Anglian, see Helge Köker-
witz, Shakespeare’s Pronunciation (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp.
‒; Görlach, Introduction, pp. ‒; Görlach, “Regional and Social Variation,”
pp. ‒; and Blake, History, pp. ‒.
. Mulcaster’s Elementarie, ed. E. T. Campagnac (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
), p. .
. See Richard DeMolen, Richard Mulcaster: Educational Reform in the Re-
naissance (Neuwkoop: De Graf, ), pp. ‒.
. Shakespeare, for example, assigned such locutions to the rebels of  Henry
VI, while Jonson travestied them in the language of clownish miscreants in A Tale
of the Tub (). See Paula Blank, Broken English (London: Routledge, ), pp.
‒.
. George Gascoigne, Certaine Notes of Instruction concerning the making of
verse or ryme in English, in English Sixteenth-Century Verse, ed. Richard S. Sylvester
(New York: W. W. Norton, ), pp. ‒, quoted from p. .
. Quotations refer to Van Dorsten and Duncan-Jones, Miscellaneous Prose,
here quoted from pp.  and .
. Sidney’s incursion into archaism in this pastoral poem no doubt follows
the example of Virgil, whose eclogues couched their political allegory in a deliber-
ately archaic style.
. Although Sidney begins his digression with the complaint that “poesy, thus
embraced in all other places, should only find in our time a hard welcome in Eng-
land” (), he does not exactly demonstrate greater success in the foreign vernac-
ulars. He mentions Dante, Boccaccio, and Petrarch as “the first that made [the
Italian language] aspire to be a treasure-house of science” (), and he alludes to
Ariosto (pp.  and ) and Tasso (p. ), but he otherwise commends foreign
poets who composed chiefly in Latin (Fracastoro, Pontano, Muretus, and
Buchanan) or who earned fame equally for their Latin and vernacular composi-
tions (Sannazaro, Bembo, Bibbiena, Hôpital, and Bèze [p. ]).
. Quotation from Van Dorsten and Duncan-Jones, Miscellaneous Prose, p. .
For Spenser’s Vewe and its implication in his political and literary discourse, see
Andrew Hadfield, Spenser’s Irish Experience: Wilde Fruit and Salvage Soyl (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒; and Nicholas Canny, “Reviewing A View of the
Present State of Ireland,” Irish University Review  (): ‒. For Spenser and


 Notes to Pages ‒

Sidney as representative of a shift from regarding Ireland as the object of feudal

plunder to regarding it as a colony for expanded commerce, see Bruce McLeod,
The Geography of Empire in English Literature, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the convergence of James’s linguistic theory and his poetics of nature as
an absolute guide with his political thinking, see Rebecca Bushnell, A Culture of
Teaching: Early Modern Humanism in Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For sixteenth-century reflections on the substantiality of words and their
printed character as objective sites of defined meaning, see Martin Elsky, Author-
izing Words: Speech, Writing, and Print in the English Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, ); and Judith H. Anderson, Words That Matter: Linguistic
Perception in Renaissance English (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp.
‒.
. See Lawrence Manley, Literature and Culture in Early Modern London
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒ and ‒. For
the image of London as a microcosm of England in the world of popular print of
theatrical players, puritan preachers, and tabloid pamphleteers, see Peter Lake with
Michael Questier, The Antichrist’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists, and Players in
Post-Reformation England (New Haven: Yale University Press, ).
. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Histories of the Kings of Britain, trans. Sebastian
Evans, ed. Charles W. Dunn (New York: Dutton, ), .‒; pp. ‒.
. Steve Rappaport, Worlds within Worlds: Structures of Life in Sixteenth-Cen-
tury London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒, ‒,
‒, ‒. Often the object of satire in early Tudor writing, London’s com-
mercial citizenry acquired a better reputation and greater respectability toward the
end of the sixteenth century. For the growing recognition of positive attributes in
urban figures, see Robert Tittler, Townspeople and Nation: English Urban Experi-
ences, ‒ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒. The
word citizen in fact derives etymologically from city (cf. Italian cittadino and
French citoyen) and implies a dialectical relationship between the population of a
city and that of a nation.
. See Susan Dwyer Amusson, The Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early
Modern England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ), pp. ‒; and Keith Wrightson,
English Society ‒ (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, ), pp.
‒ and ‒.
. See Rappaport, Worlds, pp. ‒; and Ian W. Archer, The Pursuit of Sta-
bility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For English so-
ciety in towns and rural environs, see Williams, Later Tudors, pp. ‒.
. See Rappaport, Worlds, pp. ‒; and Archer, Pursuit, pp. ‒. Philip
Sidney refers to the practice in sonnet  of Astrophil and Stella when he evokes the
“denisend wit” of poets who sing of “poore Petrarchs long deceased woes, / With
new-borne sighes.”


Notes to Page 

. For the heavy burden of family arrangements among the nobility, see De-
wald, European Nobility, pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒. For the late medieval pre-
dominance of the nucleated stem family over that of extended joint families even
among the nobility, see Barbara Hanawalt, Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in
Medieval England (New York: Oxford University Press, ); Jean Louis Flandrin,
Families in Former Times: Kinship, Household, Sexuality, trans. Richard Southern
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; Alan Macfarlane, The
Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property, and Social Transition (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; Michael Anderson, Ap-
proaches to the History of the Western Family (London: Macmillan, ), pp.
‒; and Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family, ‒ (New York:
Longman, ), pp. ‒. For complex relationships among noble families, kin,
and neighbors, see Williams, Later Tudors, pp. ‒.
. He was knighted “Sir” in February  only as an expedient of protocol to
serve a proxy at Prince Casimir’s installation in the Order of the Garter; see Dun-
can-Jones, Courtier Poet, p. .
. For Philip Sidney’s political thought, see Worden, Sound of Virtue, esp. pp.
‒. For a brief overview of late-sixteenth-century court life, see Christopher
Haigh, Elizabeth I (London: Longman, ), with Elizabeth’s conciliatory atti-
tudes toward the nobility on pp. ‒ and the latter’s involvement in council and
court on pp. ‒. For the function of bureaucracy and the attendant nobility,
see Penry H. Williams, The Tudor Regime (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp.
‒ and ‒; for the structure of Elizabeth’s court, see David Loades, The
Tudor Court (Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble, ), pp. ‒; for Elizabeth’s
personal relationships at court, see Neville Williams, All the Queen’s Men (London:
Macmillan, ), pp. ‒; and, for the revival of chivalric ritual in the queen’s
court, see Roy Strong, The Cult of Elizabeth (London: Thames and Hudson,
), pp. ‒.
. For Mary Sidney’s decision to emphasize his courtly work by including in
the  edition the Arcadia, Certain Sonnets, A Defence of Poetry, Astrophil and
Stella, and The Lady of May but excluding his translations of Psalms, Du Bartas,
Mornay, and Aristotle’s Rhetoric along with his letters, political writings, and
family pieces, see H. R. Woudhuysen, Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of
Manuscripts, ‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒. For Pon-
sonby’s  registering of Philip Sidney’s now lost translation of Du Bartas’s Se-
maine with Greville’s efforts to edit his religious works, see Rebholz, Life of Fulke
Greville, pp.  and .
. See Brennan, Literary Patronage, pp. ‒; and Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix.
. For Herbert’s participation in the Parliament of  and his views on for-
eign war, see Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, ‒ (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒; for major is-
sues in national policy which drew Herbert’s attention, see Derek Hirst, Authority


 Notes to Pages ‒

and Conflict: England ‒ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

); and Hirst, England in Conflict, ‒ (London: Arnold, ), pp.
‒.
. Wroth’s exchange of letters with Lord Edward Denny, baron of Waltham,
the instigator of claims for recalling her published book, is reprinted in Roberts,
Poems, pp. ‒.
. In this respect Pamphilia corrects the figure of barbarous Boadicea at the
origin of English identity, resolving the double bind of recovering England’s pre-
history in an uncivilized past while exorcising incivility from it; see Jodi
Mikalachki, The Legacy of Boadicea: Gender and Nation in Early Modern England
(London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒.
. For general associations of male libido countered by discipline and female
piety complemented by compliance in early-seventeenth-century England, see An-
thony Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordination in England, ‒ (New Haven:
Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a study of the interplay between dynasty, destiny, and their geopoliti-
cal relationship to character in Urania, see Sheila T. Cavanaugh, Cherished Tor-
ment: The Emotional Geography of Mary Wroth’s “Urania” (Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press, ), esp. pp. ‒.
. Published as a forty-eight page supplement to Urania, Pamphilia to Am-
philanthus offers four series of poems, the first consisting of forty-eight sonnets
and seven songs (P‒), the second of twelve sonnets and nine songs (P‒),
the third of a crown of fourteen sonnets (P‒), and the fourth of nine sonnets
and four songs (P‒).
. Quotations from the first part of Urania are from Roberts, here quoted
from p. . Barbara Lewalski speculates that the first series of poems constitutes
the response that Pamphilia offers at this point in the narrative; see Writing
Women in Jacobean England (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ),
p. . For critical commentary on the disorganized nature of the second, third,
and forth series, see Waller, Sidney Family Romance, pp. ‒. For the sense of
a progression in the four distinct sequences of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, see Jeff
Masten, “Circulation, Gender, and Subjectivity in Wroth’s Sonnets,” in Miller and
Waller, Reading Mary Wroth, pp. ‒.
. Her exemplars from Sidney’s Arcadia may be the virginal Pamela and the
chaste Philoclea; from Spenser’s Faerie Queene the model would be Britomart. In
the recently published continuation of Wroth’s romance, the heroine marries Am-
philanthus, but he departs immediately after the ceremony (Second Part ‒).
Eventually, her father, the king of Morea, dissolves their union, and she weds
Rodomantro, king of Tartaria (‒). She begets a son, unnamed, who dies be-
fore Rodomantro (). Amphilanthus remains the love of her life, and ambigui-
ties in the manuscript hint that he is the father of her son and that they perhaps
will reconcile. All references to the second part of Urania are to Roberts et al. For


Notes to Pages ‒

racial markers of darkness that designate Rodomantro as unfavored and periph-

eral, see Kim F. Hall, Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early
Modern England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Early in the narrative, the sage Mellissea predicts that Amphilanthus will
lose Pamphilia even though both desire their love to continue: “In loue my Lord
(said shee) you shall be most happy, for all shall loue you that you wish: but yet
you must bee crost in this you now affect, though contrarie to her heart” (Urania,
First Part ). Later Mellissea tells Pamphilia, “rarest of women for true loyalty”
(), that her hesitation will precipitate a crisis: “Destiny that gouernes all our li-
ues hath thus ordain’d, you might be happy, had you power to wedd, but dainti-
nesse and feare will hinder you” (). Pamphilia nonetheless chooses to remain
constant to Amphilanthus. In the second part she is persuaded that, even though
married to the king of Tartaria, she may still love Amphilanthus “by ten times
more hapy when enjoyde with Chastetie and pure innocent affections” (Second
Part ).
. Quotations are from Old Arcadia, ed. Duncan-Jones, pp. ‒. Urania
inspires love in “two gentlemen” named Strephon and Klaius whose friendship
forestalls jealousy. Both express love for her in the celebrated double sestina “Ye
goat-herd gods, that love the grassy mountains” and in a “Crown” of dizains that
anticipates Wroth’s Crown of Sonnets in Pamphilia to Amphilanthus. For the rela-
tion of conventionally gendered virtues to theories of state and justice, see Con-
stance Jordan, Renaissance Feminism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp.
‒; for their relationship to humanist ideals, especially of politics and ethics,
based on Aristotelian and Ciceronian rhetoric, see Arthur F. Kinney, Humanist Po-
etics (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, ), pp. ‒.
. “The sweetest fairenesse and fairest sweetnesse,” quoted from  facsim-
ile ed., p. r. See Katherine Duncan-Jones, “Sidney’s Urania,” Review of English
Studies  (): ‒. For the figure of Urania as registering an alternative to
the representation of Pamphilia’s female desire, see Miller, Changing the Subject,
pp. ‒. For grounding Wroth’s romance in family connections controlled by
brothers, see Maureen Quilligan, “Lady Mary Wroth’s Female Authority and the
Family Romance,” in Unfolded Tales: Essays on Renaissance Romance, ed. George
M. Logan and Gordon Teskey (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
For the focus of romance on destabilizing categories of social status, see Michael
McKeon, The Origins of the English Novel, ‒ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Urania experiences a passionate love for Parselius, who turns out to be Pam-
philia’s brother and Amphilanthus’ friend (First Part ). When he marries another
woman, Urania prudently accepts the love of a foreign king named Steriamus (),
thereby leaving her admirors, Strephon and Claius, wholly unrequited.
. Pamphilia’s constancy appears modeled upon the virginity of Elizabeth I;
for assessments of Elizabeth, see Haigh, Elizabeth I, pp. ‒; for sixteenth-cen-
tury comments on her sexuality as a way for her people to express ambivalent feel-


 Notes to Pages ‒

ings about her position as a ruler, see Carol Levin, “The Heart and Stomach of a
King”: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, ), esp. pp. ‒ and ‒, Anne McLaren, Political
Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. ‒, and John Watkins, Representing Elizabeth in Stuart England (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ).
. For Philip Sidney’s coterie, see Woudhuysen, Circulation, pp. ‒. For
Astrophil’s greater concern with social consequences than with moral experiences,
see Edward Berry, The Making of Sir Philip Sidney (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, ), pp. ‒; and Anthony Low, The Reinvention of Love
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; for the sequence as a
mock encomium of the self, see Alan Hager, Dazzling Images (Newark, Del.: Uni-
versity of Delaware Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For an acute analysis of Sidney’s paradox of grounding his success in nar-
rating his failure and therefore rewriting the dependence that he controls, see
Dubrow, Echoes of Desire, pp. ‒.
. Here is an example of direct reference to detail in a commentary not stated
in Petrarch’s text but extrapolated almost idiosyncratically by commentator.
. See Kökerwicz, Shakespeare’s Pronunciation, pp. , , ‒; and Eric
John Dobson, English Pronunciation, ‒, d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
), pp. ‒, ‒, , ‒, and ‒.
. For a fine analysis, see A. E. B. Coldiron, “Watson’s Hekatompathia and
Renaissance Lyric Tradition,” Translation and Literature  (): ‒. For an in-
complete manuscript of the Hekatompathia dedicated to Sidney’s political enemy,
the earl of Oxford, see Woudhuysen, Circulation, pp. ‒.
. The rhetorical figure is occupatio, the pretense of passing over or denying
what one in fact manages to say; see Chapter . Attenuated examples include son-
net , in which the speaker evokes Stella’s “new assault / . . . thru my long battred
eyes” by resorting to personification allegory and punning wordplay as he pro-
claims with an incessant l alliteration, a pun on razed/raised, and the antithesis of
my and thy, “And there long since, Love thy lieutenant lies, / My forces razed, thy
banners raised within.” In sonnet  he outrageously uses the word love thirteen
times, each time in a different sense whether as a noun to indicate the lover, the
beloved, the act of love, Cupid, sensual love, or spiritual love, or as a verb to indi-
cate the functions of these agents, enabling him to conclude with the paradoxical
plea, “Deare, love me not, that ye may love me more.”
. Quoted from Richard Tottel, Tottel’s Miscellany, ‒, ed. Hyder Rollins,
 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ). For Tottle’s paratexts,
see Anne Ferry, Tradition and the Individual Poem: An Inquiry into Anthologies
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒; and Kennedy,
Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒. For the volume’s preponderance of verse epistles
that establish the boundaries of early modern literary subjectivity and offer a
voyeuristic peep into courtly practices, see Seth Lerer, Courtly Letters in the Age of


Notes to Pages ‒

Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ), pp. ‒. For the
circulation of such miscellanies as humanist gatherings that criticize courtly be-
havior for a readership of urban merchants, see Mary Thomas Crane, Framing Au-
thority: Sayings, Self, and Society in Sixteenth-Century England (Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quoted in Rollins, ed., p. . For analysis of this dispositio in the se-
quence, see Hager, Dazzling Images, pp. ‒.
. Woudhuysen, Circulation, pp. ‒ and ‒; for the potential of
print to depersonalize the text and therefore to efface social and gender differences,
see Wall, Imprint of Gender, pp. ‒.
. See chapter .
. Robert E. Stillman, The New Philosophy and Universal Languages in Seven-
teenth-Century England (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, ), pp. ‒,
quoted from p. ; for the limitations upon a Parliament in early Stuart England
and its indecisiveness as reflecting genuine confusion about the relative weight of lo-
cal and national concerns, see Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England, ‒
(London: Humbledon Press, ), pp. ‒; for the Parliament of , see Robert
Zaller, The Parliament of  (Berkeley: University of California Press, ).
. Quoted in Stillman, New Philosophy, p. .
. Quoted in Stillman, New Philosophy, p. .
. For constitutional restraints upon a pacified and limited monarchy, see
Glen Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven: Yale
University Press, ), pp. ‒.

Nine Family Narratives

. See Duncan-Jones, Courtier Poet, pp. ‒; and A. C. Hamilton, Sir
Philip Sidney: A Study of His Life and Works (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ‒. A year earlier Sidney had been residing at his sister’s
“little court” in Wilton after his fall from grace with Elizabeth in the Anjou affair.
He returned to court by New Year’s Day . The eighteen-year-old Penelope was
introduced there in January  and was engaged to Lord Rich in March, precip-
itating Sidney’s passion for her in succeeding months. See Sylvia Freedman, Poor
Penelope: Lady Rich, an Elizabethan Woman (Abbotsbrook, U.K.: Kensal House,
), pp. ‒.
. Clark Hulse, “Stella’s Wit: Penelope Rich as Reader of Sidney’s Sonnets” in
Rewriting the Renaissance, ed. Margaret Ferguson et al. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒. As master of the Court of Wards, Lord Burgh-
ley directed the traffic in marriage of young aristocrats who inherited their estates
while still minors, and he personally supervised the marriage of Penelope Dev-
ereux to Lord Rich. For Astrophil’s pursuit of Stella as an act of defiance against
Burghley’s power to manipulate the hierarchy at court, see Crane, Framing Au-


 Notes to Pages ‒

thority, pp. , , ‒. For marriage arrangements at court, see Joel Hurst-
field, The Queen’s Wards: Wardships and Marriages under Elizabeth I (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Philip Sidney’s own aspirations to form bonds of kinship through marriage
had already foundered upon the queen’s policies. In the s he apparently con-
templated marriage with either a German princess or the eldest daughter of William
of Orange but withdrew because such a union would have offended the queen. See
Osborn, Young Philip Sidney, pp. ‒; and Duncan-Jones, Courtier Poet, ‒.
. Possibly owing to debts incurred by Philip’s continental travels that year; see
Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix, p. .
. For the titles bestowed upon Robert Sidney by James I, including the largely
ceremonial office of queen’s chamberlain in , see Hay, Life, pp. ‒.
. For circumstances of context, see Mary Ellen Lamb, Gender and Authorship
in the Sidney Circle (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, ), pp. ‒. For
women’s readership of such translations, with detailed study of the shift in focus
from Marc Antony to Cleopatra which Mary Sidney introduces, see Eve Rochelle
Sanders, Gender and Literacy on the Stage in Early Modern England (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. Other Senecan closet dramas asso-
ciated with literary circles at Wilton include Samuel Daniel’s Cleopatra () and
Philotas (), Fulke Greville’s Mustapha (published ), and Alaham (before
), and possibly Thomas Kyd’s Cornelia () and Elizabeth Cary’s Tragedy of
Miriam (published ). The involvement of women in the production of closet
drama is notable; one early example is Jane Lumley’s translation of Euripides’ Iphi-
genia in Aulis (); see the introduction to Lady Elizabeth Cary, The Tragedy of
Miriam, the Fair Queen of Jewry (), ed. Barry Waller and Margaret Ferguson
(Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Garnier’s political allegories, see Gillian Jondorf, Robert Garnier and the
Themes of Political Tragedy in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒; for didacticism in Garnier’s dramaturgy, see Don-
ald Stone Jr., French Humanist Tragedy (Manchester: University of Manchester
Press, ), pp. ‒; and John Holyoake, A Critical Study of the Tragedies of
Robert Garnier (New York: Peter Lang, ); for Mary Sidney’s effort not to
counter native popular drama but to bring the Continental genre of historical
tragedy to England, see Margaret Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix, pp. ‒. For Gar-
nier’s appeal in England, where his refined style countered popular dramatic
forms, see Alexander Witherspoon, The Influence of Robert Garnier on Elizabethan
Drama (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. .
. All quotations from Mary Sidney refer to Hannay, Kinnamon, and Bren-
nan, Collected Works.
. For biblical strategies noted by patristic, medieval, and reformation exegetes
of distinguishing a repeated image in a praiseworthy sense (in bono) or in a deroga-
tory sense (in malo), see Carol V. Kaske, Spenser’s Biblical Poetics (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, ), pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For the play’s representation of women’s power to intervene in the public
world through marital interdependence, see Karen Raber, Dramatic Difference:
Gender, Class, and Genre in Early Modern Closet Drama (Newark: University of
Delaware Press, ), pp. ‒. For the worldly Cleopatra as an antitype of the
spiritual Petrarchan Laura, see Beilin, Redeeming Eve, pp. ‒.
. For similar fourteen-line set pieces as approximative sonnets, see Cleopatra’s
lament, “Soner shining light / Shall leave the daie” (‒), echoing Petrarch’s
sonnet , and Antonius’ list of contrarieties, “Well; be her love to me or false, or
true” (‒). For varied effects of Mary Sidney’s stylistic choices, see Tina Kron-
tiris, Oppositional Voices: Women as Writers and Translators of Literature in the Eng-
lish Renaissance (London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Robert Garnier, Two Tragedies: Hippolyte and Marc An-
toine, ed. Christine M. Hill and Mary G. Morrison (London: Athlone Press, ).
. There is no record of public performance, but private aristocratic perfor-
mance seems feasible. For its possible performance at Penshurst as an allegory of
amorous retreat from the pressures of court, see Marion Wynne-Davies, “Literary
Dialogue in an English Renaissance Family,” in “This Double Voice”: Gendered
Writing in Early Modern England, ed. Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke (New
York: St. Martin’s Press, ), pp. ‒. For the language of avoidance which
blurs distinctions between Petrarchism and Anti-Petrarchism, see Margaret Anne
McLaren, “An Unknown Continent: Lady Mary Wroth’s Forgotten Pastoral
Drama, Loves Victorie,” in The English Renaissance Woman in Print, ed. Anne M.
Haselkorn and Betty S. Travitsky (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
), pp. ‒. For genre transformations that achieve a feminist poetics of fe-
male agency in the play, see Lewalski, Writing Women, pp. ‒.
. Quotation from Love’s Victory, The Penshurst Manuscript, ed. Michael G.
Brennan (London: Roxburghe Club, ).
. For critical study of these translations and the Sidneys’ use of their sources,
see Rivkah Zim, English Metrical Psalms: Poetry as Praise and Prayer, ‒
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For diverse reader-
ships, especially of Sternhold and Hopkins, drawn from the clergy, educated laity,
and broadly heterodox common population, see Ian Green, Print and Protes-
tantism in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), pp.
‒. For Philip Sidney’s practice and theory of translation, see Coburn Freer,
Music for a King: George Herbert’s Style and the Metrical Psalms (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒; Anne Lake Prescott, “King David as
a ‘Right Poet,’” English Literary Renaissance  (): ‒; and Roland Greene,
“Sir Philip Sidney’s Psalms, the Sixteenth-Century Psalter, and the Nature of
Lyric,” SEL: Studies in English Literature  (), ‒.
. For dating, see Michael Brennan, “The Date of the Countess of Pem-
broke’s Translation of Psalms,” RES  (): ‒; for Mary Sidney’s harsh as-
sessment of earlier translations, see Margaret Hannay, “House Confined Maids:


 Notes to Page 

The Presentation of Woman’s Role in the Psalms of the Countess of Pembroke,”

English Literary Renaissance  (): ‒; for stylistic features, see Waller,
“Gendered Reading,” pp. ‒.
. Both psalms deploy figural and rhetorical techniques of the sonnet form as
well. The octave of Psalm  concludes with a paronomasia that links the pastoral
flock to God’s folk in the formation of a tribal nation and coherent state: “We are
his flock, for us his feedings grow: / We are his folk, and he upholds our state.” The
sestet of Psalm , the concluding poem, opens with a chiasmus that echoes the
ringing sounds of musical instruments, complicating the pattern of anaphora in
the original text: “Let ringing timbrells his honor sound, / Let sounding Cymballs
so his glory ring.” For Mary Sidney’s Petrarchan technique in Psalms, see Wall, Im-
print of Gender, pp. ‒. For Wroth’s admiration of Mary Sidney’s stylistic vir-
tuosity figured in the positive representation of the queen of Naples in Urania, see
Hannay, “ ‘Your vertuous learned aunt,’ ” in Miller and Waller, Reading Mary
Wroth, pp. ‒.
. For parallels between the Sidneys’ agenda and that of French Huguenot
translators, see Anne Lake Prescott, “Evil Tongues at the Court of Saul: The Re-
naissance David as Slandered Courtier,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studes
 (): ‒; and Prescott, “Musical Strains: Marot’s Double Role as Psalmist
and Courtier,” in Logan and Rudnytsky, Contending Kingdoms, pp. ‒. For the
impact of biblical models upon specifically English forms of nationhood, see Hast-
ings, Construction of Nationhood, pp. ‒.
. See Prescott, “Evil Tongues” and “Musical Strains.” For Clément Marot’s
translation of fifty psalms () completed by Théodore de Bèze (), see the
facsimile edition, Les Psaulmes en vers français avec leurs melodies, ed. Pidoux.
. See Prescott, “Musical Strains,” ‒. For Puttenham’s gendering of Eliz-
abeth’s literary efforts in “Doubt of Future Foes,” see Jennifer Summit, Lost Prop-
erty: The Woman Writer and English Literary History, ‒ (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒. For analogies between Elizabeth and
David in Mary Sidney’s translation, see Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix, pp. ‒;
“Princes you as men must dy’: Genevan Advice to Monarchs in the Psalms of
Mary Sidney,” English Literary Renaissance  (): ‒; Elaine Beilin, Re-
deeming Eve (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒; for Philip
Sidney’s earlier representation of Astrophil as a repentant David, see Lisa M. Klein,
The Exemplary Sidney and the Elizabethan Sonneteer (Newark: University of
Delaware Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Scripture’s complex version of collective identity demarcated by geopo-
litical and religious boundaries, see Regina Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Vio-
lent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For scriptural precedents for these conflicts and confusions, see Patrick
Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England (London: Macmillan, ), pp.
‒. For reforms that de-catholicized churchgoers but left them sharply divided


Notes to Pages ‒

about religious doctrine, see Collinson, Birthpangs, pp. ‒; and Haigh, English
Reformations, pp. ‒. For the broad latitude of religious belief among post-Re-
formation readers of Scripture, see Ian Green, Print and Protestantism, pp. ‒.
. The sentiment had become commonplace by the time of Areopagitica
(): “Why else was this nation chosen before any other?” See John Milton,
Complete Poems and Major Prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes (New York: Odyssey Press,
), p. .
. For the Hampton Court Conference see Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists:
The Rise of English Arminianism ‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ); and
Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts (London: Longman’s, ), pp. ‒, ‒.
For the Union of England and Scotland eventually effected by royal proclamation
in  without parliamentary statute, see Maurice Lee Jr., Great Britain’s
Solomon: James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, ), pp. ‒; Brian Levack, The Formation of the British State: England,
Scotland, and the Union, ‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒;
and Bruce Galloway, The Union of England and Scotland, ‒ (Edinburgh: J.
Donald, ), pp. ‒.
. For James’s religious ecumenicism as a genuine motivation in guiding him
to unite England as well as warring nations in Europe, see W. B. Patterson, King
James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒. To the United Kingdom of England and Scotland in
 James would add the third kingdom of Ireland, earlier elevated from the sta-
tus of feudal lordship to that of kingdom in  to pave the way for Henry’s ex-
ercise of royal authority over it; Wales had quietly been joined to England by
Henry VIII, who exploited the Welsh origin of his name in the Act of Union of
, abrogating Edward IV’s statute of , which granted private jursidiction to
the marcher lords. See Levack, Formation, pp. ‒.
. Hay, Life, pp. ‒.
. Peter Croft incorporates these names into the title of his edition, Rosis to
Lysa, from which I quote. Hilton Kelliher and Katherine Duncan-Jones speculate
alternately on the beloved’s identity as Elizabeth Carey, daughter of Lady Huns-
don, a patroness of Spenser and Nashe, or as one of the queen’s maids, to whom a
cache of letters ruined Robert Sidney’s chances for elevation to the wardenship of
the Cinque Ports in : “A Manuscript of Poems by Robert Sidney: Some Early
Impressions,” British Library Journal ser. , vol.  (Nov. ): ‒. Croft sug-
gests Robert’s adulterous affairs with many women, including Gabrielle d’Estrées,
the mistress of France’s Henry IV, pp. ‒. Hay casts doubt on a real amatory
involvement in favor of associating Lysa’s cruelty with the queen’s refusal to grant
Sidney higher office; see Hay, Life, pp. ‒. Disclaiming that the sonnets rep-
resent a real-life extramarital affair, Hay stresses Robert’s affection for his wife, Bar-
bara Gamage, their mutual concerns, and their desire to be together in an unusu-
ally close-knit family, attested by their extensive correspondence and eleven
children, pp. ‒. Miller, Changing the Subject, pp. ‒, likewise offers a pos-


 Notes to Pages ‒

itive picture of Robert Sidney’s relationship with his family at Penshurst despite his
frequent absences abroad or at court.
. For unrestricted exercise of male libido as a compensation for discipline
urged at school and in professional life, see Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordina-
tion, pp. ‒; and Felicity Heal and Clive Holmes, The Gentry in England and
Wales, ‒ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Ann Rosalind Jones, The Currency of Eros (Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the labyrinth as a site of confusion and error viewed from inside and as
a site of the poet’s artistry from the outside, see Penelope Reed Doob, The Idea of
the Labyrinth from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, ), pp. ‒; for the labyrinth as a Protestant figure of in-
wardness and self-knowledge, see Huston Diehl, “Into the Maze of the Self: The
Protestant Transformation of the Image of the Labyrinth,” Journal of Medieval
and Renaissance Studies  (): ‒. For Philip Sidney’s use of the figure to
represent a life based on the Protestant doctrine of election, see William Craft,
Labyrinth of Desire: Invention and Culture in the Work of Sir Philip Sidney
(Newark: University of Delaware Press, ), pp. ‒. For Ben Jonson’s use of
labyrinthine dances in his masques so as to suggest magical aspirations to the sub-
lime, see Thomas M. Greene, “Labyrinth Dances in the French and English Re-
naissance,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. Mazzotta, Worlds of Petrarch, p. .
. For a superb study of the labyrinth governing Wroth’s thematic, syntactic,
generic, and gender-based choices, see Mary B. Moore, Desiring Voices: Women
Sonneteers and Petrarchism (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, ),
pp. ‒.
. See compatible readings by Robin Farabaugh, “Ariadne, Venus, and the
Labyrinth: Classical Sources and the Thread of Instruction in Mary Wroth’s
Works,” Journal of English and Germanic Philosophy  (): ‒; and
Moore, “The Labyrinth as Style in Pamphilia to Amphilanthus,” SEL  ():
‒.
. I identify these responses as masculine on grounds of the conventionally
defined double standard in sexual relations: a woman may not engage in multiple
relations without destroying her honor and casting doubt on the legitimacy of her
husband’s offspring; a man might do so with less peril to the legitimacy of his
offspring, if not to his honor; this situation does not of course mitigate the jeal-
ousy felt by wives of philandering husbands, nor does it mitigate the latter’s guilt,
but it does associate male jealousy with patriarchal anxiety about the transmission
of inheritance to biological offspring, a guarantee threatened by a wife’s adultery.
. An arsenal of modern criticism iterates this point from a variety of illumi-
nating and sometimes complementary perspectives. For Astrophil’s moral bank-
ruptcy, see Thomas Roche, Petrarch and the English Sonnet Sequences (New York:
AMS, ), pp. ‒; for lyric’s fictional mode in dramatizing the conflict be-


Notes to Pages ‒

tween Astrophil’s moral intelligence and his passion for Stella, see Roland Greene,
Post-Petrarchism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒; for the
tyrannies of court life as parallel to love, see Ann R. Jones and Peter Stallybrass,
“The Politics of Astrophil and Stella,” SEL  (): ‒; for Astrophil’s in-
flamed imagination that results in his political passivity, see Herman, Squitter Wits,
pp. ‒; for a playful confusion of genre codes that enables his failure as a
courtier and his success as a writer, see Roger Kuin, Chamber Music: Elizabethan
Sonnet Sequences and the Pleasure of Criticism (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a study of this poetry as written in his youth for conventional pastime,
see Waller, Sidney Family Romance, pp. ‒.
. Other proteges included John Grange, Joshua Pool, William Browne, Sir
Thomas Nevill.
. Quotations from Thomas Moffett, Nobilis: or, A View of the Life and Death
of a Sidney, ed. and trans. Virgil B. Heltzel and Hoyt H. Hudson (San Marino,
Calif.: Huntington Library, ). For commentary on Moffett’s account in the
context of Protestant aversion to poetry, see Herman, Squitter Wits, pp. ‒.
. Active resistance would have been associated with treasonable popery; see
Glenn Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven: Yale
University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Henshall, Myth of Absolutism (London:
Longman, ), pp. ‒. The consensus of support for the king among both
the nobility and the gentry rested on the specificity of England’s common law.
Trusting this specificity, the nobility allowed the monarch to govern with certain
discretionary powers as a king accountable to God and therefore irresistible.
. See Brennan, Literary Patronage, pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒; and Waller,
Sidney Family Romance, pp. ‒.
. For Urania as an approving representation of female passion, see Hackett,
Women and Romance Fiction, pp. ‒.

Ten An Apology for Uncles

. Quotations from A Defence refer to Van Dorsten and Duncan-Jones, Mis-
cellaneous Prose.
. See Margaret Ferguson, Trials of Desire (New Haven: Yale University Press,
), pp. ‒. For Sidney’s emphasis on irony as a stimulant to the rhetorical
exercise of discrimination, see Hager, Dazzling Images, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. Introduction by John Webster, ed., William Temple’s Analysis of Sir Philip
Sidney’s Apology for Poetry (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and
Studies, ), pp. ‒.
. See Patrick Cook, Milton, Spenser, and the Epic Tradition (Aldershot, U.K.:
Scolar Press, ), pp. ‒. For the relationship between pleasure and profit
that requires aristocrats to serve the state while it defends their right to courtly di-
version, see Robert Matz, Defending Literature in Early Modern England: Renais-

 Notes to Pages ‒

sance Literary Theory in Social Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

), pp. ‒.
. These palpably gendered figures evoke an infantile dependence upon
women whose sexual allure could divert mature men from the path of public
achievement and worldly success. For threats of infantalization and degradation
associated with a masculinized educational system, see Mary Ellen Lamb, “Apolo-
gizing for Pleasure in Sidney’s Apology for Poetry,” Criticism  (): ‒; and
Joseph Lowenstein “Sidney’s Truant Pen,” Modern Language Quarterly  ():
‒. For dramatic potentials of Philip Sidney’s devaluation of the feminine, see
Diana E. Henderson, Passion Made Public: Elizabethan Lyric, Gender, and Perfor-
mance (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the nobility defined as a military profession rather than as a refined
class, see Merwyn James, Society, Politics, and Culture: Studies in Early Modern
England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; Fletcher,
Gender, Sex, and Subordination, pp. ‒; Heal and Holmes, Gentry in England
and Wales, pp. ‒.
. Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie (), pp. ‒.
. Thomas Wyatt (‒) was the son of a privy councillor to Henry VII and
Henry VIII; he joined diplomatic missions to France and Italy in ‒, was
knighted in , and served as ambassador to Charles V from ‒, for which
he was imprisoned for several months in  and again in  on charges of un-
dermining the king’s interests; see Rebholz, Poems, pp. ‒. For Surrey’s career
and his advocacy for a new type of English discourse in which poetry could be-
come a basis for public expression, see William A. Sessions, Henry Howard, the
Poet, Earl of Surrey: A Life (New York: Oxford University Press, ), pp. ‒;
for Surrey’s sponsorship of Wyatt, see William A. Sessions, “Surrey’s Wyatt: Au-
tumn  and the New Poet,” in Rethinking the Henrician Era, ed. Peter Herman
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Rollins, ed. For Tottel’s principles of selection and organ-
ization, see Elizabeth Pomeroy, The English Miscellanies: Their Development and
Conventions (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒; and Ferry,
Tradition and the Individual Poem, pp. ‒ and ‒; for a contrast between
aristocratic and bourgeois values in producing such miscellanies, see Crane, Fram-
ing Authority, pp. ‒.
. Wyatt became involved with Anne Boleyn in , when he separated from
his wife, whom he accused of adultery; his appointment as high marshal of Calais
in ‒ has been interpreted as a form of exile because of his association with
Boleyn, and his brief imprisonment in  has been attributed to charges of hav-
ing information about her extramarital affairs. Surrey’s quartering of the king’s
arms could be interpreted as his flaunting of a pedigree that legitimized his aspi-
ration to the Crown, a possibility allowed him as a descendant of Edward III and
a son of England’s leading peer. For biographies, see H. A. Mason, Sir Thomas Wy-
att: A Literary Portrait (Bristol: Classical Press, ); and Eric William Ives, Anne


Notes to Pages ‒

Boleyn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ), pp. ‒; and, on Surrey, see Sessions,
Life, pp. ‒.
. Sir Thomas Smith, De republica anglorum, ed. Mary Dewar (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), p. .
. See Keith Wrightson, English Society, ‒ (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, ), pp. ‒; Henry Kamen, European Society, ‒
(London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒; Jonathan Dewald, The European Nobility,
‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ); and Lawrence Stone,
The Crisis of the Aristocracy, ‒, abridged ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a remarkable use of consensus, see Raphael Hythloday’s discussion about
the injustice of demanding capital punishment for crimes of theft: “If the mutual
consent of men agreeing among themselves about manslaughter under certain
conditions pleasing to them [si hominum inter se consensus de mutua cede, cer-
tis placitis consentientium adeo] must mean that it frees their henchmen from the
bonds of this injunction [[not to kill]], then will not the law of God be valid only
in so far as the laws of man permit [quantum humana iura permiserint],” in
Thomas More, Utopia, ed. Edward Surtz (New Haven: Yale University Press,
), p. . For More’s awareness of problems in replacing one norm with an-
other, see Peter C. Herman, “Who’s That in the Mirror?: Thomas More’s Utopia
and the Problematic of the New World,” in Opening the Borders: Inclusivity in
Early Modern Studies, ed. Peter C. Herman (Newark: University of Delaware Press,
), pp. ‒.
. Patricia Thompson compares several turns in Wyatt’s poetry to passages in
Vellutello’s commentary in “Wyatt and the Petrarchan Commentators,” RES 
(): ‒, and concludes that Wyatt, traveling through Italy in , had ac-
quired Vellutello’s edition, published a year earlier. But Vellutello offers only a
scant commentary on sonnet . The commentaries of Antonio da Tempo,
Squarzafico, and Sylvano da Venafro deal more elaborately with a scenario that
Vellutello merely sketches.
. Wyatt’s Kentish idiom, perhaps modeled artificially on Chaucer’s, betrays
such provincialisms as the -th or -s inflection of third-person plural present verbs
and the -y prefix in the past participle. See Helge Kökeritz, “Dialectical Traits in
Sir Thomas Wyatt’s Poetry,” in Franciplegius: Medieval and Linguistic Studies in
Honor of F. P. Magoun, Jr., ed. Jess Bessinger Jr., and Robert P. Creed (New York:
New York University Press, ), pp. ‒. Examples in this poem include the
verbs doth, presseth, campeth, lerneth, fleeth, hideth, appereth, and feareth; Tottel’s
printing oddly regularizes learns and takes.
. For Wyatt’s sonnets as a Petrarchan outlet for feelings damaged at an emo-
tional level by the Boleyn affair, see Alistair Fox, Politics and Literature in the Reigns
of Henry VII and Henry VIII (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ), pp. ‒; Fox,
English Renaissance, pp. ‒; and Retha M. Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne
Boleyn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For a counter-


 Notes to Pages ‒

view, see Richard Harrier, “Notes on Wyatt and Anne Boleyn,” JEGP  ():
‒. For further literary consequences, see Anne Ferry, The “Inward” Language
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒; Thomas Greene, Light
in Troy, pp. ‒; and Barbara L. Estrin, Laura: Uncovering Gender and Genre in
Wyatt, Donne, Marvell (Durham: Duke University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Wyatt as an outdoor adventurer in a New World context, see Roland
Greene, Unrequited Conquests, pp. ‒; and “The Colonial Wyatt” in Herman,
Rethinking the Henrician Era, pp. ‒; and “Petrarchism among the Discourses
of Imperialism,” in America in European Consciousness, ‒, ed. Karen Ordahl
Kupperman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Poems, ed. Emrys Jones. For recent comparison of these
translations by Wyatt and Surrey, see Elizabeth Heale, Wyatt, Surrey, and Early Tu-
dor Poetry (New York: Longman, ), pp. ‒.
. For contrasts between the old and new nobility, see James, Society, Politics,
Culture, pp. ‒. Surrey’s idea of England as a large entity appears in the cor-
pus of his poetry with mention of such places as Windsor (“So cruel prison”),
Norfolk and Lambeth (“To Thomas Clere”), and London (“A Satire”).
. Wyatt’s epistolary satire would have had direct appeal to Philip Sidney in
rustication at Wilton and Penshurst. Imitating Luigi Alamanni’s satire  written
in Provence upon his exile from Florence, Wyatt refers to his own rustication in
Kent, near Penshurst: “But here I am in Kent and Christendom / Among the
Muses where I read and rhyme” (“Mine own John Poyntz,” ll. ‒). For invi-
tations in such poetry to the reader to invade the speaker’s privacy, see Seth Lerer,
Courtly Letters in the Age of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Philip Sidney’s lifelong interest in the New World ventures to which
this “cause” might refer, see Roger Kuin, “Querre-Muhau: Sir Philip Sidney and
the New World,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒; and Roland Greene, Un-
requited Conquests, pp. ‒.
. For elaborate numerological patterns that emphasize Wroth’s inner move-
ment toward clarity and spiritual poise in contrast to the convoluted surface pat-
terns of her uncle’s and father’s sonnets, see Tom W. N. Parker, Proportional Form
in the Sonnets of the Sidney Circle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For relationships between this event and the founding of the Roman Re-
public, see Debora Shuger, “Castigating Livy: The Rape of Lucretia and the Old
Arcadia,” Renaissance Quarterly  (): ‒.
. For the use of such rhetoric as relocating to court the threat of social mo-
bility, see Rosemary Kegl, The Rhetoric of Concealment (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. ‒. For a Marxist interpretation of its value in articulating a
new class culture as part of a process in the ideological production of social sub-
jects, see Richard Halpern, The Poetics of Primitive Accumulation: English Renais-
sance Culture and the Genealogy of Capital (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ),
pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. James J. Yoch, “Brian Twyne’s Commentary on Astrophil and Stella,” Alle-
gorica  (): ‒.
. The most egregious examples occur when Astrophil lambastes extravagant
poets in just those terms that poets themselves use, “Pindares Apes, flaunt they in
phrases fine, / Enam’ling with pied flowers their thoughts of gold” (sonnet ).
. Leah Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary Beth Rose, eds., Elizabeth I: Col-
lected Works (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), p. . For the politics
of Elizabethan nostalgia as both reflecting and generating criticism of James I, see
Curtis Perry, The Making of Jacobean Culture: James I and the Renegotiation of
Elizabethan Literary Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp.
‒.
. The theme of choice and monarchical election in Urania also shadows the
troublesome mechanism that German magnates deployed in conferring imperial
title upon the Holy Roman Emperor. It provoked a crisis in August , when the
confederated states of Bohemia deposed their Hapsburg-appointed Catholic king
and offered the crown to James I’s son-in-law, the Protestant elector Palatine Fred-
eric II. In addition to notes in Roberts, ed., xxxix–xlix, see Geoffrey Parker, Eu-
rope in Crisis, ‒ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ). For James’s efforts
to resolve the conflict through an ecumenical politics, see Patterson, King James VI
and I, pp. ‒.
. For the figure as expressing cultural restraints of family and the social envi-
ronment, see Nona Fienberg, “Mary Wroth’s Politics of the Self,” SEL  ():
‒. For the Petrarchan pedigree of this figure with accompanying social and po-
litical overtones in Spenser’s Amoretti, see Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. For the specific geography of the treacherous Kentish coast, see Richard
Larn, Goodwin Sands Shipwrecks (London: Neton Abbot, ). For fiction and
drama set in foreign locations that reflect on England’s problems, see Andrew
Hadfield, Literature, Travel, and Colonial Writing in the English Renaissance,
‒ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ); for reports by European travelers, see
Antoni Maczak, Travel in Early Modern Europe, trans. U. Phillips (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ). For the science of geography newly based upon
cosmographical models of the ancients, see Frank Lestringant, Mapping the World:
The Geographical Imagination in the Age of Discovery, trans. David Fausett (Berke-
ley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒. For political considerations as
to which areas are represented most accurately in early maps, see Brotten, Trading
Territories, pp. ‒.
. In contemporary terms his wars against the duke of Saxony evoke the dis-
astrous events of , when the Saxon duke contested Frederic’s eligibility for the
crown of Bohemia, splintering Protestant unity against the Catholic alliance (pp.
 and ). For English reactions to this event, see Hirst, Authority and Conflict,
pp. ‒.
. I quote from the second edition of George Sandys, A Relation of a Journey
Begun An: Dom: . Fovre Bookes. Containing a Description of the Turkish Empire,


 Notes to Pages ‒

of Aegypt, of the Holy Land, of the Remote Parts of Italy, and Ilands Adioyning (Lon-
don: W. Barrett, ), p. .
. For Sandys the Aegean islanders “in habite . . . imitate the Italians, but
transcend them in their reuenges, and infinitely lesse ciuill” (p. ), while the Pelo-
ponnesian Moreans prove to be “well meriting the name of Merry Greeks, when
their leisure will tolerate” (p. ). For Moryson the region of Pamphilia is associ-
ated with the travels of St. Paul in Turkey and with the myth of the monstrous
Chimera, a savage composite of lion, goat, and serpent subdued by Bellerophon
riding atop Pegasus: “The chiefe City of Pamphilia is Zelotia, and in this Province
is the Mountaine Chemera, upon the wild top whereof Lyons were found, as in
the middle part yeelding grasse, Goates did feed, and in the bottome were Ser-
pents, whereof came the fiction of the Monster.” Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary
Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell through the Twelve Dominions of Germany,
Bohmerland, Sweitzerland, Netherland, Denmarke, Poland, Italy, Turky, France,
England, Scotland & Ireland,  vols. (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons,
‒), ..
. For James’s creation of “Great Britain,” see Harding, Formation; and Gal-
loway, Union.
. Davies, Isle, pp.  ff.
. The episode evokes the abuse of Petrarchan conceits that hold tyrannical
sway over poets and lovers in Spenser’s House of Busirane (Faerie Queene .‒).
Here, not unlike Amoret, Amphilanthus suffers psychic torment as he envisions
Pamphilia lying dead, “her breast open and in it his name made . . . in Characters
of bloud” (). For Spenser’s allegory of Busirane in Faerie Queene III, see
Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp. ‒.
. For the intersection of cartography and nationalism in sixteenth-century
France, see Conley, Self-Made Map. For comparisons between Wroth and Mme de
Scudéry, see James F. Gaines and Josephine Roberts, “The Geography of Love in
Seventeenth-Century Women’s Fiction,” in Sexuality and Gender in Early Modern
Europe, ed. James Grantham Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
), pp. ‒. For the feminine iconography of mater terra as both civilized
and dangerous in Drayton’s Poly-Olbion (, ), see Mikalachki, Legacy of
Boadicea, pp. ‒.

Eleven Prosthetic Gods

. See James, Society, Politics, and Culture, pp. ‒.
. For Jonson’s fusion of courtly and anti-courtly, town and country, classical
and native, learned and popular, see David Riggs, Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge.
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒. For Jonson’s celebration of
Robert Wroth’s embrace of a commonwealth identity after ceding his family’s lo-
cal interests and resistance to monarchial consolidation, see Martin Elsky, “Mi-
crohistory and Cultural Geography: Ben Jonson’s ‘To Sir Robert Wroth’ and the

Notes to Pages ‒

Absorption of Local Community in the Commonwealth,” Renaissance Quarterly

 (): ‒.
. Quotations from Hunter, Complete Poetry.
. For Jonson’s efforts to objectify these word units as concrete correlatives of
what they signify, see Anderson, Words That Matter, pp. ‒. For silent con-
nections figured in and between Jonson’s poems so as to imply a meditation on the
self as a product of its social relations, see Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation,
pp. ‒.
. For a study of how vicarious ownership figures an important part of the
poet’s ethics and aesthetics as it shows him gathering and transforming the mate-
rials of Penshurst in order to process, rework, and redistribute them in his own in-
vention, see Richard S. Peterson, Imitation and Praise in the Poems of Ben Jonson
(New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. In later poems collected in Under-wood (assembled , published ‒)
Jonson would represent this process humorously by referring to “my mountaine
belly” (“My Picture Left in Scotland”) and “prodigious wast” (“The Poet to the
Painter”) as literary figures for his acquisitive powers, “voluminous” and “one great
blot.” See Bruce Boehrer, The Fury of Men’s Gullets: Ben Jonson and the Digestive
Canal (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. ‒; Peterson,
Imitation and Praise, pp. ‒; and Thomas Greene, Light in Troy, pp. ‒.
. To reinforce this connection with the Sidneys, Jonson also published his
epistle to Philip Sidney’s surviving daughter, Elizabeth, the countess of Rutland
(Forrest, epistle ) in the folio edition of his works in , modeling this edition
partly on Ponsonby’s folio of Philip Sidney’s collected works in . See Arthur
Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Jonson’s Westminster schoolmaster William Camden pursued a material ap-
proach to recovering the ancient past in the genre of chorography, an attempt to
explore traces of Roman presence in the soil of England through the evidence of
ancient roads and cities, tools and artifacts, coins and inscriptions dug out from
the earth. See Peterson, Imitation and Praise, pp. ‒; and Blair Worden, “Ben
Jonson among the Historians,” in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed.
Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp.
‒.
. See William J. Kennedy, “Is That a Man in Her Dress?” in Herman, Open-
ing the Borders, pp. ‒. For the exhaustion of Petrarchism in Jonson’s “A Cele-
bration of Charis,” see Roche, Petrarch and the English Sonnet Sequences, pp.
‒.
. See John Hollander, Vision and Resonance (New Haven: Yale University
Press, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒; and Maureen Quilligan, “Feminine End-
ings: The Sexual Politics of Sidney’s and Spenser’s Rhyming,” in The Renaissance
Englishwoman in Print, ed. Anne M. Haselkorn and Betty Travitsky (Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, ), pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. Germaine Warkentin, “Sidney’s Authors,” in Sir Philip Sidney’s Achieve-

ments, ed. Michael J. B. Allen et al. (New York: AMS, ), pp. ‒. Compare
Poliziano’s judgment that the study of history is superior to that of poetry, iterated
in Montaigne’s “Of Education”: “a study of inestimable value . . . the skeleton of
philosophy, in which the most abstruse parts of our nature are penetrated” (Frame,
trans., p. ).
. Quotations from Sir Philip Sidney, Works, ed. Albert Feuillerat,  vols.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), .. See Eugene R. Kintgen,
Reading in Tudor England (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, ), for
the reading of history books as a preparation for future action, an argument based
upon Thomas Blundeville’s “True Order and Methode of Wryting and Reading
Hystories,” dedicated to the earl of Leicester in , pp. ‒ and ‒; and,
for the consequence of an Erasmian pedagogy that would transcribe the lessons of
such reading, see Ann Moss, Printed Commonplace Books and the Structures of Re-
naissance Thought (Oxford, Clarendon Press, ). For marginal glosses in Ben
Jonson’s works as indicators of readings that affirm, contest, or parody events, see
Evelyn B. Tribble, Margins and Marginality: The Printed Page in Early Modern
England (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, ), pp. ‒.
. For her marriage of convenience to another court musician, Alfonso
Lanyer, and her child born to Henry Cary, Lord Hunsdon, see Suzanne Woods,
Aemelia Lanyer (New York: Oxford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Before Lanyer, other women who published include Isabella Whitney (A
Sweet Nosgay, ) and Anne Dowriche (French History, ); Lanyer’s attention
to the details of publishing appears exceptional. For the power of women’s lyric to
enable the rethinking of women’s positions in society, see Pamela S. Hammons,
Poetic Resistance: English Women Writers and the Early Modern Lyric (Aldershot,
U.K.: Ashgate Press, ), with a comparison of country house poems by Lanyer
and Katherine Austen on pp. ‒. For a salutary warning about assuming a
progressive linear evolution of women’s roles in writing and publication before
, see Margaret J. M. Ezell, Writing Women’s Literary History (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Aemeila Lanyer as a “cultural Italian” who represented herself as a pro-
fessional poet and musician on the model of Italian counterparts, exceeding the
limits of social roles for English women, see Pamela Joseph Benson, “To Play the
Man: Aemelia Lanyer and the Acquisition of Patronage,” in Herman, Opening the
Borders, pp. ‒. See also Woods, Aemelia Lanyer, pp. ‒.
. For Lanyer’s challenge to biblical authority in the context of women’s roles
delineated in conduct books, see Achsah Guibbory, “The Gospel According to
Aemelia,” in Aemelia Lanyer: Gender, Genre, and the Canon, ed. Marshall Gross-
man (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, ), pp. ‒. For the use of
varied genres in the narrative and dedicatory poems to bridge the separation be-
tween woman and God, see Beilin, Redeeming Eve, pp. ‒. For Petrarchan
diction in Lanyer’s complaints, see Wall, Imprint of Gender, pp. ‒.


Notes to Pages ‒

. For transformative possibilities in gender relations which expose the social
and political status quo as a sham, see Janel Mueller, “The Feminist Poetics of
Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum,” in Grossman, Aemelia Lanyer, pp. ‒. For Lanyer’s
complex construction of differences in her female community of friends and pa-
tronesses, see Kari Boyd McBride, “Sacred Celebration: the Patronage Poems of
Aemelia Lanyer” in Grossman, Aemelia Lanyer, pp. ‒; and “Remembering
Orpheus in the Poems of Aemelia Lanyer,” SEL  (): ‒. For the in-
evitable divide of class and status which disrupts Lanyer’s idealized community of
women, see Goldberg, Desiring Women Writing, pp. ‒.
. Quotations refer to The Poems of Aemelia Lanyer, ed. Susanne Woods (New
York: Oxford University Press, ).
. For the loss of women’s friendships that are disrupted by their commit-
ments to husbands and kin in their obligation to marry within a class determined
by wealth and economic status as represented in Lanyer’s poetry, see Lewalski,
Writing Women, pp. ‒; and Woods, Aemelia Lanyer, pp. ‒. For the estate
as a colonial paradigm in other topographic poetry, see Bruce McLeod, The Geog-
raphy of Empire in English Literature, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Kristeva, Nations without Nationalism, pp. ‒.
. For Pamphilia’s apparent loss of freedom in a gendered context in which
positions of masculine and feminine often elide, see Dubrow, Echoes of Desire, pp.
‒.
. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, ed. A. Ernout and A. Meillet,
th ed. (Paris: Klincksieck, ), p. ; Ronsard activates this meaning in “Ah,
belle liberté, qui me servois d’escorte” ‘Ah fair liberty who serves me as an escort’
(sonnet , Sonnets pour Hélène II), in which his speaker complains about the la-
bor of writing poetry, his legitimate offspring that will extend his patrimony into
the future: “Afin de concevoir des enfans par escrit / Pour allonger mon nom aux
depens de ma peine” ‘in order to conceive offspring by my writings to extend my
name at the expense of my pain’ (Weber, ed., p. ).
. For the repetition compulsion of failure and conquest in the Aeneid, see
David Quint, Epic and Empire: Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Livy, .‒. For the relationship of Sidney’s story to Livy’s account of
Brutus, see Shuger, “Castigating Livy”. For the judgment of Brutus as subordinat-
ing one’s biological family to the family of the state, see Ian Donaldson, The Rapes
of Lucretia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ‒. Shakespeare’s narrative of
the event in The Rape of Lucrece quietly foreshortens its rebellious dimension by
focusing on Sextus Tarquin’s duty to uphold order and restraint, “For kings like
gods should govern every thing” (). Using this argument, Lucrece urges her at-
tacker to exemplify true majesty by subduing his passions: “From a pure heart
command thy rebel will” ().
. For a reading of the episode which treats Sidney’s consideration of the


 Notes to Pages ‒

darker side of patriarchy and the consequent need for equity and mercy in the ex-
ecution of justice, see Constance Jordan, Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and
Political Models (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒. For Sidney’s
frustration with a system in which only the ruler may speak freely, see Richard Mc-
Coy, Sir Philip Sidney: Rebellion in Arcadia (New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, ), pp. ‒; for Sidney’s hesitant endorsement of resistance when
tyrants overstep constitutional limits, see Martin Raitière, Faire Bits: Sir Philip Sid-
ney and Renaissance Political Theory (Pittsburgh: Dusquene University Press, ),
pp. ‒. For Queen Elizabeth’s reluctance to entrust him with political office be-
cause of his ideas about reform in her rule, see David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics
in the English Renaissance (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, ), pp. ‒.
. For Philip Sidney’s ambiguous commitment to the ideal of scriptural po-
etry and his lost translation of the biblical Creation epic, La Sepmaine by Guil-
laume Du Bartas, the favorite poet of James I, see Prescott, French Poets and the
English Renaissance, pp. ‒.
. Philip Sidney identifies himself as “a Dudley in blood, that Duke’s daugh-
ter’s son, and do acknowledge . . . that my chiefest honour is to be a Dudley” (De-
fence of the Earl of Leicester, in Miscellaneous Prose, ed. van Dorsten and Duncan-
Jones, p. ; for a superb semiotic analysis of Sidney’s courtiership in terms of
family and faction codes, see Kuin, Chamber Music, pp. ‒.
. “The Complaint” may represent Daniel’s bid for support from Lady Mar-
garet, the countess of Cumberland, as much as his dedication of Delia to the
countess of Pembroke in  may represent an attempt to cash in on the accident,
or possible manipulation, of having twenty-eight of his sonnets accompany “so
rawly in publique” Thomas Newman’s unauthorized printing of Astrophil and
Stella in that year. For Daniel’s possible role in supplying Newman with the man-
uscript, see Woudhuysen, Circulation, pp. ‒. For the “Complaint” as a Pe-
trarchan coda to Delia, see Roche, Petrarch and the English Sonnet Sequences, pp.
‒. For the “Complaint” as a protest against the cultural confinement of fe-
male sexuality, see Ilona Bell, English Women and the Poetry of Courtship (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations refer to Samuel Daniel, Poems and A Defence of Ryme, ed.
Arthur Colby Sprague (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ).
. The strategy evidently worked; upon his apparent breach with the Pem-
brokes around , Lady Margaret befriended him and charged him with Anne’s
education to “engender many worthy stemmes whose off-spring may / Looke back
with comfort” (“To Lady Anne Clifford,” ‒); see Joan Rees, Samuel Daniel
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, ), p. .
. “I am not so far in loue with this forme of Writing [versified history] (nor
have I sworne Fealtie onely to Ryme) but that I may serue in any other state of In-
uention, with what weapon of vtterance I will” (The Civil Wars, ed. Laurence
Michel [New Haven: Yale University Press, ], p. ). In earlier years Daniel
had sought a different patronage for his The Civil Wars when he paid homage to


Notes to Pages ‒

Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, “Worthy Essex” (.,  ed.), the husband of Sid-
ney’s widow, Frances Walsingham, who might have carried Sidney’s nationalist pro-
gram to completion. Here Daniel alleges that, if the civil wars had not racked Eng-
land from the abdication of Richard II in  to the fall of Richard III in , the
nation would have attained preeminence by Elizabeth’s time, with heroes who could
“haue brought / Nations and Kingdomes vnder our command” (.,  ed.).
Later the poet dedicated his  installment of The Civil Wars to Charles Blount,
Lord Mountjoy, Penelope Rich’s lover after Philip Sidney’s death and her eventual
husband after a shocking divorce from Lord Rich in . Here, “by these essaies of
mine” (Michel, p. ), Daniel claims a link between martial deeds and linguistic
prowess that guarantees a nation’s strength. See Rees, Samuel Daniel, pp. ‒.
. The  edition, for example, conspicuously omits this ending of book 
in praise of Tudors, presumably in deference to the Stuart king and his own
achievements; editions after  likewise delete the stanzas in praise of Essex, who
was disgraced and executed in February of that year for his role in conspiring
against James I’s predecessor.
. For a comparison of Daniel’s workmanlike rhyme with Sidney’s more skill-
ful sort, see Lowry Nelson Jr., Poetic Configurations (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a study of Caelica not as a simple renunciation of secular Petrarchism
but as a more complicated mix of elements that are earthly, heavenly, and some-
thing in between, see Roche, Petrarch and the English Sonnet Sequences, pp.
‒. After Sidney’s death Greville held successive appointments in Parliament,
assisted Henry of Navarre in France, and served the treasury of the navy until his
ideological opponent Robert Cecil rigged his banishment in . When Cecil
died in , he returned to James I’s court as chancellor and under-treasurer of
the exchequer and was raised to the peerage as Baron Brooke in . During his
decade in retirement he completed these poems and The Life of Sidney. For par-
ticulars, see Rebholz, Fulke Greville, pp. ‒.
. Quoted from Fulke Greville, The Works in Verse and Prose, ed. Alexander B.
Grosart,  vols. (Blackburn, U.K.: Charles Tiplady, ). For the compatibility of
political realism with Protestant idealism in Greville’s rejection of ornate rhetoric,
see Kenneth J. E. Graham, The Performance of Conviction: Plainness and Rhetoric
in the Early English Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Upon his own appointment to the Exchequery, Greville himself tried to re-
form fiscal policies and increase the king’s revenues by encouraging good foreign
relations, colonial expansion, and New World profiteering. For Greville’s success
and failures in doing so, see Rebholz, Greville, pp. ‒. His appointment as
clerk of signet and secretary in , his selective investments in business and com-
mercial ventures in London and abroad, his support of the Newfoundland fish-
eries, and his lobbying for colonizing efforts in the New World endowed him with
a controversial voice in the final years of Elizabeth’s reign and led to his de-
nouncement by Robert Cecil at the beginning of James’s reign.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. The Prose of Fulke Greville, ed. Mark Caldwell (New York: Garland, ),
p. . For reader identification with Sidney in Greville’s Life, see Hager, Dazzling
Images, pp. ‒.
. This idea pervades A Treatise of Monarchy, in which the monarch’s inter-
vention in the commoners’ struggles against the nobility restrains the self-will of
the latter and the mob rule of the former: “And as we do in humane bodies see, /
Where Reason raigns in chief, not the affection, / Order is great, not wanton Lib-
erty” (st. ). Here Greville reinvigorates the meaning of liberty as the freedom of
propertied classes to transmit wealth to heirs, but he inverts its Sidneian valuation
with the adjective wanton. The object for him is not to transmit wealth, to which
he was indifferent (Greville himself neither married nor fathered children), but to
earn it as the sign of an industrious, purposeful life. For Greville’s investment of
nostalgic energy in Elizabeth, see Perry, Making of Jacobean Culture, pp. ‒.
. For the revival of feudal ethic and its cooptation by religious polemic in the
early seventeenth century, see James, Society, Politics, and Culture, pp. ‒.

Twelve Byblis and the Bible

. For the birth of twins William and Katherine and their relevance to the ille-
gitimate Andromarko and Faire Designe in the second part of Urania, see the in-
troduction to the second part, ed. Roberts et al., pp. xxi–xxiii.
. Minor Poets of the Seventeenth Century, ed. R. G. Howarth (London: J. M.
Dent, ).
. Henry Herbert, second earl of Pembroke (‒), had taken as his sec-
ond wife (before Mary Sidney, his third wife) Catherine Talbot, daughter of the
earlier earl of Shrewsbury, while Henry’s sister Anne had married the earl’s son
Francis Talbot. See Hannay, Philip’s Phoenix.
. For the dominance of enduring patterns of upper-class marriage arrange-
ments over distinctive or innovative companionate Protestant patterns, see Houl-
brooke, English Family, pp. ‒; for the dominance of nuclear family ties and
lack of concern about incest in England, see Macfarlane, Origins of English Indi-
vidualism, pp.  and ‒. For the nuclear family in historical context, see Ed-
ward Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family (New York: Basic Books, ),
pp. ‒ and ‒. For sexual nonconformism in England, see Peter Laslett,
World We Have Lost, pp. ‒; and Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Genera-
tions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Keith Wrightson, English Society, ‒, pp. ‒ and ‒;
Hannawalt, Ties That Bound, pp. ‒; Flandren, Families in Former Times, pp.
‒; and Williams, Later Tudors, pp. ‒. For the state’s designation of the
individual household as the primary unit of social control, see Lena Cower Orlin,
Private Matters and Public Culture in Post-Reformation England (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a study of the incest prohibition as a political tool authorizing certain

Notes to Page 

alliances, prohibiting others, and reinforcing nationalist or internationalist senti-

ment in Tudor and Stuart literature, see Bruce Boehrer, Monarchy and Incest in Re-
naissance England: Literature, Culture, Kinship, and Kingship (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, ), esp. pp. ‒; and, for a study of incest in
literature as a powerful metaphor for various forms of social and political organ-
ization, see Richard A. McCabe, Incest, Drama, and Nature’s Law, ‒ (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. An important principle of this statute was to curtail ecclesiastical restrictions
that increase the power and, through the sale of dispensations, the wealth of the
clergy and to assert instead the priority of Scripture in setting rules for conduct.
See Boehrer, Monarchy and Incest, p. ; and McCabe, Incest, Drama, and Nature’s
Law, pp.  and . For anxieties at the core of cultural responses to marriage in
view of conflicting assumptions about wedlock in Catholic and Protestant posi-
tions, see Heather Dubrow, A Happier Eden: The Politics of Marriage in the Stuart
Epithalamium (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Leviticus .‒ forbids sexual activity with parents, children, siblings, half-
siblings, and certain in-laws and between nephews and aunts, but it does so
mainly to condemn the behavior of the Israelites’ ancestors in the context of
Canaanite and Egyptian practices that influenced them. For these texts as com-
mentaries on legal and ethical problems in the narratives of Genesis, see Calum
Carmichael, Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus ‒ (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Mordred defiled Arthur’s wife, Guinevere, and led a revolt that ended with
father and son killing each other at Salisbury; see Thomas Mallory, “The Tale of
King Arthur,” in Works, ed. Eugene Vinaver (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
), ., pp. ‒.
. The history of Elizabeth’s sex life is lurid enough as recounted in Marc
Shell, Children of the Earth: Literature, Politics, and Nationhood (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, ), p. . The Succession Act of , motivated by Henry
VIII’s desire to legitimate his marriage to Jane Seymour, declared Elizabeth a bas-
tard on grounds of Anne Boleyn’s incestuous adultery with her brother George,
making Elizabeth both the daughter and niece of Boleyn siblings. A decade later
Elizabeth fell in love with Thomas Seymour, the brother of her father’s third wife
and therefore Elizabeth’s uncle, but who afterward became the husband of her
stepmother, the king’s sixth wife, Katherine Parr. See William Seymour, Ordeal by
Ambition (London: Sedgewick and Jackson, ), pp. ‒. Diplomatic efforts
to marry her to Philip II upon her accession to the throne met her resistance on
grounds that marriage to the spouse of her dead sister would constitute affined in-
cest. In her later years Elizabeth favored Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex, whose
maternal great-grandmother was Mary Boleyn, her mother’s sister. Even her des-
ignated successor, James I, was the product of a closely endogamous union be-
tween Mary Stuart, whose father James V was the son of Henry VIII’s sister Mar-


 Notes to Pages ‒

garet, and Lord Darnely, whose mother was a daughter of the same Margaret and
half-sister of Mary’s father.
. Carmichael, Law, Legend, and Incest, pp. ‒; and “Incest in the Bible,”
Chicago-Kent Law Review  (): ‒.
. See Calum M. Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law (Athens: University
of Georgia Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Davies, Isles.
. For the conjunction between cosmology, fate, and individual emotions in
the episode, see Cavanagh, Cherished Torment, pp. ‒.
. Poems, ed. Gaby E. Onderwyzer, p. .
. For George Herbert’s visits to Wilton during his years at Cambridge, where
since  he had studied and written three collections of Latin epigrams and ele-
gies honoring the king, the court, and the English Church, see Amy Charles, A
Life of George Herbert (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Quotations from The Works of George Herbert, ed. F. E. Hutchinson (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, ). Here Herbert’s wonderfully ambivalent phrase sug-
gests both a sweetness tightly or narrowly confined (readie = “made tight, taut,”
penn’d = “hemmed in”) and one that is easily written (readie = “prompt, available,”
penn’d = “inscribed with a pen”), so that he may “copie out onely that,” where the
verb means both “multiply freely, extend at large” and “reproduce faithfully, du-
plicate within narrow limits.” For Herbert’s echoes from Philip Sidney, see Louis
L. Martz, The Poetry of Meditation (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp.
‒; and John Wall, Transformations of the Word: Shakespeare, Herbert, Vaughan
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, ), pp. ‒. For George Herbert’s ref-
erences to Philip Sidney and William Herbert as social gestures marking his entry
into the literary coterie associated with the Pembroke circle, see Cristina Mal-
colmson, Heart-work: George Herbert and the Protestant Ethic (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Michael C. Schoenfeldt, Prayer and Power: George Herbert and Renaissance
Courtship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press ), pp. ‒, argues that, in
such a poem as “The Collar,” the speaker’s nostalgia for order balances the terror
of his exposure to an all-powerful deity, an absolute superior, a transcendent hier-
archical authority. See also Schoenfeldt, Bodies and Selves in Early Modern Eng-
land: Physiology and Inwardness in Spenser, Shakespeare, Herbert, and Milton (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For a structuralist reading, see Gregson Davis, The Death of Procris: “Amor”
and the Hunt in Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” (Rome: Ateneo, ), pp. ‒.
. Ernout and Millet, Dictionnaire étymologique, p. . Thus the Geneva
Bible translates that Abraham’s servant “put his hand under the thigh of his mas-
ter, & sware to him.” Genesis ..
. Rhetorical readings of Ovid in the light of scriptural parallels have a long
history in medieval exegesis. See Ralph Hexter, Ovid and Medieval Schooling: Stud-


Notes to Pages ‒

ies in Medieval School Commentaries (Munich: Arbeo, ), esp. ‒ and ‒;
and Ann Moss, Latin Commentaries on Ovid from the Renaissance (Signal Moun-
tain, Tenn.: Summertown Press, ) for the allegorical commentary by Petrarch’s
friend Petrus Berchorius, pp. ‒, and the fifteenth-century commentary of
Raphael Regius, pp. ‒. For the allegorical transformation of Ovid’s fantastic
fabula into matter for theological and explicitly scriptural analysis in medieval in-
tegumenta, see Leonard Barkan, The Gods Made Flesh: Metamorphosis and the Pursuit
of Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.
. The single holograph of Mary Sidney’s translation, located amid a tran-
script of papers sent by John Harington to his daughter Lucy, countess of Bedford,
suggests a haphazard transmission. See Lamb, Gender and Authority, pp. ‒.
For Laura’s role as protagonist of Petrarch’s Trionfi, see Sara Sturm-Maddox, “Alle-
gory and Spectacle in the Rime and Trionfi,” in Petrarch’s Triumphs: Allegory and
Spectacle, ed. Konrad Eisenbichler and Amilcare Iannucci (Ottowa: Dovehouse
Editions, ), pp. ‒. For the clustering of myth, transformation, and hu-
man experience in these myths, see Barkan, Gods Made Flesh, pp. ‒. For Pe-
trarch’s syncretism in the Trionfi, see Zygmunt Baranski, “Constraints of Form,”
in Eisenbichler and Iannucci, Petrarch’s Triumphs, pp. ‒.
. Quotations from Trionfi refer to Pacca and Paolino, eds.
. See Kenneth Bartlett, “The Occasion of Lord Morley’s Translation of the
Triumphs,” in Eisenbichler and Iannucci, Petrarch’s Triumphs, pp. ‒. In his
dedicatory letter Lord Morley reports that he earlier decided to translate the poem
for Henry VIII when he learned that François I so valued a French translation of
the Trionfi “as the rychest Diamonde he hadde.” Lord Morley’s Tryumphes of
Fraunces Petrarcke, ed. D. D. Carnicelli (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, ), p. . Lord Morley identified the French translator as a “grome of the
chaumber with that renowmed and valyaunte Prynce of hyghe memorye,
Fraunces the Frenche kynge” (p. ), thought to be Hugues Salel. For an earlier
identification, see Hélène Harvitt, “Les triomphes de Pétrarque: traduction en vers
français par Simon Bougouyn, Valet de chambre de Louis XII,” Revue de Littéra-
ture Comparée  (): ‒. For the influence of the Trionfi, see Francesco
Guardiani, “The Literary Impact of the Triumphs in the Renaissance,” in Eisen-
bichler and Iannucci, Petrarch’s Triumphs, pp. ‒; and Gian Carlo Alessio,
“The ‘Lectura’ of the Trionfi in the Fifteenth Century,” in Eisenbichler and Ian-
nucci, Petrarch’s Triumphs, pp. ‒. Elizabethan readers in general valued Pe-
trarch’s Trionfi more than his Rime sparse, as the number of its translations attests;
see Robert Coogan “Petrarch’s Trionfi and the English Renaissance,” Studies in
Philology  (): ‒. The Trionfi was rendered in its entirety several times
before , but a full Englishing of the songs and sonnets did not appear until C.
B. Cayley’s complete translation in ; before Cayley, Robert MacGregor’s Pe-
trarch’s Odes () omitted poem , while in  Thomas Campbell assembled
for the Bohr’s Classics Series an entire Rime sparse translated by various hands. See
Fowler, Catalogue, pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. Jonathan Goldberg identifies the speaker of the translation with Mary Sid-
ney herself so as to heighten the female erotics of “I” as a woman speaking of and
to other women, thereby feminizing Philip Sidney by associating him with Laura,
in Desiring Women Writing (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For this motif in Spenser’s Amoretti, see Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch, pp.
‒.
. For the heroics of Pamphilia’s constancy, see Lamb, Gender and Authority,
pp. ‒.
. For shifting relationships between locally defined and state-defined identi-
ties determined by a gender-specific opposition between home and the world
abroad, see Megan Matchinske, Writing, Gender, and State in Early Modern Eng-
land (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒; and Maureen
Quilligan, “The Constant Subject: Constancy and Female Autonomy in Mary
Wroth’s Poems,” in Soliciting Interpretation, ed. Elizabeth D. Harvey and Kather-
ine Maus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. . See Kristeva, Nations without
Nationalism, p. , for a critique of equating the national with the cultural because
it implies elitism and meritocracy.
. The Conquest of New Spain, trans. J. M. Cohen (Harmondsworth: Pen-
guin Books, ), pp.  and .
. Heptameron, trans. Paul Chilton (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, ),
p. . For French motivations in exploration, see Jonathan Hart, Representing the
New World: The English and French Uses of the Example of Spain (New York: Pal-
grave, ), pp. ‒.
. See Kuin, “Querre Muhau”; and Roland Greene, Unrequited Conquests, pp.
‒. For England’s initial gravitation to the East rather than to the Atlantic
from a perspective of gendered interest in consuming luxury goods, see John
Michael Archer, Old Worlds: Egypt, Southwest Asia, India, and Russia in Early Mod-
ern English Writing (Stanford: Stanford University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. Benedict Anderson, The Spectre of Comparisons (London: Verso, ), pp.
‒. For the aristocratic ideal as embodied by Ralegh in exploring the New
World to counter the wealth and power of Spain, see Mary C. Fuller, Voyages in
Print: English Travel to America, ‒ (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For the slow evolution of the Pilgrims’ conception of Plymouth as the
Promised Land, at first construed as a Hell on Earth, see Conor Cruise O’Brien,
God Land: Reflections on Religion and Nationalism ((Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, ), pp. ‒. For gendered roles of power in the Virginia and
New England colonies based upon Filmerian and Lockean analogues, see Mary
Beth Norton, Founding Mothers and Fathers (New York: Knopf, ), pp. ‒.
. Anderson, Imagined Communities, p. .


Notes to Pages ‒

Conclusion
. John Barclay, The Mirror of Minds, or Barclay’s Icon animorum. Englished by
Thomas May, Esq. (London: Printed by I. B. for Thomas Walkley, ), p. . For
Barclay’s career, see Dictionary of National Biography, ed. Leslie Stephen,  vols.
(London: Smit, Elder, ), .‒, signed by Richard Garnett. The Icon may
be book  of the author’s Satiricon (London, ; Paris, ), a Latin narrative
that satirizes members of political factions at home and abroad.
. The French and the English generally escape censure, the former for inhab-
iting “the fairest and richest of all Prouinces in the Westerne world” (), the lat-
ter because, “as if in the Ocean, Brittaine alone were another world, all kind of dis-
positions are to be found in her inhabitants” ().
. Such topoi had already informed travel narratives of George Sandys and
Fynes Moryson cited earlier, but Barclay profiles them with unprecedented detail
and strong emphasis.
. Belated states such as Switzerland and Belgium took root in areas that share
no common language, while still others such as the Netherlands and Austria came
into a pluralist formation through coalitions that agreed to share power.
. For national sentiment and federative structures on the eve of the Reforma-
tion, see Michael Hughes, Early Modern Germany, ‒ (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. ‒. For the reconstruction of German
identity after  to prevent the rivalries that led to the Thirty Years War, see
Rudolf Vierhaus, Germany in the Age of Absolutism, trans. Jonathan Knudsen
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒. For the structure of
German society in the early seventeenth century, see John Gagliardo, Germany un-
der the Old Regime, ‒ (New York: Longman’s, ), pp. ‒.
. The chief stimulus for unity appears to have been fear of the Ottomans in the
east, the French in the west, and the papacy in the south; see Heinrich Lutz, Das
Ringen um deutsche Einheit und kirchliche Erneuerung von Maximilian I bis zum
Westfälischen Frieden (Berlin: Propyläen, ), pp. ‒, ‒, and ‒.
. Eckhard Bernstein, German Humanism (Boston: Twayne, ), pp. ‒;
and James Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. See Lewis Spitz, Conrad Celtis: The German Arch-Humanist (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒. For fifteenth- and sixteenth-
century chronicles that celebrated the German past see Frank L. Borchardt, Ger-
man Antiquity in Renaissance Myth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Luther’s translation of the Bible as the basis of later German literary
style, see Eric A. Blackall, The Emergence of German as a Literary Language,
‒, d ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒.
. For biography, see Horst Joachim Frank, Catharina Regina von Greiffen-
berg: Leben und Welt der barocken Dichterin (Göttingen: Sachse und Pohl, ),


 Notes to Pages ‒

pp. ‒; for critical study, see Leo Villiger and Christina Regina von Greiffen-
berg: Zu Sprache und Welt der barocken Dichterin (Zurich: Atlantis, ), pp.
‒; for linearity and repetition in the sonnets, see Flora Kimmich, The Sonnets
of Catherina von Greiffenberg (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
), pp. ‒.
. See Geoffrey Parker, Europe in Crisis, ‒ (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. ‒. For social, religious, and political conflicts in the period,
see Sheilagh Ogilvie, “Germany and the Seventeenth-Century Crisis,” in The
Thirty Years War, ed. Geoffrey Parker (London: Routledge, ), pp. ‒; and
Christopher R. Friedricks, “War and German Society” in Parker, Thirty Years War,
pp. ‒.
. For marriage arrangements and interactions between families and social in-
stitutions in Germany which differed from those of Catholic Europe only in pub-
lic expression and external requirements, see Steven Ozment, Flesh and Spirit: Pri-
vate Life in Early Modern Germany (New York: Viking, ), pp. ‒. For spheres
of action within which women moved in complex social relationships, see Heide
Wunder, He Is the Sun, She Is the Moon: Women in Early Modern Germany, trans.
Thomas Dunlap (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. The Adventurous Simplicissimus, trans. A. T. S. Goodrick (Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press, ), ., p. . Opitz translated Sidney’s verse and
Valentinus Theocritus von Hirschberg translated the prose; a year later Opitz pub-
lished his own pastoral romance Hircanie, initiating the vogue throughout Ger-
many. See Curt von Faber du Faur, German Baroque Literature: A Catalogue of the
Collection in the Yale University Library,  vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press,
‒), ..
. For the formation of a distinctive Nuremberg culture at the time of Con-
rad Celtis, Hans Sachs, and Albrecht Dürer, see Gerald Strauss, Nuremberg in the
Sixteenth Century: City Politics and Life between Medieval and Modern Times
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ), pp. ‒. For later Nuremberg
culture, see Gerald Gillespie, German Baroque Poetry (New York: Twayne, ),
pp. ‒.
. Justus Georg Schottelius, Teutsche Vers-oder Reim Kunst, Facsimile: Luneb-
urg,  (Hildesheim: Olms, ); see Faber du Faur, German Baroque Litera-
ture, .‒.
. For the institutional identity of theory and practice among the Nuremberg
poets based upon communally derived and contextually described standards that
codify history and regulate languages, see Jane O. Newman, Pastoral Conventions
in Seventeenth-Century Nuremberg (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
), esp. pp. ‒. See also Blake Lee Sphar, The Archives of the Pegnisischer
Blumenorden (Berkeley: University of California Press, ); and Renate Jür-
gensen, Utile cum dulci: Mit Nutzen Erfreulich: Die Blütezeit des pegnisischen Blu-
menordens (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, ), pp. ‒.
. Georg Philipp Harsdörffer, Pegnesisches Schafergedicht, Facsimile: ‒


Notes to Pages ‒

(Tübingen: Niemeyer, ). For Harsdörffer’s onomatopoeia, see Wolfgang

Kayser, Die Klangmalerei bei Harsdörffer (Gottingen, ); and Faber du Faur,
German Baroque, .‒. For Harsdörffer’s theory about music and the origin of
language and for Schottel’s theory of German as a natural language, see Jane O.
Newman, Pastoral Conventions, pp. ‒.
. Faber du Faur, German Baroque, .‒, ‒.
. Text in Christina Regina von Greifffenberg, Geistliche Sonnette (Nurem-
berg: Michael Endters, : Facsimile reprint ed., Heinz-Otto Burger, Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ).
. For such principles of plain style influencing Martin Luther’s translation of
Scripture into German, see Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian between
God and Death (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Spanish identity in the New World, see Anthony R. Pagden, Spanish
Imperialism and the Political Imagination (New Haven: Yale University Press,
), pp. ‒.
. For Spanish colonialism, see Lyle N. McAlister, The Spanish and Portuguese
in the New World, ‒ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ); James Lock-
hart and Stuart Schwartz, Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish
America and Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ); and Leslie
Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History of Latin America,  vols. (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, ‒).
. For the sociological formation of haciendas in New Spain, see François
Chevalier, Land and Society in Colonial Mexico, trans. Lesley Byrd Simpson
(Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒. For illuminating com-
parisons between the cultural and economic practices of Spanish “baroque hedge-
hogs” in Latin America and those of English “gothic foxes” in North America, see
Claudio Véliz, The New World of the Gothic Fox: Culture and Economy in English
and Spanish America (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. ‒.
. For Sor Juana’s interior life measured against its social, cultural, and his-
torical background, see Octavio Paz, Sor Juana: Or, the Traps of Faith, trans. Mar-
garet Sayers Peden (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ), with par-
ticular reference to the court and convent on pp. ‒. For Sor Juana’s debt to
Góngora, see Joan Ramon Resina, Los usos del clásico (Barcelona: Anthropos, ),
pp. ‒.
. For the cultural transplantation of Europe in the Spanish Americas, see
Mariano Picón-Salas, A Cultural History of Spanish America: From Conquest to In-
dependence, trans. Irving I. Leonard (Berkeley: University of California Press,
), pp. ‒; and Paz, Sor Juana, pp. ‒ and ‒.
. The first number in parentheses refers to Obras, ed. Plancarte and Salceda,
and the second refers to Poems, trans. Peden, which I quote throughout.
. See José Lemaza Lima, “La curioisidad barroca,” in La expresión americana
(Madrid: Bolsillo de Alianza, ), pp. ‒, esp. pp. ‒.


 Notes to Pages ‒

. For Sor Juana’s defense of her intellectual life, see Paz, Sor Juana, pp.
‒.
. For cultural analogies as apologias for domination in New Spain, see
Mario Góngora, Studies in the Colonial History of Spanish America (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ), pp. ‒ and ‒. For “Long Distance
Nationalism” experienced by the colonialists see Anderson, Spectre of Comparisons,
pp. ‒.
. See, for example, Sor Juana’s fable, Neptuno allegórico and many of her vil-
lancios. See Paz, Sor Juana, pp. ‒ and ‒; and Lisa Rabin, “The blasón of
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: Politics and Petrarchism in Colonial Mexico,” Bulletin
of Hispanic Studies  (): ‒; and “Speaking to Silent Ladies: Images of
Beauty and Politics in Poetic Portraits of Women from Petrarch to Sor Juana Inés
de la Cruz,” MLN  (): ‒.
. See Anthony R. Pagden, Lords of All the World, pp. ‒; and Benedict
Anderson, Imagined Communities, pp. ‒.
. See Pagden, Lords of All the World, pp. ‒.


This page intentionally left blank
 Primary Sources Cited

Aldus Manutius. Le cose volgari di messer Francesco Petrarcha . . . tolto con sommis-
sima diligenza dallo scritto di mano medesima del Poeta, hauuto da M. Piero
Bembo. Venice: Aldo Romano, .
Antonio da Tempo. Francisci Petrarcae poetae excellentissimi Rerum uulgarium frag-
menta . . . la uita e il comento supra li Sonetti Canzone e Triumphi . . . composto
e compilato per il doctissimo Iurista Misser Antonio da Tempo.  vols. Venice:
Domenico Siliprando, .
Bembo, Pietro. Prose e rime. Ed. Carlo Dionisotti. d ed. Turin: UTET, .
Bible. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the  Edition. Ed. Lloyd E. Berry. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Press, .
Bible, Septuagint. Polyglotten-Bibel. Ed. R. Stier and K. G. W. Theile.  vols. Biele-
feld: Velhagen and Klasing, .
Bible, Vulgate. Novum Testamentum secundum sancti heronymi. Ed. Johannes
Wordsworth.  vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Boccaccio, Giovanni. Tutte le opere. Ed. Vittore Branca.  vols. Milan: Mon-
dadori, ‒.
Brucioli, Antonio. Sonetti, canzoni, et triomphi di M. Francesco Petrarca con breue
dichiaratione, e annotatione di Antonio Brucioli. Venice: Alessandro Brucioli e i
Frategli, .
Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, .
Castelvetro, Lodovico. Le rime del Petrarca breuemente sposte per Lodouico
Casteluetro. Basel: Pietro de Sedabonis, .
Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. Trans. Charles Singleton. Gar-
den City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, .
Cariteo (Benedetto Gareth). Le rime di Benedetto Gareth, detto il Chariteo. Ed.
Erasmo Pèrcopo.  vols. Naples: Accademia delle Scienze, .
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Works. Ed. F. N. Robinson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, .
Daniel, Samuel. Poems. Ed. Arthur Colby Sprague. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, .
Daniello, Bernardino. Sonetti, canzoni, e triomphi di messer Franceso Petrarcha con
la spositione di Bernardino Daniello da Lucca. Venice: Giovanniantonio de
Nicolini da Sabio, .


Primary Sources Cited

———. Sonetti canzoni e triomphi di M. Francesco Petrarca, con la spositione di

Bernardino Daniello da Lucca. Venice: Pietro e Gioanmaria Fratelli de Nicolini
da Sabio, .
Dante Alighieri. Le opere. Ed. Michele Barbi et al. d ed. Florence: Società Dan-
tesca Italiana, .
———. The Divine Comedy. Trans. Charles Singleton.  vols. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press, ‒.
———. De Vulgari Eloquentia. Ed. and trans. Steven Botterill. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, .
———. Vita nuova. Trans. Mark Musa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
.
Du Bellay, Joachim. La Deffence et illustration de la langue françoyse. Ed. Henri
Chamard. Paris: Didier, .
———. The Defense and Illustration of the French Language. Trans. Gladys M.
Turquet. London: J. M. Dent, .
———. Les Regrets et autres oeuvres poétiques. Ed. J. Jolliffe and Michael Screech.
Geneva: Droz, .
———. L’Olive. Ed. Ernesta Caldarini. Geneva: Droz, .
———. Oeuvres poétiques. Ed. Daniel Aris and Françoise Joukovsky.  vols. Paris:
Bordas, ‒.
———. Poemata et autres oeuvres latines. Ed. Geneviève Demerson. Vols.  and 
of Oeuvres. Gen. ed. Henri Chamard. Société des Textes Littéraires Français.
Fausto da Longiano, Sebastiano. Il Petrarcha col commento di M. Sebastiano
Fausto da Longiano. Venice: Francesco di Alessandro Bindoni e Mapheo Pasini,
.
Filelfo, Francesco. Il commento deli sonetti et cançone del Petrarcha composto per
Messer Francesco Philelpho. Bologna: Ugo Rugerius, .
Gambara, Veronica. Le rime. Ed. Alan Bullock. Florence: Olschki, .
Gesualdo, Giovanni Andrea. Il Petrarcha colla spositione di Misser Giovanni Andrea
Gesualdo. Venice: Giovann’ Antonio di Nicolini e Fratelli da Sabbio, .
Giolito, Gabriel, et al. Rime diverse di molti eccelentissimi Autori nvovamente rac-
colte.  vols. Vols. ‒ and ‒: Venice: Giolito, ‒; vol. : Bologna: Giac-
carello, ; vol.  (actually vol. ): Cremona: Conti, .
Goyet, François, ed. Traités de poétiques et de rhétoriques de la Renaissance. Paris:
Livre de Poche Classique, .
Greville, Fulke. Poems and Dramas. Ed. Geoffrey Bullough.  vols. Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, .
———. The Prose Works. Ed. John Gouws. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Herbert, George. The Works of George Herbert. Ed. F. E. Hutchinson. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, .
Herbert, William, Earl of Pembroke. Poems Written by the Right Honorable
William Earl of Pembroke. Ed Gaby Onderwyzer. Augustan Reprint Society.
Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Publications, .


 Primary Sources Cited

Héroët, Antoine. Oeuvres poétiques. Ed. Ferdinand Gohin. Paris: Société des Textes
Français Modernes, .
Horace. The Odes and Epodes. Ed. and trans. C. E. Bennett. Loeb Classical Li-
brary. London: Heinemann, .
Howard, Henry, Earl of Surrey. Poems. Ed. Emrys Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
.
Jonson, Ben. The Complete Poetry. Ed. William B. Hunter Jr. Garden City, N.Y.:
Anchor Books, .
Juana Inéz de la Cruz, Sor. Obras completas. Ed. Alfonso Méndez Plancarte and Al-
berto G. Salceda.  vols. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, ‒.
———. Poems, Protest, and a Dream. Trans. Margaret Sayers Peden. Har-
mondsworth: Penguin Books, .
Landino, Cristoforo. Disputationes Camaldulenses. Ed. Peter Lohe. Florence: San-
soni, .
———. Publii Vergilii Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis. Venice: Bernardino Stagnin,
.
Lanyer, Aemelia. The Poems of Aemelia Lanyer. Ed. Susanne Woods. New York:
Oxford University Press, .
Lanza, Antonio, ed. Lirici toscani del Quattrocento. Rome: Bulzoni, .
Lorenzo de’ Medici. Opere. Ed Attilio Simioni.  vols. Bari: Laterza, ‒.
———. The Autobiography of Lorenzo de’ Medici: A Commentary on My Sonnets.
Trans. James Wyatt Cook. Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and
Studies, .
———. Selected Poems and Prose. Trans. Jon Thiem. University Park: Pennsylva-
nia State University Press, .
Luther, Martin. Selections from His Writings. Ed. John Dillenberger. Garden City,
N.Y.: Anchor Books, .
Marot, Clément. Oeuvres poétiques complètes. Ed. Gérard Defaux.  vols. Paris:
Classiques Garnier, ‒.
Mellin de Saint Gelais. Oeuvres poétiques. Ed. Donald Stone Jr.  vols. Paris: So-
ciété des Textes Français Modernes, .
Nichols, Fred J., ed. An Anthology of Neo-Latin Poetry. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, .
Ovid. Heriodes and Amores. Ed. and trans. Grant Showerman. Loeb Classical Li-
brary. London: Heinemann, .
———. Metamorphoses. Ed. and trans. Frank Justus Miller. Loeb Classical Li-
brary. London: Heinemann, .
Peletier du Mans, Jacques. Les oeuvres poétiques. Ed Marcel Françon. Rochecorbon:
Charles Gay, .
Petrarch, Francesco. Africa. Ed. Nicola Festa. Florence: Sansoni, .
———. Africa. Trans. Thomas G. Bergin and Alice. Wilson. New Haven: Yale
University Press, .
———. Canzoniere. Ed. Gianfranco Contini. d. ed. Turin: Einaudi, .


Primary Sources Cited

———. Canzoniere. Ed. Marco Santagata. Milan: Mondadori, .

———. “Petrarch’s Coronation Oration.” Trans. Ernest H. Wilkins. PMLA 
(): ‒.
———. “La ‘collatio laureationis’ del Petrarca.” Ed. Carlo Godi. Italia Medioevale
e Umanistica  (): ‒.
———. Familiares. Ed. Vittorio Rossi and Umberto Bosco. In Edizione nazionale
delle opere di Francesco Petrarca, vols. ‒. Florence: Sansoni, ‒.
———. Letters on Familiar Matters. Trans. Aldo Bernardo.  vols. Albany and Bal-
timore: State University of New York Press and Johns Hopkins University
Press, ‒.
———. Letters of Old Age. Trans. Aldo Bernardo, Saul Levin, and Reta Bernardo.
 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, .
———. Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. Ed. and trans. Robert M. Durling. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, .
———. Le rime. Ed. Giosuè Carducci and Severino Ferrari. Florence: Sansoni,
.
———. Secretum. Trans. Davy Carozza and H. James Shey. New York: Peter
Lang, .
———. Trionfi, Rime estravaganti, Codice degli Abbozzi. Eds. Vincinio Pacca and
Laura Paolino. Milan: Mondadori, .
———. Triumphs. Trans. Ernest Hatch Wilkins. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, .
Philieul, Vasquin. Laure d’Avignon, extraict du poète florentin (). Ed. Pierre Lar-
tigue and Jacques Roubaud. Paris: Actes Sud-Papiers, .
Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie: . Ed. Gladys Doidge Willcock
and Alice Walker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, .
Ronsard, Pierre de. Les Amours. Ed. Henri Weber and Catherine Weber. Paris:
Garnier, .
———. Oeuvres complètes. Ed. Paul Laumonier.  vols. Paris: Droz, ‒.
Saint-Gelais, Mellin de. Oeuvres poétiques françaises. Ed. Donald Stone Jr.  vols.
Paris: Société des Textes Français Modernes, .
Sapegno, Natalino, ed. Poeti minori del Trecento. Milan: Riccardo Ricciardi, .
Scève, Maurice. The “Délie” of Maurice Scève. Ed. Ian D. McFarlane. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, .
Servius, Honorius Publius. Servianorum in vergilii carmina commentariorum. Ed.
E. K. Rand et al.  vols. Lancaster, Pa.: Societas Philologicae Americanae, .
Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 
Sidney, Philip. The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia (The Old Arcadia). Ed. Kather-
ine Duncan-Jones. New York: Oxford University Press, .
———. The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia (The New Arcadia): A Facsimile
Reprint of the  Edition. Intro. Carl Dennis. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univer-
sity Press, .


 Primary Sources Cited

———. The Miscellaneous Prose of Sir Philip Sidney. Ed. Jan van Dorsten and
Katherine Duncan-Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
———. The Poems of Sir Philip Sidney. Ed. William A. Ringler. Oxford: Claren-
don Press, .
———. Works. Ed. Albert Feuillerat.  vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, .
Sidney, Robert. Poems. Ed. P. J. Croft. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Sidney Herbert, Mary. The Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of
Pembroke. Ed. Margaret P. Hannay, Noel Kinnamon, and Michael G. Brennan.
 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
Solerti, Angelo, ed. Le vite di Dante, Petrarca, e Boccaccio. Milan: Francesco Val-
lardi, .
Squarzafico, Hieronimo. Li Canzoneti dello Egragio poeta Messer Francesco Petrar-
cha . . . Io Hyeronimo [Squarzafico] gli ho exposti. Venice: Piero Cremoneso
(Petrus de Piasiis), .
Surrey, Henry Howard, the Earl of. Poems. Ed. Emrys Jones. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, .
Sylvano da Venafro. Il Petrarca col commento di M. Syluano da Venaphro. Naples:
Antonio Iouino and Matthio Canzer, .
Thompson, David, and Alan Nagel. The Three Crowns of Florence. New York:
Harper and Row, .
Tottel, Richard. Tottel’s Miscellany (‒). Ed. Hyder Edward Rollins.  vols.
d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, .
Tyard, Pontus de. Les erreurs amoureuses. Ed. John McClelland. Textes littéraires
français. Geneva: Droz, .
Vellutello, Alessandro. Le volgari opere del Petrarcha con la espositione di Alessandro
Vellutello da Lucca. Venice: Giouanniantonio e Fratelli da Sabbio, .
Virgil. Aeneid. Ed. and trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. Loeb Classical Library. 
vols. London: Heinemann, .
———. Opera virgiliana cum decem commentis (with commentaries of Badius As-
censius, Antonius Mancinellus, Pierius Valerianus, et al.). Lyon: J. Crespin,
.
———. Publii Vergilii Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis (with commentaries of Servius,
Donatus, Probus, and Christoforo Landino). Venice: Bernardino Stagnin, .
Wroth, Mary. The First Part of the Countess of Montgomery’s Urania. Ed. Josephine
A. Roberts. Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, .
———. The Second Part of the Countess of Montgomery’s Urania. Ed. Josephine A.
Roberts, completed by Suzanne Gossett and Janel Mueller. Tempe, Ariz.: Me-
dieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, .
———. Lady Mary Wroth’s Love’s Victory: The Penshurst Manuscript. Ed. Michael
G. Brennan. London: Roxburghe Club, .
———. The Poems of Lady Mary Wroth. Ed. Josephine A. Roberts. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, .


Primary Sources Cited

Wyatt, Sir Thomas. The Complete Poems. Ed. R. A. Rebholz. New Haven: Yale
University Press, .
Zumthor, Paul, ed. Anthologie des grands rhétoriqueurs. Paris: Editions du Seuil,
.


 Index

Ahl, Frederick, n.  , ; merited through attainment,

Alamanni, Luigi, ‒, n.  , ‒, , , , , , ;
Alberti, Francesco, n.  urban, ‒, , , , . See also
allegiances: familial, ‒, , , , courtly ethos; social class
; personal across ranks, , , ‒, Arroyo, Ciriaco Morón, n. 
, , , , , , , ; Ascoli, Albert Russell, n. 
personal among equals, , , ‒, Atticus, 
, , ; political, , ‒, Augustine, St., , , , , , , 
‒, , ; professional, , ,
‒, , , ‒, , , . Bacon, Francis, ‒
See also loyalty, networks of; national Balibar, Etienne, n. , 
sentiment; social class Barclay, John, ‒
ancestral patrimony, , , , , ; and Beaune, Colette, n. , n. ,
Du Bellay, , ‒, ‒; and Pe- n. , nn. , , , , n. 
trarch, , , , , , ; and Sidney Bembo, Pietro, ‒, , , , ‒,
circle, ‒; and Sidney family, , , ‒, 
‒, , , , ‒, ‒ Bernardo, Aldo, n. , n. , nn.
Anderson, Benedict, n. , n. , , , nn. , , nn. , , ,
nn. , , n. , nn. , , n. , n. 
, nn. ,  Bible. See Scripture
Aneau, Bartélemy, ‒, , , , Boccaccio, Giovanni, , , , , ,
,  , , , ; commentary on Dante,
annexation of territory: through conquest, ; Fiammeta, ; Filocolo, ; Ninfale
, ‒, , , , ‒; fiesolano, ; Rime, ‒
through diplomacy, , , , ,  Boscán, Juan, , ‒, 
Antonio da Tempo, , , , , , , Bourdieu, Pierre, nn. , , n. 
, ; and Petrarch, canz. , ; —, Britons, , , , ‒
son. , ; —, son. , ; —, son. , Brittany, , ‒, , , 
; —, son. , ‒; —, son. , Brucioli, Antonio, , , , , , ;
; —, son. ,  and Petrarch, son. , ‒; —, son.
Aragonese Naples, , , ‒, ,  ‒, ; —, son. ‒, ; —,
Ariosto, Ludovico, , ,  son. , ; —, son. , 
aristocracy: by birth, ‒, ‒, , Brut, , , 
, , , , , ; by inheri- Brutus, Junius, opponent of Tarquin, ,
tance, , , , , , ; , ‒
landed, ‒, , , , , , , Budé, Guillaume, ‒


Index
bureaucratic apparatus of state: in Eng- ature, , ‒, ‒, ; on Ger-
land, , , , , ; in France, man literature, ; on Italian litera-
, , , ‒, ; in Italy, , , ture, ‒, ‒, ‒, ‒; on
. See also nation; nation-state Scripture, ‒, ‒; self-com-
Burgundy, , , , , ,  mentary, ‒, ‒, ‒; on
Bushnell, Rebecca, n.  Spanish literature, ‒
Byblis, , , ‒, ‒,  Conley, Tom, n. , n. , n.
, n. , n. , n. , n. 
Calvin, Jean, , ‒, , ; and courtly ethos: aristocratic distinction,
Calvinist doctrine, , , , , ‒, , , , ‒, , ,
,  , , , , ‒, ‒, ;
Cariteo (Benedetto Gareth), ‒, noble privilege, ‒, , , , ,
,  , , ‒; service to state, , ,
Carmichael, Calum, n. , nn. ,  ‒, ‒, ‒, , , ,
Castelvetro, Lodovico, , , , ; and ‒, , ‒, , . See also
Petrarch, canz. , ‒; —, son. , allegiances; nobility
; —, son. , n. ; —, son. cultural diversity, , , , , , , ,
‒, ‒; —, son. , ; —, ; in England, ‒, , , ,
son. , , ; —, son. , ; —, ‒; in France, ‒, , ,
son. ,  , 
Castiglione, Baldassare, , , , , cultural hegemony, , , ; in England,
n. , n.  , ‒; in France, , ‒,
Celts, , , ,  ‒, , ; in Italy, , , ,
Charlemagne, , , ,  ‒, , ; in Spain, ‒
Charles IV of Luxembourg, , , , 
Charles V of Spain, , , , , ‒, Daniel, Samuel, ‒
, , ‒,  Daniello, Bernardino, , , , , ,
Charles VIII of France, , , ,  ; and Petrarch, canz. , ; —,
Chartier, Alain, ‒, , , ,  canz. , ‒; —, son. , ; —,
Chaucer, Geoffrey, ‒,  son. , ‒; —, son. , ‒;
Cicero, , ‒, , ‒, , , —, son. , ; —, son. , ; —,
,  son. , ‒; —, son. , ; —,
Cino da Pistoia, , , ,  son. , ; —, son. , ; —,
classics, ancient: commentary on, ‒, son. , 
, , , ; educational value of, Dante Alighieri, , , , , , ,
‒, , , , , ; literary , ; attitude of Petrarch toward,
imitation of, ‒, , , ‒, , ‒; De vulgari eloquentia, , ;
,  Inferno , ; Inferno , ; Purgatorio
Clifford, Lady Margaret, ‒,  , 
Clovis, , , , ,  Davanzati, Mariotto, n. 
Cohen, Walter, n.  David, psalms attributed to, , , 
Cola di Rienzo, , , ‒,  Defaux, Gérard, n. , n. , n.
commentaries, ‒, , , , , ‒, , nn. , , , , nn. , ,
‒, ; on classics, ‒, , , n. 
, ; on English literature, ‒, DellaNeva, JoAnn, n. , n. , n.
‒, , ‒; on French liter- , n. , n. 


 Index
Dolet, Etienne, ‒, ,  ‒, ‒, ‒, ‒, n.
Dorat, Jean, , , , ,  ; name of, 
Du Bellay, Joachim, , , , , ; English language: literary vernacular, ,
and education, ‒, ; and family, , , , , , ‒, ; spo-
‒; and Jean du Bellay, , , , ken vernacular, , ‒, ‒, 
, , ; and service to the erotic imagination, , ; and Du Bellay,
Crown, ‒, ‒, ,  , ; and Petrarch, , , , ;
—, works: L’anterotique, , , ; Les and Sidney circle, ‒, ‒,
Antiquitéz, , , ‒; Contre les ‒, ‒, ‒
pétrarquistes, ; Deffence, , , Estienne, Robert, , , 
‒, ‒, ‒, ‒, ‒, ethnic diversity: in England, , ‒,
, ‒, , , , ; “Epi- ‒; in France, , ‒; in Ger-
taphe de Clément Marot,” ‒, ; many, ; in Italy, , ; in Spain, ,
Musagnoemachie, , ; Le poëte , 
courtisan, ; Recueil de poésie, , ethnos, , , , ‒
; Les Regrets, , , , , ‒; exile, , ‒; and Alamanni, ‒;
Songe, , , , ‒; Sonnets and Dante, ; Du Bellay’s imagina-
d’honeste amour, ; Vers lyriques, , tion of, ‒; Marot’s period of, ;
, , ,  and Ovid, , ; Petrarch’s experi-
—, Olive, , , ‒, , , , , ence of, , , 
, ; son. , ; son. , ; son. exogamy, , , , , , ‒. See
, , ; son. , , ; son. , also social class
‒, ‒, , , , ‒;
son. , ; son. , , ; son. , family romance, , ‒, , , ,
‒; son. , ‒; son. ‒, ‒
; son. , ‒; son. , ; son. family structures, , ‒, , , ,
‒, ‒; son. , ‒; son. , , ‒, 
, ‒ father tongue, , 
Dubrow, Heather, n. , n. , Fausto da Longiano, , , ; and Pe-
n. , n. , n.  trarch, canz. , ‒; —, canz. ,
Duval, Edwin, n.  ; —, son. , ; —, son. ,
‒; —, son. , ‒; —, son.
Elizabeth I of England, , , , , ; , ; —, son. , ; —, son. ,
as literary model, , , , ; ; —, son. , ; —, son. , ;
and political policy, , , , , —, son. , 
 Filelfo, Francesco, , , ‒, , ,
empire, , , , , ; ancient Roman, ; and Petrarch, canz. , ‒, ;
, ‒, , ‒, ‒, , , —, son. , ‒; —, son. , ; —,
‒, ; Hapsburg, ‒, ‒, son. , ‒; —, son. , , ; —,
‒, , , , , ‒; son. , ; —, son. ‒, ‒; —,
Holy Roman, ‒, , , ‒, , son. ‒, ‒; —, son. , ; —,
‒, , . See also national iden- son. , 
tity; national sentiment Florence, , , , , , , , ,
endogamy, , , , ‒. See also ‒; Republic of, , , , , , ,
nobility ‒, ; ruled by Medici, , , ,
England: entity and idea of, ‒, , ‒, ‒, , 


Index
Fontainebleau, , , ‒ geographic unity: in England, imagined,
France: entity and idea of, ‒, , , , ‒, ‒; in France, , ,
, ; name of,  ‒, ; in Italy, , , , , ,
François I of France, , ‒, ‒, , 
, , , , ‒ German language, 
Francus, , ,  Germany: entity and idea of, , , ,
fraternal clan, , ‒, ‒, , ‒, ‒; name of, ‒
,  Gesualdo, Giovanni Andrea, , , ,
fratricidal strife, , , ; and cultural ; and Petrarch, canz. , , n.
hegemony, , , , , , , , ; —, canz. , ; —, son. , ;
, ‒, ; and political order, —, son. , ; —, son. , , ;
, , , , , , , , , , —, son. , ; —, son. , ; —,
. See also taboo; totems son. , ; —, son. , ; —, son.
French language: literary vernacular, , , ; —, son. , ; —, son. ,
, , ‒, ‒, , ‒; or- , ; —, son. , ; —, son.
thography, ; spoken vernacular, , 
‒, , , ‒, ‒, ‒ Ghibellines, , , , , , , 
Freud, Sigmund, nn. , , n. ; Giddens, Anthony, n. 
Civilization and Its Discontents, ‒; Giolito, Gabriele, ‒, , , ,
“Family Romances,” , , , ‒; , n. 
Totem and Taboo, , , ‒, , grammatical treatises, , , ‒, 
n.  Greenberg, Mitchell, n. 
Greene, Roland, n. , n. , n.
Gallican Church (France), , , , , , n. , nn. , , n. 
, , , n.  Greene, Thomas M., n. , n. ,
Gambara, Veronica, , ‒ n. , n. , n. , n. ,
Garcilaso de la Vega, , ‒ n. , n. , n. , n. ,
Garnier, Robert, ‒ n. , n. 
Gellner, Ernest, n. , n. , n.  Greenfeld, Liah, n. ; nn. , ;
gender and education, , ; in father n. 
tongues, , ‒, , ; and Greiffenberg, Catharina Regina von,
masculinist prejudices, , , , ‒
‒, ,  Greville, Fulke, , ; Life of Sidney,
gender and translocal identity, , , ‒
‒ Grizzly, Lady, 
gendered figuration: and hierarchical sta- Guelphs, , , , , 
tus, ‒, ‒, , , , ‒, Guillaume de Lorris, ‒, , ‒, 
‒, , ‒, , , ; Guillaume de Machaut, ‒, , , 
of homeland as father, , , , ,
, ; of homeland as mother, , Hager, Alan, n. , n. , n. ,
, , ‒, , ‒, ‒, n. 
n. ; of men as women, , Hammons, Pamela S., n. 
‒, ‒, n. ; of women as Hampton, Timothy, n. , n. ,
men, , , , ‒, n.  n. , n. , n. , n. ,
Geneva Bible, xi, ‒, ‒, ‒ n. , n. , n. , nn.
gens, gentes, , , , ‒,  , 


 Index
Hannay, Margaret P., nn. , , n. , Italy: entity and idea of, , , , , ‒,
nn. , , , n. , nn. , , , ‒, ; name of, ‒; pan-Ital-
n.  ian sentiment, , , , , , , ,
Henri II of France, , , ; and patron- ‒, ‒, ‒
age, , , ‒, , ‒; and
statecraft, , ‒, , ,  James I of England, , , , ; and
Henry VIII of England, , ‒, , statecraft, , ‒, , , ,
,  , ; “A Schort Treatise,” 
Herbert, Edward,  Jean de Meun, ‒, , ‒, 
Herbert, George, , , ‒ Jones, Ann Rosalind, n. , n. 
Herbert, William, , , , , , , Jonson, Ben, , n. ; Epigramme
‒; poems, ‒, ‒ , ‒; “To Penshurst,” ‒;
Hercules, Gallic, ‒ “To Sir Robert Wroth,” 
Héröet, Antoine, , ‒, ‒, , Juana Inéz de la Cruz, Sor, ‒
, , ; L’androgyne, ‒; La
parfaicte amye,  Kaske, Carol V., n. 
Hobsbawm, Eric, n. , n.  Kristeva, Julia, n. , n. , n.
Homer, , , ,  , n. 
Horace, , , ‒, , , , , Kritzman, Lawrence D., n. 
, , ; epistle ., , ; epode Kuin, Roger, n. , n. , n. ,
., ; ode ., ; ode ., ; ode n. , n. 
., , , , ; satire ., 
household arrangements, , , , Lamb, Mary Ellen, n. , n. ,
, , ‒,  n. , n. 
Huarte, Juan,  Landino, Cristoforo, ‒
Hull, Isabel, n.  language, standardization of, ‒, ,
humanism: education, , ‒, , , ‒, ‒, ‒; and literary
, ‒, ; hermeneutics, ‒, canon, ‒, ‒, ‒. See
‒, , ; rhetoric, , , ; also national imaginary
scholarship, , , , ,  Lanyer, Aemelia, ‒
Hundred Years War, , , , , ,  Latin language: classical, , , , ,
Hurtado di Mendosa, Don Diego, ‒ , , ‒, , ; humanist, ,
hybridity: of culture, , , , , , , , ‒, , , , ,
‒, , , , ‒; of ethnic ; medieval, , , , 
origins, , ‒, , ‒, ‒, Lazzaro, Claudia, n. , nn. ,
, , ; of language, ‒, , , 
, ‒, . See also national Leicester, Earl of, , , , , 
imaginary; national sentiment Lemaire de Belges, Jean, , , , ,
‒, , , 
incest, , , , , ‒, ‒, Levinas, Emmanuel, n. 
‒, , . See also endogamy; Lewis, Philip E., n. 
exogamy Lewis IV of Bavaria, ‒
Ireland, , ,  liberty, personal (libertas), , , , ,
Italian language: literary vernacular, , , , , , , ; and inheri-
, ‒, ‒, , , ; spoken tance, , , , ‒
vernacular, , ,  literacy, , ‒, ‒, ‒, , , 


Index
literary canon: classical, , ; early Meigret, Louis, , 
modern, ‒, ‒, , ‒, Meschinot, Jean, , 
, , n. ; medieval, , ‒, Mexico City, ‒
‒, ‒, ‒, . See also Migiel, Marilyn, n. 
national imaginary Milan, , , , , , , ‒, , 
literary language, ‒, ‒, ‒, Mirollo, James, n. 
. See also national imaginary; ver- Moffett, Thomas, Nobilis, ‒
nacular languages Molinet, Jean, , , , 
Livy, ,  Monster, 
Logan, Marie-Rose, n. , n.  Montaigne, Michel Equem de, ,
Loire valley, , , , ‒, ‒ n. , n. , n. 
London, , , , , , , , , mother tongue, , , ‒, 
‒,  Mulcaster, Richard, , ‒
Long, Kathleen, n.  Murphy, Stephen, nn. , 
Lorenzo de’ Medici, , , ‒, , ,
, , ; Comento, , ‒, ; Najemy, John, n. , n. , n. 
“Raccolta aragonese,”  Naples, , , , , , ‒, , ‒,
loyalty, networks of: personal across , , 
ranks, , , , ‒, ; per- nation: Biblical ideas of, , , ; con-
sonal among equals, , ‒, , cepts of, , , ‒, , , , ;
, , ; political, ‒, , , early modern formations of, , ,
, , , , ; professional, , ‒, ‒, 
‒, ‒, ‒, , ‒, national identity: and “the Other” as
‒, , . See also allegiances; external opposition, , , , ,
national sentiment; social class , , ‒, ; and “the Other”
Lutheran reform, , , , ‒, , , as internal counterpoint, , ‒,
,  , , , ‒; and “the
Lyon, , , , , , ,  people,” , , , ‒, , ,
, , , , ‒. See also
Malatesta, Pandolfo, , ‒ England; France; Germany; Italy;
Marguerite d’Angoulême (Marguerite de people, the idea of a; Spain
Navarre), , , , , ,  national imaginary: and culture, , ,
Marguerite de France, ‒, , , ‒, , , ‒, , , ,
, ,  , ‒; and language, , ‒,
Marot, Clément, , , , , ‒, , , , , , , ‒, .
, , , , , ; and the clas- See also language, standardization of;
sics, , ‒, ; and the French literary canon; literary language; ver-
canon, ‒, ‒, ‒, , ; nacular languages
as translator of Petrarch, ‒. national sentiment: and cultural history,
Works: Adolescence clémentine, ; ‒, , ‒, ; as galvanizing
“Des poetes francoys,” ‒; L’enfer, agent, ‒, , , ‒, ; and
‒; epigrams, ; rondeaux, ; historical remembrance, , , ‒,
sonnets, ‒, n. ; Suite de , , , , , ‒, ‒,
l’adolescence clémentine,  ; and personal loyalties, , , ‒,
Mazzotta, Giuseppe, n. , n. , , , , , , , , ‒,
n. , n. , n.  , ‒; and political loyalties,


 Index
‒, , , , , , ‒, paternal bloodlines, , , , , ;
‒; and public display, , , , and inheritance, , , , , 
, , , , , , ‒, patria, , , , , , ; and cultural
‒. See also allegiances; loyalty, net- identity, , , , , , ‒, ,
works of; national imaginary; patria; , , n. ; and political attach-
people, the idea of a; regional identity; ment, , , , , , , , , ,
siblinghood; social class; translocal , n. 
attachments patronage, , ‒; and Boccaccio, ;
nation-state, , , , , , , ; and Cariteo, ‒; and Du Bellay,
as bureaucratic administration, , , , ‒, , , , ‒, , ,
, ‒. See also bureaucratic appa- , , , ‒; and Petrarch,
ratus of state ‒, ‒, ‒; political, , ,
Navarrete, Ignacio, nn. , , ; and the Sidney circle, , , ,
n.  ‒, ‒
Negri, Antonio, nn. ,  Peletier du Mans, Jacques, , , ,
New World, , , , , , , ‒, , , , 
‒, ‒ people, the idea of a: ethnic, , , ,
Nichols, Stephen, n.  ‒, ‒, ; political, , ,
nobility: courtly, , , , , , , , , ‒, , , ‒; re-
, , ; marriage into, , ; gional, , , ‒, ‒, ‒,
military, , , , , , ; , ‒, , ‒. See also
pacified, , , ‒, ; privileges ethnos; gens, gentes
of, , , , , ‒, , , Perry, Curtis, n. , n. 
, ; service to the nation, ‒, Peterson, Richard, nn. , , 
‒, , . See also allegiances; Petrarch, Francesco, , , ‒, ,
courtly ethos; social class ; and allegiances, ‒; and amor,
Norton, Glyn, n. , n. , n. ‒, , ‒; at Arquà, ; at
, n.  Avignon, , , , , , , ‒,
Norton, Mary Beth, n.  ; and Black Death, , , , ;
Nuremberg, ‒ and Boccaccio, , , , , ; and
Charles IV, ; and Cicero, ‒, ,
Opitz, Martin, ,  ; and Cino da Pistoia, , , ;
Ovid, , , , , , ‒, , , and classics, , , ; and Cola di
, ; Amores . and ., ‒; Rienzo, , , , ; and Giacomo
Amores ., ; Ex Ponto, ; Fasti, Colonna, ‒, , ‒, , , ;
; Heroides, ; Met. , ; Met. , and Dante, , ‒, ; and exile, ,
; Met.  and , ,  ‒, ; and father, , ; and Flo-
rence, , , , ‒; and Laura, ,
papacy: criticism of, , , , , , , , , , , , ‒, , , ,
‒; and European unity, , , , ‒, ‒; and language, , ,
‒, ‒, , ‒; and politi- ‒; and Pandolfo Malatesta, ,
cal coercion, ‒, , ‒, ,  ‒; at Milan, ‒, , ; and
Paris, , , , ‒, , , , mother, ; and papacy, , , , ,
,  , ‒; and patria, , , , ,
Parker, Deborah, nn. , , , n. , , ; and Roman Republic, ‒,
n. , n.  ; and Rome in the present, , ‒,


Index
Petrarch, Francesco (cont.) ‒, ‒, ‒, ; of Spain, ,
, , ‒; and travel, , ; at Vau- , , , ‒
cluse, , , , , , ; and Vis- Poliziano, Angelo, ‒, n. 
conti, , , ‒, , ‒, ,  popular culture, , ; England, ‒,
—, works: Africa, , , ‒, ; Bu- , ‒, ; Florence, ‒, ;
colicum carmen, ‒; Coronation France, , , , ; Germany, ;
Oration, ; Fam. ., ‒; Fam. ., Spain, , ‒
‒; Fam. ., ; Fam. ., ; Posner, David, n. , n. 
Fam. ., ; Fam. ., ; Fam. ., Prescott, Ann Lake, n. , n. ,
; Fam. ., ; Fam. ., ‒, n. , nn. , , , n. 
; Metrical Epistles, , ; Secretum, print culture, , , , ‒, ,
; Triumphs, , ‒, , ; Tri- ‒, . See also literacy
umph of Death , ‒ Propertius, , ‒
—, Rime sparse, , , , , , ‒, , Protestant sentiment, , , ‒; in
, , ; canz. , , ; canz. England, , , ‒, , ,
, ; canz. , , ‒, ‒; canz. , ; in France, ‒, , ,
, , ‒; canz. , , ; son. ‒, , ; in Germany, ‒.
, , ‒; son. , ; son. , ; son. , See also Calvin, Jean; Lutheran reform
‒; son. , ‒, ‒; son. , Provence, , , , , , , , , ,
; son. , ; son. ‒, , ; son. , n. 
, ; son. , ‒; son. , ; Puttenham, George, , , 
son. , ; son. ‒, ; son. , ;
son. , ; son. , ; son. , ; son. Quilligan, Maureen, n. , n. ,
, , ‒; son. , , ; son. , n. 
; son. ‒, ‒; son. , ‒;
son. ‒, ; son. , ‒; son. race (radix), , , 
, ; son. , ‒; son. , “Radical Protestant,” , , , 
‒; son. , ‒; son. , , ; Rebhorn, Wayne, n. , n. ,
son. , , ‒; son. , ; son. n. , n. 
, ; son. , ; son. , ‒; Reformation, , , , , , , , 
son. , ; son. , ; son. , regional identity: in England, ‒,
‒; son. , , , , ; son. , ‒, ‒; in France, , ,
, ‒, ‒, ‒, , , , , ‒, , ‒, , ,
, ‒, ‒; son. , ‒; , ‒, ; in Italy, , , 
son. , ; son. , ; son. , ; religious pluralism, ‒, , ‒,
son. , ; son. , ‒ , , , ‒, ‒, 
Philieul, Vasquin, ‒ Resina, Joan Ramòn, n. , n. 
Pindar, , , , , , ‒, , rhetorical treatises, , , , , ,
, ,  , , 
Plato, , , , , , , ‒, Rhétoriqueurs, , , , , ‒,
, , , n.  , , 
Pléiade, , , , ,  Richardson, Brian, n. 
political identity, , ‒; of England, Rigolot, François, n. , n. ,
, ‒, ‒, , , , ; n. , n. , n. , n. 
of France, , ‒, ‒, ‒, , Robert, king of Naples, , , , , 
; of Germany, , ; of Italy, , Robertet, Jean, , ‒


 Index
Roche, Thomas, n. , n. , n. Siculo-Tuscan literary vernacular, , 
, n.  Sidney, Mary, countess of Pembroke, , ,
romance of origins, , , ‒, ‒, , , , ; as patroness, , ,
‒, , , ; and cultural self- , ; as writer, , , , 
fashioning, ‒, , , ‒, . —, works: Discourse of Life and Death,
See also family romance ; Psalms, , ‒, ; Ps. ,
Rome: ancient, , , , , ‒, , ; Ps. , ; Ps. , ; Ps. ,
‒, ; papal, , , , ‒, , n. ; Ps. , ‒; Ps. , ;
‒, , , , , ; Roman Ps. , ; Ps. , n. ; Tragedie
Empire, , ‒, , ‒, ; Ro- of Antonie, ‒; Triumph of Death,
man Republic, , , , , , ‒, , , , ‒
, ‒ Sidney, Philip, , , , , , , ,
Ronsard, Pierre de, , , , , , , ; and father, , ‒, , ,
, , ‒, , n. ; Les , ; and mother, , , , 
Amours, son. , ‒; —, son. , —, works: Countess of Pembroke’s
, ; Le Bocage, ; Discours, ; Arcadia, , , ; Defence of Po-
Franciade, ; Odes, , , , , etry, , , ‒, ‒, , ,
,  , , , ; Discourse on Irish
Affairs, ; New Arcadia, , ,
Saint-Gelais, Mellin de, , , ‒, n. ; Old Arcadia, , , ,
‒, , , , , ; sonnets, , , , n. 
‒ —, Astrophil and Stella, , , , ,
Saint-Gelais, Octovien de, , ,  ‒, , ; son. , , , ;
Salel, Hughes, , , , , n.  son. , , ; son. , , , n.
Santagata, Marco, xi, n. , nn. , ; son. , , , ; son. , ,
, nn. , , , n. , n.  ; son. , ; son. , ‒; son.
Scève, Maurice, , , ‒, ‒, , ; son. , ‒; son. ,
, , , ; Délie  and , ; ‒; son. , ; son. , 
Délie , ‒; Délie , ‒ Sidney, Robert, , , , , , ,
Scotland, , , ,  , , ; sonnets, ‒, ,
Scripture, , , , , , ‒, , 
, ‒, ;  Corinthians, ;  Smith, Alan K., n. , n. 
Corinthians, ‒; Deuteronomy, social class, , , , , , ; and
; Ecclesiastes, ; Genesis : and ethnic origin, , , , ‒,
:, ‒; John, ; Leviticus, ; ‒; and gender, , , ‒, ,
Matthew, ; Psalms, , , ‒; , ‒, , ‒, ; and
Romans, , ; Ruth, ;  Timothy, loyalty, , , , , , ‒, , ,
 ‒, ‒, ‒. See also en-
Sebillet, Thomas, ‒,  dogamy, exogamy
Sennuccio, ,  Spain, , , , ‒, ‒, ‒, ,
Seyssel, Claude, , n.  , , ; name of, ‒; Nueva
Shakespeare, William, , ; Hamlet, n. España, , , ‒, ‒
; The Merchant of Venice, ; Pericles, Spanish language, literary vernacular, ,
; The Rape of Lucrece, n.  , ‒
siblinghood, , , , ‒, Spenser, Edmund, , , , , ,
‒,  , n. 


Index
Squarzafico, Hieronimo, , , , ‒, Germany, ; in New World, ‒;
, ; and Petrarch, son. , ; —, Petrarch’s, ‒, , ; within Sid-
son. , ; —, son. , ‒, ; ney circle, ‒, , ‒, ,
—, son. ,  , ‒
Stephens, Walter, n. , n. , transnational attachments: and cultural
n.  appropriation, , ‒, , ‒,
Stil novisti, as Petrarch’s predecessors, , ‒, ‒, , ‒, ,
‒, , ,  ; and politics, , , ‒, ,
Stone, Donald, n. , n. , nn. , , ‒
, , n.  travel: and arranged marriage, ‒;
Sturm-Maddox, Sara, n. , n. , and exile, , ‒, , ; and politi-
n. , n. , n. , n.  cal service, , ‒, , ‒, ,
supraregional identification, , , ‒; ‒, ‒; and study, ‒, 
Cariteo’s, ‒; Du Bellay’s, , , Tuke, Brian, ‒
‒, ‒, , , ‒; in Tuscan vernacular, literary forms: and
Germany, ; in New World, ‒; Alamanni, ; and Cariteo, , ,
Petrarch’s, , ‒, , , , ; ; and Giolito, ; and Lorenzo de’
within Sidney circle, ‒, , Medici, ‒, ; and Petrarch, , ,
‒, , , ‒ , ‒, , ‒, 
Surrey, Henry Howard, earl of, , , Tuscan vernacular, spoken dialect, , ,
‒ ‒, , ‒
Sylvano da Venafro, , , ; and Pe- Tyard, Pontus de, ‒, , , 
trarch, canz. , ‒; —, son. ,
; —, son. , ; —, son. , ; urban culture: France, , , ; Lon-
—, son. ,  don, , ‒, ‒, ‒; Lyon,
‒, ‒, ; Nuremberg, ‒;
taboo, , , ; and cultural competition, Paris, , ‒, , , ‒
, , , , , , , , , ;
and political order, , , , , , Valois dynasty, , , , , 
, , , , . See also frater- Vaucluse, , , , , , , ‒,
nal strife; totems , ‒, 
Thirty Years War, , ,  Vellutello, Alessandro, , , , , ,
Tory, Geoffroy, ,  , , , 
totems, , , , ; and cultural patri- —, and Petrarch: canz. , ; canz. ,
mony, , , , , , , ‒, , n. ; canz. , ‒; canz. ,
, , , ‒, ; and political ; son. , ‒; son. , ‒; son.
allegiance, , , , , ‒, , , , ; son. , ; son. , ;
, n. . See also fraternal strife; son. ‒, ; son. , ; son. ,
taboo ‒; son. , ; son. , ; son.
Tottel, Richard, , ‒,  , ; son. , ; son. , ‒;
transitional space, , , , , , son. , ‒; son. , ; son. ,
, , ‒ ; Trionfo della morte , ‒
translatio studii et imperii, , , ,  vernacular languages: literary forms, ,
translocal attachments, , , ‒; , , ‒, , , ; poetic
Cariteo’s, ‒; Du Bellay’s, , models in, , , , , ‒, , ,
‒, ‒, , , ‒; in , ‒, ‒, ‒, , ‒;


 Index
spoken forms, , ‒, , , , , women as conveyors of translocal attach-
, ‒, ‒, ‒, ‒, ‒ ment: through arranged marriages, ,
, , . See also English language; ‒, , , ‒, , ‒,
French language; German language; , , ‒; through writing, ,
Italian language; Spanish language ‒, , ‒
Villon, François, ‒, , ,  Wroth, Lady Mary, , , , , , ,
Virgil, ‒, , , , , ‒, , , , ; and family allegiances,
, , , ; Eclogue , ‒; ‒, , , ‒, ‒, 
Georgics, , ‒; Aeneid ., , , —, works: Love’s Victory, ; Urania, ,
‒; Aeneid ,  , , ‒, , ‒, ; —,
Visconti lords, , , , , , , , First Part, ‒, ‒, , ‒,
‒, ‒, , , , ‒, ,  ‒, nn. , ; —, Second
visual role in commentary, , ,  Part, , , , , , n. ,
n. 
Wales, , ,  —, Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, , , ,
Wallace, David, nn. , ; n.  , , , , ; Crowne of Son-
Wallerstein, Immanuel, n.  nets, ‒; son. , ‒; son. ,
Wars of Religion, France, ‒,  ‒, ‒; son. , ‒; son.
Watson, Thomas, Hekatompathia, ‒ , ; son. , ‒; son. , ‒,
Weber, Henri, n. , n. , n. , ; son. , ‒; son.  (second se-
n.  ries), ; son.  (second series), ‒
Wilkins, Ernest Hatch, nn. , , n. Wyatt, Thomas, , ‒
, nn. , , n. , n. 
Witt, Ronald, n. , nn. ,  Žižek, Slavoj, n. 

