Leonardo’s Literary Writings: History, Genre, Philosophy by Filomena Calabrese A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Italian Studies University of Toronto © Copyright by Filomena Calabrese, 2011 Leonardo’s Literary Writings: History, Genre, Philosophy Filomena Calabrese Doctor of Philosophy Department of Italian Studies University of Toronto 2011 ABSTRACT: This dissertation examines Leonardo da Vinci’s literary writings, namely those known as the Bestiario, Favole, Facezie, and Profezia, as compelling expressions of how Leonardo envisioned the role and influence of morality in human life. Through an analysis of these four literary collections from the perspective of their genre history, literariness, and philosophical dimension, it aims to bring to light the depth with which Leonardo reflected upon the human condition. The Bestiario, Favole, Facezie, and Profezia are writings that have considerable literary value in their own right but can also be examined in a wider historical, literary, and philosophical context so as to reveal the ethical ideas that they convey. By studying them from a historical perspective, it is possible to contextualize Leonardo’s four collections within the tradition of their respective genres (the bestiary, fable, facetia, and riddle) and thus recognize their adherence as well as contribution to these traditions. The literary context brings to light Leonardo’s intentionality and ingenuity as a writer who uses generic conventions in order to voice his ethical views. Assessed from a philosophical standpoint, these four literary collections prove to be meaningful reflections on the moral state of humanity, thereby justifying the characterization of Leonardo as a moral philosopher. Current scholarship on the Bestiario, Favole, Facezie, and Profezia generally views these writings as minor Leonardo works and treats them as ancillary parts of his production. ii This dissertation, conceiving Leonardo as a moral philosopher, provides interpretations that lead to the conclusion that his thought pervades both his major and minor works and that these literary writings must be viewed as an extension (and result) of Leonardo’s greater notions of the world and of how all parts relate to one another. The Bestiario, Favole, Facezie, and Profezia are works that deserve greater attention reflecting as they do the thought of this Renaissance man. iii I dedicate this thesis to my parents, who taught me what it means to be a good human being. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was made possible through the support of two Graduate Scholarships from the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, Open Fellowships from the University of Toronto, a Graduate Fellowship from the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, and awards from the Graduate Department of Italian Studies. I am especially indebted to my thesis supervisor, Professor Olga Pugliese, for giving me the opportunity to work with her. Without her sound advice, knowledge, and careful attention to every facet in each stage of my research project this thesis would not have been completed. It was an honour for me to work with her, and I simply could not have wished for a better and more supportive supervisor. I am also grateful to my committee members, Professors Konrad Eisenbichler and Eva Kushner, for their invaluable advice and questions. My thesis is, in large part, a reflection of my entire committee’s expertise, superb editing, and commitment to my thesis project. I also wish to thank members of the community at the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies at the University of Toronto, in particular, Stephanie Treloar, Scott Schofield, and Milton Kooistra for their enthusiastic support and generous help. During my research and writing, I spent countless hours at Robarts Library, where I was also able to share the joys and frustrations of this process with good friends in similar circumstances. I am deeply grateful to Lucia Ghezzi for engaging in stimulating conversations with me and helping me to think critically; Laura Prelipcean for being an optimist and always believing in me; Caroline Lebrec for showing concern about my well- being and offering to read drafts of my thesis; and Melanie Elliott and Alyson Stone for ensuring that I always celebrated milestones. v Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family for their patience, love, and emotional support during many years of hard work. My parents were particularly supportive when it was most required, and I cannot thank them enough for letting me follow my own path. They were a constant reminder that the thesis research I was conducting was worth pursuing and completing. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1 – The Bestiario i. Preliminaries to Leonardo’s Bestiario 25 ii. The Tradition of the Bestiary 36 iii. Philosophical Implications of the Bestiary: From the Middle Ages to Leonardo 48 a. Ethics in the Medieval Bestiary b. Leonardo’s Bestiario: Necessità, Experience, and Ethics Chapter 2 – The Favole i. Preliminaries to Leonardo’s Favole 73 ii. The History of the Fable 79 iii. The Favole: Leonardo as Fabulist 100 a. Form b. Philosophy: Necessità, Natural Law, and Ethics Chapter 3 – The Facezie i. Preliminaries to Leonardo’s Facezie 135 ii. The Tradition of the Facetia 146 iii. The Facezie in the Quattro- and Cinquecento: Form, Content, and Theory 164 iv. Leonardo’s Facezie as an Expression of Renaissance Italian Attitudes towards Humour 185 Chapter 4 – The Profezia i. Preliminaries to Leonardo’s Profezia 198 ii. The History of the Riddle 224 iii. Leonardo’s Prophecies as Riddles 239 iv. The Profezia as Prophecy: Meaning and Context 252 Conclusion 262 Works Consulted and Cited 264 vii 1 INTRODUCTION Proemio. So bene che, per non essere io litterato, che alcuno prosuntuoso gli parrà ragionevolmente potermi biasimare coll’allegare io essere omo sanza lettere. Gente stolta, […]. (Leonardo, Scritti ed. Vecce 191)1 Thus Leonardo da Vinci begins his celebrated apologia, a brief introductory text with a clear polemical tone, that appears in his codex Atlanticus.2 Leonardo wrote the apologia around 1489, while at Duke Ludovico Sforza’s court in Milan,3 in response to the criticism he had received from some humanists and men of letters of the court (Vecce, Scritti 206) when he decided to organize some of his notes into a book on painting.4 Leonardo’s self-deprecating description of himself as an “omo sanza lettere” [“a man without education”] is in reference to his lack of a formal literary education, a fact which some thought made Leonardo ill- prepared to approach elevated subjects or to articulate his findings regarding them in written form. Indeed, Leonardo’s intention to compose a treatise would have necessitated both a solid knowledge of Latin works on scientific matters, since his book was to include some treatment of human anatomy and optics, and also proficient writing skills in order to be able to explain his theories and discoveries effectively. Clearly, Leonardo did not view his critics 1 The English translation reads as follows: “I am fully conscious that, not being a literary man, certain presumptuous persons will think that they may reasonably blame me; alleging that I am not a man of letters. Foolish folks!” (trans. Richter, The Literary Works 116: 1). 2 This manuscript is the largest collection of Leonardo’s notes and contains material dating from about 1478 to 1518. 3 Leonardo worked primarily as an engineer at the duke’s court in Milan from 1482 to 1499. 4 Although Leonardo’s book project was never completed, a treatise on painting based on the artist’s fragmented notes on painting techniques and rules was published posthumously in Paris in 1651 under the title Trattato della pittura di Leonardo da Vinci nuovamente dato in luce. The history of the Trattato is complex. It begins with the assumption that Francesco Melzi (c. 1490-1570), Leonardo’s beloved pupil and inheritor of the artist’s manuscripts, was the first to compile the artist’s notes on the subject of painting turning them into a more coherent composition. The oldest extant compilation is from the sixteenth century. Part of the codex Urbinas 1270, at the Vatican Library, contains transcriptions of 944 segments scattered through eighteen original Leonardo manuscripts. Because these transcriptions were based on Leonardo’s manuscripts that were more or less intact, it is believed that Melzi might have been responsible for this compilation. The codex Urbinas became the main source for subsequent copyists. The Trattato della pittura published in 1651 is an abbreviated version based on this codex. 2 or their opinions favourably, as his disapproving words “prosuntuoso” [“presumptuous”] and “gente stolta” [“foolish folks”] indicate. Moreover, in the remainder of the apologia, he defends himself by asserting that experience and nature, not authoritative texts, will serve as his chief source and teacher (“maestra”) in the search for truth: “Diranno che, per non avere io lettere, non potere ben dire quello di che voglio trattare. Or non sanno questi che le mie cose son più da esser tratte dalla sperienzia, che d’altrui parola; la quale fu maestra di chi bene scrisse, e così per maestra la piglio e quella in tutt’ i casi allegherò” (ed.Vecce, Scritti 191) [“They will say that I, having no literary skill, cannot properly express that which I desire to treat of; but they do not know that my subjects are to be dealt with by experience rather than by words; and (experience) has been of those who wrote well. And so, as mistress, I will cite her in all cases” (trans. Richter, The Literary Works 116: 1)].5 Not even Leonardo, however, could deny his evident lack of humanistic training and the limits this would pose on his intention to compile a book which, in fact, when published posthumously, proved to be quite revolutionary.