TeresaCaligiure In antiquam litem relabimur. Sceptical HintsinPetrarch’s Secretum* Cumenim neque melius quaeri veritas possit, quam interrogando et respondendo. (Augustine, Soliloquium,II:7,14) Introduction FrancescoPetrarch’s Secretum¹ is aLatin dialogue in threebookscomposed between 1347and 1353.² The aim of this paper is to investigate certain sceptical hints emerging * This contribution includes the first results of the research Ihavehad the privilegetocarry out at the Maimonides Centrefor AdvancedStudies.Iwould liketoexpress my gratitude to Giuseppe Veltri and to all my other colleagues at the Maimonides Centre, particularlyHarald Bluhm and WarrenZev Har- vey, as Ihavehad the pleasureofdiscussingsome aspects of the subject of this researchwith them. Some of the issues put forwardinthis article werepresentedduring atalk on Petrarch’s Secretum at MasarykUniversity in Brno thanks to the hospitality of Paolo Divizia. Ithank Bill Rebigerfor the pa- tience he has shown as the editor of this article. The Latin textisasestablished by EnricoCarrarainFrancesco Petrarca, Secretum,inidem, Prose, eds.Guido Martellotti, Pier Giorgio Ricci, EnricoCarrara, and EnricoBianchi (Milan and Naples:Ric- ciardi, 1955): 22–215, amended with corrections from Bufano’sedition in Francesco Petrarca, Opere latine,vol. 1, ed. Antonietta Bufano (Turin: UTET,1975): 44–258. The English text follows Mann’sex- cellent translationinPetrarch, My Secret Book,ed. and trans. NicholasMann (Cambridge,Mass.: Har- vardUniversity Press, 2016). Paragraph numbers refertoFenzi’soutstanding annotated edition, Fran- cesco Petrarca, Secretum. Il mio segreto,ed. EnricoFenzi (Milan: Mursia, 1992),which givesthe pages from Carrara’sedition. On the datingofthe composition, cf. FranciscoRico, Vita uobradePetrarca. I: Lecturadel ‘Secre- tum’ (Padua: Antenore, 1974). In his impressive analysis,Ricodemonstrated that the action of the dia- loguetakesplacebetween 1342and 1343. According to him, the first redaction datesfrom1347and was followed by asecond in 1349 and afinal edition, thoroughlyre-elaborated, completed in 1353. In 1358, Petrarch is supposed to have merelyre-read the text,addingsome marginal notesthat confirm the proposed chronologyofthe threeeditions. We can readthose marginal notesinthe copy of the Secretum made by Tebaldo della Casa, reproduced in the current CodiceLaurenziano XXVI sin. 9of the Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana in Florence,cc. 208–243. Hans Baron, Petrarch’s ‘Secretum.’ Its Making and its Meaning,Medieval AcademyofAmerica (Cambridge:Mass., 1985) proposes adifferent reconstructionofthe Secretum:his importantanalysisrootsthe interpretation and the proposed dates moresolidlyinthe biographical data. Bortolo Martinelli, Il Secretum conteso (Naples:Loffredo, 1982) and Giovanni Ponte, “Nella selva del Petrarca: la discussa data del Secretum,” Giornale storico della Letteraturaitaliana 167(1990): 1–63, also discussed—with different hypotheses—the complex ques- tion of establishingthe chronology of the Secretum’scomposition. Foracareful reconstruction of the manyhypotheses concerningthe editingand datingofthe Secretum,see Fenzi, Secretum, 5–77 (introduction). OpenAccess. ©2017 TeresaCaligiure, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527971-003 30 TeresaCaligiure from the dialogue which underpinnedthe conception of Francesco’scharacter and his relationship with the questfor Christian truth. It would be proper to begin with the Proem,asitanticipates the ideological cores of the Secretum by delineatingFrancesco’smoral character,that of aman prone to anxious broodingabout the human condition: ‘Not long ago, while Iwas yetagain meditatingwith astonishment on how Ihad come into this life and how Iwould de- part from it.’³ Next,Truth⁴ appears in the shape of awoman whose presenceplays a specific role, as she herself explains: Takingpity on your errors Ihavecomedown from afar to help youinyour hour of need. Until now youhaveoften all to often gazedupon the earth with clouded eyes; if so far youhavefound mortal things delightful, how much morecan younot hope for if youlook up to thingseternal? […]SoIgazed, eagertolook at her,but my mortal eyes could not bear the celestial light,and I loweredthem again. Seeing this,she was silent for amoment,and then, repeatedlybreaking into speech, she forcedmewith brief and almost insignificant questions to respond and to dis- cuss amultitude of things.Irecognised that this was doublytomyadvantage: Ibecame alittle wiser,and at the same time, feelingmoreconfident as aresult of our discussion, Ibegan to be able to look moreopenlyatthe face.⁵ Francescodwells in errorbecause his interests aim solelyatmundane goods. Truth, whom he described in his Latin poem Africa⁶ and with whom he is therefore well ac- quainted, comes to his rescue. After abrief silent pause,⁷ duringwhich Francesco shivers in awe, unable to bear the gaze of such celestial splendour,Truth,through ‘Attonito michi quidem et sepissime cogitanti qualiter in hanc vitam intrassem, qualiter ve forem egressurus.’ Cf. Seneca, Ad Lucil.,XXII:14 ss;Boethius,Cons.Phil.,I:1,Augustine, Sol., I:I,1. On the semantic richness of the incipit and the intricateweb of classical and medieval references, see Rico, Secretum,16–20. On the character of Truth in the Proem,see the ad locum comments of Ricoand Fenzi. Proem,22–24: ‘Errores tuos miserata, de longinquo tempestivum tibi auxilium latura descendi. Satis superque satis hactenus terram caligantibus oculis aspexisti; quos si usqueadeo mortaliaista permulcent,quid futurum speras si eos ad eterna sustuleris?[…]. Rursus igitur in terram oculos de- icio;quod illa cognoscens, brevis spatii intervenientesilentio, iterumque et iteruminverba prorump- ens, minutis interrogatiunculis me quoque ut secum multa colloquerer coegit.Duplex hinc michi bonum provenisse cognovi: nam, et aliquantulum doctior factus sum, aliquantoque ex ipsa conver- satione securiorspectarecoram posse cepi vultumillum, qui nimio primummesplendoreterruerat.’ In fact,the receivedtext of the poem Africa contains no description of Truth or of her palace, con- trarily to what Francesco writes in the Proem. The same question concerns Book III of the dialogue, in which Augustine repeatedly refers to the poem. On this issue, also connectedtochronological aspects of the work, see EnricoFenzi, “Dall’Africa al Secretum. Il sogno di Scipioneelacomposizione del poema,” in idem, Saggi petrarcheschi (Florence: Cadmo, 2003): 305–365; idem, Secretum,23–39 (in- troduction); 399–400,n.327;407,n.376;411–412, n. 402(commentary). On the topicofsilenceinPetrarch, understood as inner recollection, far from the distractions of the city,and for its different meanings relating to otium see, including the references to previous studies, Arnaud Tripet, “Pétrarque, la parole silencieuse,” Italique 8(2005): 9–25 and Ilaria Tufano, “Isilenzi di Petrarca,” in Silenzio. Atti del terzo colloquio internazionale di letteratura italiana, Napoli, 2–4ot- tobre 2008, ed. Silvia Zoppi Garampi (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2011): 105–120. In antiquam litem relabimur. Sceptical Hints in Petrarch’s Secretum 31 minutae interrogatiunculae,⁸ initiates aconversation intended to bringabout the moral elevation of her interlocutor.Nonetheless, the task of reachingdeep into the depths of Francesco’ssoul and divertinghis desires from earthlyvanities is entrusted to Augustine, because ‘it is the human voice that penetrates the ear of mortal man.’⁹ Francescorecognises the saint at once because of his posture,his African outfit and Roman eloquence, and his eagerness to question him;¹⁰ however,Truth addresses Augustine first.Truth asks Augustine to come out of his silent brooding(‘taciturna meditatio’), since Francescoismoribund because of his ownsin and,furthermore, is dangerouslyfar from understanding the natureofhis own sickness: that is why he needsaphysician who is an expert in mundane passions.¹¹ Augustine,¹² to whom Francescoisdevoted as he views him as the intellectual closest to his own sensitivity,isanexample to follow,since he also wandered in errorbefore reaching apath of truth-seeking.¹³ In fact,Petrarch considered Augustine his own master. The saint accepts the task, initiating athree-dayexchangewith the disciple in the silent presenceofTruth.¹⁴ ‘Sola virtus animumfelicitat’ The structure of the work, as the auctor highlights, drawsfrom the model of Platonic and Ciceronian dialogues.¹⁵ Itsconstant and crucial references are Boethius’ Conso- This is aCiceronian syntagmopeningthe proem of the Paradoxa stoicorum ad Marcum Brutum I:2. Proem,24: ‘Auremmortalis hominishumana voxferiat.’ Ibidem: ‘iam interrogationis verba dictaveram’ (‘Iwas alreadypreparing to frame my question’). Ibidem: ‘quod cum ita sit,passionumexpertarum curator optime’ (‘Forthis reason youare the best healer of passions that youyourself have experienced’). Amongthe important studies on the relationship between Augustine and Petrarch, see at least PietroPaolo Gerosa, Umanesimo cristiano del Petrarca.Influenza agostiniana, attinenze medievali (Turin: Bottegad’Erasmo, 1966); Elena Giannarelli, “Petrarca eiPadri della Chiesa,” in Quaderni Pet- rarcheschi 9–10 (1992–3): 393–412; Giuseppe Billanovich, “Petrarca, Boccaccio ele‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ di sant’Agostino,” in idem, Petrarca eilprimo Umanesimo (Padua: Antenore, 1996): 68–96; EnricoFenzi, “Platone, Petrarca, Agostino,” in idem, Saggi petrarcheschi,519–552; RobertoCardini and