We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The theory and practice of proffering consolation commanded a prominent place in humanist moral thought and literature. Reviving and furthering the tradition of the ancient consolatio, Renaissance writers formulated solace for such problems as bereavement, the fear of death, illness, despair, and misfortune. In the Trecento and Quattrocento there appeared many consolatory letters and funeral orations as well as numerous consolatory dialogues and treatises. The coherence and importance of this consolatory tradition in Renaissance culture have not been fully recognized. By studying this tradition more closely we can learn much about the psychological functions of rhetoric and philosophy in Renaissance thought. Equally important, we can begin to see more clearly how the history of ideas has sometimes been changed and enriched by its quiet counterpart, the “history of emotions.”
* Part of this article is drawn from papers delivered at the 15th and 16th International Congresses on Medieval Studies in 1979 and 1980 (in Kalamazoo). I would like to thank Professors Charles Trinkaus and Ronald Witt for reading an earlier draft of this paper, and Professor Benjamin G. Kohl for commenting upon and correcting it at a later stage. I also wish to thank the anonymous readers for their helpful comments.
1 For an early, important study of Renaissance consolation see Kristeller, P. O. “Francesco Bandini and His Consolatory Dialogue Upon the Death of Simone Gondi” in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (Rome, 1956), pp. 411-35Google Scholar. Also, see P. A. Auer, Johannes von Dambach und die Trostbücher von 11. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophic und Theologie des Mittelalters, XXVII, 1-2 (Münster, 1928); B. Langston, “Tudor Books of Consolation,” Diss. University of North Carolina, 1940. For more recent scholarship see Diekstra, F. N. M., “Introduction,” in his A Dialogue Between Reason and Adversity: A Late Middle English Version of Petrarch's De remediis (Assen, 1968), pp. 15–65 Google Scholar. For studies focusing on Giannozzo Manetti's Dialogus consolatorius see Banker, J., “Mourning a Son: Childhood and Paternal Love in the Consolatoria of Giannozzo Manetti,” History of Childhood Quarterly: The Journal of Psychohistory, 3 (1976), 351-62Google Scholar; de Petris, A., “Il Dialogus Consolatorius di G. Manetti e le sue fonte,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 154 (1977), 76–106 Google Scholar; de Petris, “Giannozzo Manetti and his Consolatoria,” Bibliothèque d'humanisme et renaissance, 45, (1979), 493-521; and now see his edition of the Dialogus (seen. 33 below); see also my “The Renaissance Vision of Solace and Tranquility: Consolation and Therapeutic Wisdom in Italian Humanist Thought,” Diss. University of Michigan, 1981. I would like to thank Professor Paul Oskar Kristeller for reading the above manuscript, from which much of this present article is drawn.
2 See Petrarch's reference to “salubre soliloquium” in the Invectivae contra medicum IV, Opere Latine di Francesco Petrarca, ed. A. Bufano (Turin, 1975), II, 968.
3 As for the general literary tradition concerning the loss of a son, see Quintilian's discussion of the death of his son in the Prooemium to Book VI of his Institutiones oratoriae. In the thirteenth century Vincent of Beauvais wrote a lengthy Tractatus consolatorius ad Ludovkum IX regem de ohitu filii. The loss of sons was a category in Boncompagno da Signa's discussion of consolation in his Duecento Rhetorica antiqua. In Book I, Chapter 25, there are sections entitled Litterae consolationis adpatrem et matrem pro morte filii; Litterae consolationis pro morte filii ad ilium qui est in senectam et senio constitutus; Litterae consolationis pro morte filii ad quifilium suum prius obtulerat ecclesiae. See P. von Moos, Consolatio: Studien zur Mittellateinsichen Trostliteratur iiber den Tod und zum Problem der christlichen Trauer, 4 vols., Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, vols. 3/1-4 (Munich, 1971-72) II, 224-26; III, 284. For other Renaissance writings on the loss of sons see Banker, pp. 352, 361. In addition to consolatory letters, there are also dialogues on the theme. Besides those by Giovanni Conversini and Manetti, there is one (probably early Quattrocento) by the doctor Giovanni Baldi entitled Tractatus quo ratione concluditur non possibile hominem filium habuisse et si potest haberi quod non possit amicti et si possit amicti quod non sit illius morte dolore (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana MS Plut. 19, cod. 30, ff. 32-39v). For comments on this work see Thorndike, L., “Medicine Versus Law at Florence,” in his Science and Thought in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 1929) pp. 25–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see the Quattrocento dialogue by Tommaso di Rieti Ad Ioannem Cardinalem Rothomagensem S. R.E. Vice Cancellarium Thomae Reatini in consolationem in obitu filii: Dialogus ( Gaddi, J., De scriptoribus non ecclesiaticis, Graecis, Latinis, Italicis, II [Lyons, 1649], 219–241 Google Scholar).
4 On ancient sources, see Buresch, K., Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarutn historiae critica, Leipziger Studien zur Classichen Philologie, IX, 1 (Leipzig, 1886)Google Scholar; Evaristus, Mary (Moran), The Consolations of Death in Ancient Greek Literature (Washington, 1917)Google Scholar; Fern, Mary, The Latin Consolatio as a Literary Type (St. Louis, 1941)Google Scholar. On patristic consolation, see Favez, C., La consolation latine chretienne (Paris, 1937)Google Scholar and Beyenka, Mary, Consolation in Saint Augustine (Washington, 1950)Google Scholar. On medieval consolation see von Moos. These are but a few of the secondary works on ancient, patristic, and medieval consolation. It is not necessary to repeat a comprehensive list here. See the bibliography in von Moos, IV, 40-68; also for a list of editions of numerous primary sources, see pp. 19-39.
5 See Cicero's references to the Consolatio in Tusculan I, xxvi, 65-xxvii, 66; I, xxxi, 76; III, xxxi, 76; IV, xxix, 63. In particular, Cicero drew on Crantor's 
which had synthesized much of the Greek literature on consolation. See Buresch, pp. 38-41; 46-48; 94-108. Cicero's Consolatio was forged in the sixteenth century and published in Venice in 1583. See Kristeller, “Francesco Bandini,” p. 421;
Sage, E., The Pseudo-Ciceronian Consolatio (Chicago, 1918)Google Scholar. Besides the treatise, Cicero also used the reply to the consolatoria to discuss grief: see his Fam. IV, 6, a response to Servius Sulpicius’ consolatoria (Fam. IV, 5) to him on the death of Tullia; also see Ad Atticum XII, 14, 18, 20, 28, 40.
6 On Petrarch's Rime and his loss of Laura, see Durling, R., “Introduction,” in his Petrarch's Lyric Poems: The Rime Sparse and Other Lyrics (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1976), pp. 4–7 Google Scholar. Petrarch also wrote some Latin verse on death. For a verse note on Laura's death see Wilkins, E. H., The Life of Petrarch (Chicago, 1977), p. 77 Google Scholar; Durling, p. 6. For Petrarch's Panegyricum infunere matris see Gragg, F., Latin Writings of the Italian Humanists (New York, 1927; repr. New Rochelle, NY, 1981), pp. 43–44 Google Scholar.
7 See, e.g., Familiares IV, 10; VII, 12 and 13; VIII, 7 and 9; Variae 58; Seniles 111, I.
8 Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. V. Rossi (vols. I-III), U. Bosco (vol. IV) (Florence, 1933-1942), I, 176.
9 Petrarch's comments (in Sen. 1,3) on the loss of his son are relatively brief and are joined with those concerning the death of van Kempen, his friend of 33 years, “quem mihi orbe alio genitum” (p. 814). For this letter see Opera (Basel, 1554), pp. 814-17; also Fracassetti (Florence, 1869-70), I, 26. I follow the latter's numbering of the Seniles. For Petrarch's lengthy consolation/self-consolation in Sen. X, 4 see Opera, pp. 966-73; also Fracassetti's note in Lettere senili, II, 132. This letter contains Petrarch's most extensive comments on the death of a son. Particularly with its autobiographical overtones (albeit in reference to a grandson rather than a son), Petrarch's treatment of the loss of a son may well have influenced the later tradition discussed in this study— Filelfo, in particular. See notes 17, 57, and 62 below.
10 On Petrarch's comments on the loss of his son in Sen. III, 1 see note 9 above. Though it lacks the intensity and depth of Salutati's letters to Zabarella on the death of his Piero, this letter could have had a partial influence on Salutati—as could also Petrarch's comments in Sen. X, 4. Like Cicero and Petrarch, Salutati used the reply to a consolatoria as a format to discuss personal grief. On Cicero's letters in this vein see note 5 above; as Salutati acquired the Ad Atticum and the Familiares in the 1390s, he may well have been partly inspired by Cicero to write such letters of his own. Cicero's discussions, however, were not as long or detailed as those Salutati addressed to Zabarella. On Salutati's acquisition of Cicero's letters see Ullman, B. L., The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati (Padua, 1963), p. 45 Google Scholar, and his Studies in the Renaissance (Rome, 1955), pp. 220-21.
11 The bulk of these discussions begins in 1383. See, e.g., letters V, 17, 20, and 22; VI, 23, 24, 25. For this study I am using the edition, numbering, and dating of Salutati's private letters found in Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, ed. F. Novati, Fonti per la storia d'ltalia, vols. 15-18 (vols; Rome, 1891-1911).
12 See letter IX, 17 (Epist. III, 135).
13 See Epist. III, 138.
14 Novati, Epist. III, 137-140n.2. For a discussion of the De fato et fortuna see Trinkaus, C., In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (2 vols; London and Chicago, 1970) I, 76–102 Google Scholar. For a brief comment on the loss of Piera and the Defato see Witt, R., Coluccio Salutati and his Public Letters (Geneva, 1976) p. 83 Google Scholar. Only after completing this article was I able to see page proofs of part of Ronald Witt's study of Salutati, Hercules at the Crossroads: Life, Works and Thought of Coluccio Salutati (Durham, N.C., 1983). Here Witt more thoroughly examines Salutati's reaction to the loss of Piera and his notion of divine will in the De fato (pp. 313-30). As do I below, he also discusses in some detail Salutati's letters to Francesco Zabarella concerning the loss of his son and his views on consolation (pp. 355-67). I find our analyses to be in agreement.
15 Letter IX, 19 (Epist. III, 141).
16 Letter XVII (Epist. IV [Part 2], 347-49).
17 On Salutati's phrasing here and its recalling Tobit X, 4 see note 62 below. Also, cf. similar language found in Petrarch's Sen. X, 4 (Opera, pp. 967 and 969).
18 For discussions of Salutati's letters to Zabarella concerning his grief see Tenenti, A., Il senso delta morte e l'amore della vita nel Rinascimento (Francia e Italia) (Turin, 1957) pp. 56–58 Google Scholar; Seigel, J., Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism: The Union of Eloquence and Wisdom, Petrarch to Valla (Princeton, 1968) pp. 71–73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and now R. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, pp. 355-67. For an earlier attack on Stoicism see Salutati's letter (V, 10) of 1382 to Lombardo della Seta (Epist. II, 55).
19 Epist. III, 419-20.
20 Ibid., III, 420.
21 Ibid., III, 421.
22 On Salutati's valuation of the “will” over the “intellect” see Garin, E., Italian Humanism: Philosophy and Civic Life, trans. P. Munz (New York, 1965) pp. 29–33 Google Scholar; C. Trinkaus, I, 51-102; however, also cf. Seigel's point (pp. 73-74) that Salutati was not entirely consistent in esteeming the will over the intellect.
23 See letter XVIII (Epist. IV [Part 2] 354-55).
24 Ibid., p. 360.
25 It is important to point out, as does J. Scigel, the puzzling fact that in the interim between the writing of these Zabarella letters Salutati composed another letter that contradicts much of the spirit and the letter of his arguments concerning the nature of death. In September, 1400, he wrote to Pietro di ser Lorenzo da Montevarchi (XI, 24) to console him for the loss of family members and for his own fear of death. One of his principal arguments is that death is not evil (Epist. III, 426ff. .) He presents the essentially Christian view that death is bad only for the evil, and he draws on the positive consolations for death found in Cicero's Tusculan I (Epist. III, 427). Yet in the second letter to Zabarella (XII, 4, written in 1401) Salutati resumes his attack on the Stoic view of death, forcefully returning to his earlier position. Though he argues that the premeditation on death is consoling in this letter, he also says that in some cases it can worsen grief. On the disparity among these letters see J. Seigel, pp. 71-73 and now Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads, p. 365n.24. I am unable to explain this discrepancy in Salutati's thought. Possibly, he felt that his personal construction of the emotional realities of mourning (namely, his poignant recognition of the tragedy and evil of loss, his rejection of rational consolation) would be bitter medicine, particularly for someone who is not only bereaved but also fearful of his own death. In terms of personal conviction and in terms of theory, Salutati may thus have come to espouse one position, but in terms of practice (at least in this case) could voice another, perhaps feeling compelled to minister to Pietro more traditional Stoic comforts. Like a good rhetorician Salutati followed a situational approach.
26 Letter XII, 4 (Epist. III, 463). R. Witt argues that Salutati only began to draw substantively on Peripatetic thought in the 1390s. Though he sees earlier scattered citations from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in Salutati's writings, he suggests that Salutati's significant interest in the work comes in this later period. Hercules at the Crossroads, pp. 299, 358.
27 Epist. III, 423.
28 For instance, he points to the case of Christ's agony concerning his imminent death. Epist. III, 464-65.
29 Epist. III, 419.
30 Epist. III, 419-
31 See Epist. III, 333. Salutati also discusses “time” in letter VII, I (1390) to Antonio da Cortona and in XI, 8 (1399) to Bernardo da Moglio. For Cicero's comment on the consideration of time in the administering of solace see Tusculan III, xxxi, 75.
32 Epist. III, 477.
33 For detailed discussions of the Dialogus and its sources see de Petris, “Il Dialogus Consolatorius,” and idem, “Manetti and his Consolatoria.” Only after completing this paper was I able to obtain a copy of de Petris’ edition of the Dialogus, published in Dialogus de Antonini, sui filii, morte consolatorius (Rome, 1983), by Edizioni di storia e letteratura. There are seven extant manuscripts of the Latin version and seven of the Italian (Dialogus, de Petris, pp. liii-ci). For my study I used Naz. Magi. XXI, 18, ff. 1-45v. De Petris, however, has determined Vatican Pal. Lat. 1601 to be the most authoritative. I am therefore converting all of my references and citations to follow his edition.
34 See della Torre, A., Storia dell'accademia platonica di Firenze (Florence, 1902), pp. 233-34Google Scholar. For discussions of the Dialogus other than those major ones of de Petris cited above, see della Torre, pp. 234-37; E- Garin, Italian Humanism, pp. 57-58; J. Banker, pp. 351-62.
35 See Novati, Epist. III, 421n. 1. In discussing Salutati's character, Manetti cites the Zabarella letter (XI, 23): “Fuit staturae plusquam mediocris, … mirabilisque constantiae, quod, ut alia omittam, in morte duorum adolescentium filiorum Petri, et Andreae manifestissime demonstravit. Nam in funeribus eorum ita modeste se gessit, ut non modo lacrymas non emitteret, sed etiam domesticos flentes egregie consolaretur, idque precipue in obitu Petri, qui unica spes sua esse videbatur, fecisse dicitur. Ab eius namque latere toto aegrotationis suae tempore numquam discedebat, ut extremum filii spiritum forte hauriret, quern ut toto pector accepit, illico supinum cadaver statuit, palpebras oculorum propriis manibus composuit, labia clausit, manus insuper, et bracchia in crucem constituit. Ad extremum quum vultum eius etiam, atque etiam intueretur, nullum mestitiae signum, mirabile dictu, exinde discedens prae se tulit, atque haec omnia ipse in epistola quadam, in qua de acerba huius filii sui morte ad amicum consolantem rescribit, sese fecisse testatur.” For this passage see L. Mehus, Vita Ambrosii Traversari Generalis Camaldulensium sive Historia litterariaflorentina ab anno MCXCII usque ad annum MCDXXXIX (Munich, 1968 edition; orig. Florence, 1769), p. 289. It might be possible that Manetti took note of Salutati's letters after the writing of the Dialogus, and that his interest in the letter could have been generated by his own experience and treatise. I think it more likely, however, that he knew of Salutati's Zabarella letters before he composed his dialogue: the textual and thematic similarities are more than coincidental.
36 See de Petris, “Manetti and his Consolatoria,” p. 499.
37 The conversation begins: “ ‘Die mihi,’ inquit, ‘amice, quonam modo dolorem ob repentinam filii tui mortem nuper tolerasti.’ At ego, quamquam acerbam filii mei mortem mihi molestiorem fuisse significarem quam ullo unquam tempore antea putassem, me tamen et patienti et equo animo tulisse laturumque esse aperte respondere non dubitavi.” Dialogus, p. 8. Agnolo then argues that he notes in Giannozzo's words and expressions signs of grief.
38 Dialogus, p. 8.
39 Dialogus, p. 12. Cf. Garin, Italian Humanism, p. 57.
40 On Agnolo's Senecan sources and on his five arguments see de Petris, “Il Dialogus Consolatorius,” pp. 81-89 and his “Manetti and his Consolatoria,” pp. 502-506.
41 Dialogus, p. 46. There is a misprinted line in the final sentence of this passage in the edition. The sentence should read: “Ego autem peripateticorum opinionem utpote humane vite magis consentaneam et sequor et probo.” See de Petris, “II Dialogus Consolatorius.” p. 93 and MS Naz. Magi. XXI, 18, f. 10. On this passage also cf. Garin, pp. 57-58.
42 Particularly close (almost verbatim) in both works are sections linking passages concerning the legitimacy of emotion from Antoninus Pius (from Julius Capitolinus’ Antoninus Pius X, 5) and from Cicero (from De amicitia XIII, 48). Cf. Dialogus, p. 58 and Salutati's Epist. III, 468.
43 Dialogus, p. 88. Cicero had approved this sententia of Crantor's in Tus. III, vi, 12. And this condemnation of Stoic insensibility is also found in Ps.-Plutarch's Consolatio ad Apollonium. Carlo Marsuppini's Consoiatoria oratio of 1433 (to Lorenzo and Cosimo de’ Medici) which drew on the Ad Apollonium, also cites this Crantorian sentiment. For an edition and discussion of Marsuppini's Consolatio see Ricci, P. G., “Una consoiatoria inedita del Marsuppini,” La Rinascita, 3 (1940), 363–433 Google Scholar.
44 Niccolò presents the common argument that death is man's punishment for sin— an argument also found in Salutati's letter XII, 4 to Zabarella. He also presents the argument that both divine and human law prescribe death as grave punishment for the worst crimes. Salutati discusses this also in letter XI, 23 to Zabarella. On Niccolo's role as an arbiter see della Torre, pp. 236-37. D. Marsh suggests that the use of a “neo-Augustinian” arbiter who renders a religious judgment is a technique found in various Quattrocento dialogues. On this convention in Poggio Bracciolini and Lorenzo Valla see his The Quattrocento Dialogue: Classical Tradition and Humanist Innovation (Cambridge, Mass., 1980) pp. 138-77; on its use in Manetti see his “Boccaccio in the Quattrocento: Manetti's Dialogus in symposio,” Renaissance Quarterly, 33 (1980), 337-50.
45 For an identification and discussion of these and some other religious sources that Manetti draws on in this section, see de Petris, “Il Dialogus Consolatorius,” pp. 101- 104.
46 Niccolò closes his argument saying: “Quapropter, ut tandem aliquando concludamus, si tot patriarchas, omissis—sicut ab initio diximus—inanibus philosophorum argumentis, si tot reges, si tot Veteris Testamenti patres liberorum mortem magnis cum luctibus luxisse constat, si Christ insuper, humani generis salvator, Marie et Marte fletibus defunctum fratrem suum deplorantium misericordia motus, lacrimas ut homo continere non potuit, si parens Virgo hoc idem in morte filii fecisse dicitur, si denique beatus Augustinus ac ceteri catolice ecclesie doctores multique alii sanctissimi viri, quos enumerare minis longum esset, id ipsum fecisse videntur, quid nos homunculi, presertim si cum memoratis militantis ecclesie fundatoris comparemur, facere debemus? … si natura non patitur ut parentes ex amissione liberorum vel saltern leviter non angantur, egritudinem profecto, ex filiorum orbitate parentibus provenientem, nature, non opinionis malum esse putandum est. Nos itaque, carissime in Christo filii, nostra sententia consemus ut lannotio nostro parumper in hac presertim recenti et prope presentaria filioli sui morte dolendum esse permiseritis, …” Dialogus, pp. 204-206.
47 See Dialogus, pp. 210-12.
48 Dialogus, p. 214.
49 In the first letter (XI, 23) to Zabarella, Salutati presents an address to God; in the second (XII, 4) he develops some of the same themes (found in the address) in a discussion of divine omnipotence and goodness. I think Manetti probably draws on both of Salutati's letters in his address to God. For instance, cf, Salutati's Epist. III, 478 and Manetti's Dialogus, pp. 214-16.
50 On Manetti's hope to reach a more popular audience through his composing a volgare version, see Langdale, M., “A Bilingual Work of the Fifteenth Century: Giannozzo Manetti's Dialogus consolatorius,” Italian Studies, 31 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 3. She cites Manetti's Proemio to Mariotto Banchi in the vernacular version in which he says: “mi venne voglia, per qualche riposo e consolazione dello affannato ingegno, di transferirlo nel nostro idioma volgare, … perché i mercatanti e i governatori della republica e qualunque altra gentile persona, che per la varie occupazioni delle cose familiare e comuni non possono attendere agli studii della lingua latina, non fussino in tutto privati della lezione di questa cosí degna e cosí leggiadra materia, e quasi pertinente alia maggiore parte degli uomini.” Dialogus, pp. 3-4; Langdale, p. 3.
51 Sabbadini, R., Giovanni da Ravenna, insigne figura d'humanista (1343-1408) (Como, 1924) pp. 87–88 Google Scholar. The dialogue remains unedited, save for brief excerpts in Sabbadini, pp. 174-76. I am using the ms. in Oxford, Ballio] College 288, ff. 54vB-71v A. A fragment of another ms. can be found in Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Lat. XIV, 224, ff. 134ff. . On mss. of Giovanni's works see Sabbadini, pp. 121-24; Weiss, R., “Il codice oxoniense e altri codice delle opere di Giovanni da Ravenna,” Giornale storico delta letteratura italiana, 125 (1948), 133-48Google Scholar; and Kohl, B. G., “The Works of Giovanni Conversino da Ravenna: A Catalogue of Manuscripts and Editions,” Traditio, 31 (1975), 349-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 356. Recently, an edition appeared of his Dragmalogia de eligibili vitegenere, ed. and trans. H. L. Eaker, intro, and notes B. G. Kohl (Bucknell, Pa. and London, 1980). For a lengthy consolatory letter to Donato Albanzani upon the death of Petrarch, see the edition in Kohl, B. and Day, J., “Giovanni Conversini's Consolatio ad Donatum on the Death of Petrarch, Studies in the Renaissance, 21 (1974), 9–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Sabbadini, pp. 3-4. On Conversini's life and career see ibid, and the recent entry by Kohl, B. G., “Conversini, Giovanni, da Ravenna,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 28 (Rome, 1928), 574-78Google Scholar.
53 On Conversini's letters to Salutati, see Salutati's Epist. IV (Part 2), 305-30 and Sabbadini, pp. 74-75; 218-19. On his residence in Padua and his acquaintance with Zabarella see Sabbadini, pp. 227, 236. There are some similarities between Salutati's letters (to Zabarella) and Conversini's dialogue. Though with a difference in the wording of their citations, they both use the Antoninus Pius story. (Cf. Epist. III, 468 and Balliol 288, f. 54A.) And, in general, Conversini treats some of the same issues that Salutati does: the legitimacy of grief, the irreparability and untimeliness of the loss, the question of whether death is evil or good, the notion of divine will. These textual similarities—in addition to Conversini's personal connections with both Salutati and Zabarella—strongly suggest the influence of Salutati's letters on him.
54 For dating on the Oratio see note 55 below. L. A. Sheppard convincingly argues that this edition was probably published in Milan by Filippo di Lavagna in the latter half of 1475. A c. 1484 edition of Filelfo's Opuscula includes the Oratio consolatoria and mentions the errors of the Milanese text. See L. A. Sheppard, “A Fifteenth-Century Humanist, Francesco Filelfo,” Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, 4th Series, 16 (1935). 7-10. A Basel edition of the Filelfo's work (Orationes cum quibusdam aliis eiusdem operibus, Amerbach, not after 1498) also mentions the errors of an earlier Milanese edition. I assume that the c. 1484 edition of the Opuscula and the Basel edition of the Orationes offer identical or similar texts. I will cite the Basel edition. There were a number of other editions of Filelfo's orations, and, thus, the Oratio to Marcello was published at least six times in the course of the fifteenth century. See Hain, L., Repertorium Bibliographicum, Vol. II, Part 2 (Stuttgart, 1838) 97–98 Google Scholar. Professor Kristeller informs me that there is a collection of funerary literature dealing with the death of Valerio Marcello in the University Library in Glascow (Hunterian Museum MS 210 [U I. 5]). This collection contains consolatoria from other prominent humanists: e.g., Battista Guarino (Glascow cod, pp. 179-88) and George of Trebizond (see edition published in John Monfasani, Collectanea Trapezuntia [Binghamton, NY, 1983] pp. 235-48). For a study of Marcello and this collection see now Margaret L. King, “An Inconsolable Father and his Humanist Consolers: Jacopo Antonio Marcello, Venetian Nobleman, Patron, and Man of Letters,” forthcoming in IterFestivutn, a Festschrift for P. O. Kristeller, ed. J. Hankins, J. Monfasani, F.J. Purnell, Jr. (Binghamton, NY, 1986).
55 See de’ Rosmini, C., Vita di Francesco Filelfo da Tolentino (3 vols.; Milan, 1808), II, 123 Google Scholar. Sheppard suggests that Filelfo's printing of the work in 1475 closely followed the deaths of two other sons (Sheppard, pp. 8-9). Filelfo's Olimpio died March 8 1461; Marcello's Valerio just over three months earlier on Jan. 1. Filelfo dates his Oratio Dec. 25, 1461 and comments in the treatise that as of the approachingjan. 1 (1462) Marcello will have had one year to grieve. See Glascow cod. 201 (U. 1. 5) pp. 38-39, 121. I would like to thank Professor Margaret King for information concerning dating from the Glascow cod. On June 27 Filelfo wrote a brief consolatory letter to Marcello in which he mentions he will send a consolatory work. As King argues, this letter suggests that the Oratio might have been commissioned by Marcello. See his Epistolariutn Jamiliarum libri xxxvii (Venice, 1502) p. 116 (sig. Q4);King, “An Inconsolable Father.“
56 Besides the section at the beginning of the treatise (Orationes, sigg. E2-E3) there are various references to Olimpio or to Filelfo's own situation: sigg. FIv;H7r-v;l7v-I8. Filfelo attempts to make their situations very analogous—more so, even, than they actually were. For instance, in one passage he points out that their sons were born in the same year (1453) and month, that neither reached the age of eight, and that he and Marcello are both entering their sixty-fourth year. Filelfo, however, is wrong in saying that Valerio, like Olimpio, was born in 1453—he was born in 1452, failing to reach his ninth birthday. See Monfasani, pp. 235, 237; King, “An Inconsolable Father.“
57 In the idea both of the co-suffering consoler and the mutually consoling discourse, Petrarch's Sen. X, 4 could have been an influence on Filelfo's Oratio. See note 9 above.
58 See de’ Rosmini, III, 125-27. For editions of letters dealing with the loss of his two sons (in 1475) and his third wife Laura (in 1476) see ibid., II, 398-403; 430-34; III, 173-74. It is interesting to note that, not long after Filelfo wrote the Oratio, a family death would prompt him to make notice of the work: in 1462 he recommended the treatise to his son Senophonte as a consolation for the death of the latter's baby son. See de’ Rosmini, III, 121.
59 Orationes, sig. E2r-v.
60 Cf, e.g., Filelfo's Orationes E2r-v with Manetti's Dial. cons., p. 214. However, this does not prove that Manetti was Filelfo's source for this notion, as this vocabulary can be found in other consolatory writings. Manetti's Diaiogus may also be influential in those sections of Filelfo's Oratio that deal with the inevitability of grief and the naturalness of parental mourning. See Orationes, sigg. E8, F2r-v, F3, F4.
61 On the Commentationes (written in the 1440's) see C. Errera, “Le ‘Commentationes Florentinae de exilio’ di Francesco Filelfo,” Archivio storico italiano, Series 5, 5 (1890), 193-227.
62 Both describe their thoughts and laments at the time of their childrens’ deaths. Cf. Filelfo, Orationes, sig. E2r-v and Salutati, Epist. III, 416. However, their common usage of the term “baculus senectutis” in a situation of grief (the principal origin of this locus probably being Tobit X, 4) does not prove the influence of Salutati on Filelfo, as this term was quite commonly used: e.g., see Petrarch's adaptation of the Tobit passage in Sen. X, 4 (Opera, p. 969), which, given some of the close textual similarities, also may have influenced Filelfo here (cf. notes 9, 17, and 52 above); also see Manetti's citation of Tobitin Dial. cons. (p. 174). Nevertheless, Filelfo's using the phrase and his referring to his own aging, in the general context of describing his reactions to his child's death, suggests the possibility that Salutati's letter XI, 23 was influential in his brief discussion of his own bereavement.
63 Besides possibly drawing on Salutati and Manetti, Filelfo may also have drawn on Conversing
64 Orationes, sig. E3.
65 Balliol 288, f. 52A-52B. Among other things, Conversini argues that “amplius amamus ampliore dolore torquemur” (f. 53A); he also argues that the natural and Christian emotion he feels for others in a time of tragedy, he may also feel for himself (f.54A-54B).
66 “Ita meror animum quo tegitur, eo infestius imbullit; ubi vero percunta animi claustru effunditur residet quiescit sensimque dilabitur. Sine itaque lamentari, plangere, lacrimari, suspirari iusto dolore tumentem. Habet quippe levamen et voluptatem suam meror. Quemadmodum enim quies intermissa laborem, ita permisso lacrimarum et comploratio eiulatusque mesticiam comminuit et temperat sistitque animum fluctuantem.” (f. 58vA-58vB).
67 See selections in von Moos, III, 216-17.
68 Besides Ovid, there were various other possible influences for Petrarch's motion of “voluptas dolendi:” e.g., Seneca, Pliny the Younger, Ambrose, Augustine. See, e.g., Bobbio, A., “Seneca e la formazione spirituale e culturale del Petrarca,” Bibliofilia, 43 (1941), 247 Google Scholar; Wenzel, S., The Sin of Sloth: Acedia in Medieval Thought and Literature (Chapel Hill, 1967), pp. 155-63Google Scholar; Rico, F., Vida u obra de Petrarca, Vol. I, Lectura del “Secretum” (Padua, 1974), pp. 203–204 Google Scholar; von Moos, III, 55-56.
69 See my “A Little-Known Renaissance Manual of Consolation: Nicolaus Modrussiense's De consolatione (1465-66)” forthcoming in the Kristeller Festschrift Iter Festivum.
70 Garin relates Manetti's position to Guarino Veronese's attack on Stoicism; he also describes the development of anti-Stoic thought in the Epicurean Cosmo Raimondi da Cremona and in Valla. Italian Humanism, pp. 47-49. On Valla's critique of Stoic consolation see Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, I, 121.
71 On Paul's categories of “tristitia” see Wenzel, The Sin of Sloth, pp. 25-26; 159.
72 Barasch cites, among other things, the depictions of the Lamentation of Christ by Giotto (Arena Chapel), Duccio (Siena), and Simone Martini (Victoria and Albert Museum) and the portrayal of the Entombment by Donatello (St. Peter's). He also examines two humanist tombs that he believes betray the influence of this new emotional feature in spiritual art. Gestures of Despair in Medieval and Early Renaissance Art (New York, 1976).
73 See n. 22 above.
74 See Rice, E., The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
75 See Trinkaus, I, 51-102.
76 See his De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia, trans. Nachod, H. in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, ed. E. Cassirer, P. O. Kristeller, J. H. Randall (Chicago, 1948), p. 105 Google Scholar. Also, Petrarch's famous dialogue of self-consolation and confession, his Seaetutn, places an Augustinian emphasis on the role of the will (cf. Augustine's Confessions) in attaining spiritual and psychological health. Cf. Trinkaus, I, 3-50.
77 See Kristeller, P. O., The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino (New York, 1963)Google Scholar and his “The Immortality of the Soul,” in his Renaissance Thought and its Sources (New York, 1979), pp. 181-96.
78 di Napoli, G., L'immortalità dell'anima del Rinascimento (Naples, 1963), pp. 86–97 Google Scholar; Kristeller, “The Dignity of Man” and “The Immortality of the Soul” in his Renaissance Thought and its Sources, pp. 169-96; also, his “Pier Candido Decembrio and His Unpublished Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul,” in The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, ed. L. Wallach (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), pp. 536-58. Trinkaus, I, 200-258. Both Fazio (De hominis excellentia) and Manetti, like Petrarch, discuss the notion of man as an image and likeness of God. They also deal with various philosophical positions concerning immortality. For dating and an edition of Manetti's treatise, see Ianotti Manetti de dignitate et excellentia hominis, ed. E. Leonard (Padua, 1975).
79 The topos of immortality can also be found in Petrarch's consolatory letters (e.g. Fam. II, I). On Salutati's discussions of immortality, see di Napoli, pp. 69-72; on Zabarella's treatment of this theme in a treatise (redacted in 1400) entitled De felicitate (Padua, 1655), see di Napoli, pp. 74-75. On Marsuppini, see ibid, p. 75 and Ricci, pp. 388; 419-20. On Ficino see di Napoli, pp. 121-78 and Kristeller, The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino and “Immortality of the Soul,” pp. 181-96. In some of his consolatory letters (both Latin and Italian) Ficino draws strongly on the assumptions of immortality and on the idea of communing souls.
80 Besides those Renaissance writings mentioned above (n. 79) there are various philosophical precedents or possible influences for Filelfo concerning the topos of immortality and death. In various Greek works on death (Plato's Phaedo, Ps.-Plato's Axiochus, Aristotle's lost Eudemius [or De animal]) there are discussions of immortality and/or the mind. See Kristeller, “Francesco Bandini,” pp. 417; 421-24. As for the tradition of the Consolatio proper, Cicero's lost Consolatio seems to have discussed the problem of the mind (as can be inferred from the Tusculan I), and Ps.-Plutarch's Ad Apollonium presents some discussion of immortality. However, the other principal extant Consolationes (Seneca's Ad Marciam and Ad Polyhium and Plutarch's Ad uxorem) do not substantively address this topos. In terms of ancient sources, I believe that Cicero's discussion in Tusculan I was probably an important model for Filelfo. There is a lesserknown, twelfth-century (probably) source that could have influenced Filelfo: namely, the Altividus de immortalitate animae (or the Liber Alcidi, a work referred to by Salutati in his De verecundia as the Dialogi fraternae consolationis). Including a major discussion on the nature of immortality and the soul's divine similitude, this work would serve as an ideal model for linking the topos of immortality to the problem of consolation. This work had a certain Renaissance currency: it was cited by Salutati in a consolatory context (Epist. I, 186) and was also known to Leonardo Bruni and Ficino, among others. See E. Garin, “Una fonte ermetica poco nota: contributi alia storia del pensiero umanistico,” La Rinascita, 3 (1940), 202-32 and his “Per la storia della tradizione platonica medioevale,” Giomale critico dellafilosofia italiana, Third Series, 3 (1949), 125-50; also Kristeller, Supplementum ficinianum, I, 129-32 and his “Marsilio Ficino e Lodovico Lazzarelli: contributo alia diffusione delle ermetiche nel Rinascimento,” in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, p. 222n.2. For Salutati's identification of the work in his De verecundia, see De nobilitate legum et medicina—De verecundia, ed. E. Garin (Florence, 1947), p. 294. For his drawing on it in his letter III, 15, see Novati, Epist. I, 186n. 1. For a ms. of the work see Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, cod. Plut. 84, 24. Whether Filelfo knew this work or not is uncertain.
81 Orationes, sig. H7V. Six years later in an Oratio parentalis de divi Francisci Sphortiae Mediolanensis ducis foelicitate, Filelfo again develops the topos of immortality, citing numerous thinkers and also Biblical notions of the resurrection of the body and arguments concerning man's likeness to God. Orationes, sigg. C2-C4.
82 Kristeller, “Immortality of the Soul,” p. 191.
83 Ibid., pp. 182-84.
84 On Filelfo's aspirations and reputation as an orator, see de’ Rosmini, III, 45-72.
85 In the dedicatory epistle in the 1481 edition of his Opuscula (also included in Amerbach's Basel edition of the Orationes), he singles out the immortality theme as one of the signal elements and contributions that can be found in his consolatory orations: “Nam siquis hasce tris orationes diligentius lectitarit, cum pleraque inveniet non inutilia (ut mea fert opinio), turn vero quae ad animorum immortalitatem pertinent; animadavertet non inepte a me esse pro tempore et discussa et disputata.” Orationes, sig. AIv. The discussion of immortality in the Oratio to Marcello apparently had some impact: de'Rosmini suggests it is the work (on immortality by Filelfo) referred to by one of the discussants in Matteo Bosso's fifteenth-century dialogue De veris ac salutaribus animi gaudiis; it is cited by the sixteenth-century Flemish cleric, Josse Clichtove in the consolatory section of his De doctrina moriendi. See de'Rosmini, II, 125-127; Clichtove, De doctrina moriendi (Paris, 1520), f. 85v;.
86 See Orationes, sig. E7. Cf. Banker's comments on the notion of immortality and on Manetti's discussion of paternal bonds (pp. 355-58).
87 See Balliol 288, f. 56vB-57vB.
88 “Sane quia nulla res sive edificatio sive opus sive fama unicuique proprior atque immediatior quam ex se edita proles extat nee sic autorem effigiat ac refert. Summa caritas liberorum est. Quippe in ore filii et patris imago in moribus virtus in studiis elucet gloria. Singula queque mortalium opera ab arte prodeunt et imagine mortua visuntur. Filius autem nature munus viva imagine genitorem exprimit ut filio conspecto similitudine tua effigieque conpereas videraris cognoscaris memoreris.” f. 57B-57vA. Solator also later says: “In quo utique vera mei imago, impressa, mores, affectus, et studia radiabunt… . Cum ilium igitur intuerer me velud in speculo contemplabar recognoscebam ac tamquam ipse proficerem illius virtute gratabar. Impresenciarum sublato speculo nee sencio nee cerno nee me me recognoseo. Leta michi omnia seeundaque cum illo tumulavi quorum loco adversa ac tristitia successere et regnant.” (f. 57vB). Parents’ identification with and joy in children generates powerful bonds: “Propter hoc vehementissimus animi nexus commiseracio consuetudoque, ita exaggerant dilectionem affectusque conglutinant, ut haud secus ac te te imo interdum plus quam te ipsum prolem studeas procurer diligas… .” (f. 57vA). Cf. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics VIII, 12, 1161b and Manetti's Dialogus consolatorius, pp. 64-68.
89 The likelihood of such a connection would perhaps be greater in humanists later in the fifteenth century than in Conversino, as the Renaissance development of the “dignity of man” topos only began to be substantively explored in the mid-Quattrocento. (See above and note 78.) Petrarch, however, in the mid-Trecento did deal with this theme in his De remediis utriusque fortunae II, 93. See Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, pp. 179ff.
90 On Conversini and this elder son, “Conversino,” see B. G. Kohl, “Introduction,” Dragmalogia, and idem, “Conversini,” DBI, 28 (1983), 574-78.
91 Imo impresentiarum mori potissimum metuo eo sublato qui rerum nominis et siqua fuit virtus heres futurus suo apud posteros fulgore radiasse; ve michi soli cuinam tantorum divine humaneque sapientie thesaurum voluminum congressi? Quis possidebit, quis fruetur?” Balliol 288, f. 66vA-66vB. Cf. Sabbadini, Giovanni da Ravenna, p. 176.
92 “Tui quippe nominis laudem si quantus apparebat futurus evasisse suo splendore prcmebat funescabat inferior [?]… . Diuturniorem splendioremque calamus, quem operosum laudabiliter habuisti quam filius prestabit. Ex filiis nanque laus mortalis brevique peritura, monimentis litterarum eterna manet.” Balliol 288, f. 67B.
93 For an interesting discussion of the “types” of immortality to which people turn, see Lifton, R. J., “The Sense of Immortality: On Death and the Continuity of Life,” Explorations in Psychohistory: The Welfleet Papers, ed. R. J. Lifton with E. Olson (New York, 1974), pp. 271-87Google Scholar. I believe that, in general, the De consolatione reflects some of Conversini's concerns about his own death: some of the discussions about death might well be motivated not merely by the fact of his son's death but also by the prospect of his own.
94 See Cosenza, M., Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists (Boston, 1962), III, 2724 Google Scholar; de’ Rosmini, III, 126.
95 See Trinkaus, , Adversity's Noblemen: The Italian Humanists on Happiness (New York, 1940)Google Scholar; also, my “Renaissance Vision of Solace.”
96 See C. Favez; also Beyenka, pp. 1-30.
97 Cf. M. Barasch, p. 35.
98 See Kristeller, “Francesco Bandini,” p. 418; Banker, pp. 352; 360-61; von Moos, I, 404-14; II, 219-38.
99 See McNeill, J. T., A History of the Cure of Souls (New York, 1951)Google Scholar.
100 See Petrarch, Familiares VII, 12; Rerum Familiarum Libri I-VIII, trans. A. Bernardo (Albany, 1975), p. 366.
101 For a text of Morelli's comments on the death of the child and his longer account of the anniversary ritual, see Pagolo Morelli, Giovanni di: Ricordi, ed. V. Branca (Florence, 1969), pp. 455-59Google Scholar, 475-516. For discussions of Morelli and some comments on the bereavement account see Bee, C., Les marchands écrivains: affaires et humanisme à Florence, 1375-1434 (Paris, 1967), pp. 53–75 Google Scholar and passim; Branca's “Prefazione” in Ricordi, op. cit. R. Trexler translates and analyzes the bereavement account in his “In Search of Father: The Experience of Abandonment in the Recollections of Giovanni di Pagolo Morelli,” History of Childhood Quarterly: The Journal of Psychohistory, 3 (1975), 225-52; also see his fuller treatment in his Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980), pp. 159-186. Trexler rightly views Morelli's account in terms of ritual.
