We Are the Kingdom of Sicily: Humanism and Identity

Home , Alfonso V of Aragon, Antonio Veneziano (poet), Arezzo, Century (novel), David Abulafia, Duchy of Milan

WE ARE THE KINGDOM OF SICILY:

HUMANISM AND IDENTITY FORMATION IN

THE SICILIAN RENAISSANCE

A Dissertation

Presented to The Graduate Faculty of

The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the

Doctor of Philosophy

Anne Maltempi

August, 2020 WE ARE THE KINGDOM OF SICILY: HUMANISM AND IDENTITY

FORMATION IN THE SICILIAN RENAISSANCE

Anne Maltempi

Dissertation

Approved: Accepted:

Advisor Department Chair Dr. Michael Levin Dr. Martin Wainwright

Committee Member Dean of Arts and Sciences Dr. Martha Santos Dr. Joe Urgo

Committee Member Acting Dean of Graduate School Dr. Martin Wainwright Dr. Marnie Saunders

Committee Member Date Dr. Janet Klein

Committee Member Dr. Matthew Crawford

Committee Member Dr. Alan Ambrisco

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could not have completed this work without a network of amazing peers in the

University of Akron graduate program, including Michael Selzer, Suraj

Lakshminarasimhan, Kat McDonald-Miranda, Dr. Thomas Weyant, Dr. Angela Riotto, and my dearest friend in the program Flint Tyler-Wolf. I would also like to express my immense gratitude to the entire History Department faculty at the University of Akron particularly Dr. Martha Santos, Dr. Janet Klein, Dr. Steve Harp, Dr. Martin Wainwright,

Dr. Michael Graham, Dr. Walter Hixson, and most of all to the most incredible advisor I could have ever asked for Dr. Michael Levin. Thank you all for your support and for helping me become the best scholar I could possibly be. I would like to thank Dr.

Oghenetoja Okoh and Dr. Matthew Crawford, both have been instrumental in helping to facilitate my research and offering support and suggestions through the years. I want to thank my grandparents, Anna and Vincenzo Maltempi. Both of them passed away through the course of my Ph.D. program, but their lives served as an example of dedication, hard work, and integrity which fostered my ability as a scholar. I would like to thank my parents Salvatrice and Carlo Maltempi whose love and commitment have inspired my work, and who always supported and fostered my hopes and dreams. Ti voglio tanto bene Mamma e Papà. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Daniel

Hovatter who has been patient enough to get me through my highs and my lows, and who was always willing to engage in debate with me as I worked through my theoretical premises. I love you very much Daniel, I hope I can always do the same for you.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERS Pages

I. INTRODUCTION: SICILIANITÀ IN THE RENAISSANCE ...... 1

a. Sicilian Identity Formation in the Renaissance ...... 6

b. Conceptualizing Sicilianità ...... 10

c. Reconceptualizing the Mediterranean ...... 16

d. Concepts of Empire: Sicily and the Influence of Spain ...... 21

e. Methodology ...... 29

f. Conclusion ...... 32

II. THE MIXED HERITAGE OF SICILIANITÀ ...... 37

a. Sicily in the Middle Ages: A History of Cultural Exchange ...... 38

b. Greek Culture in Sicilian Identity and in Italian Humanism ...... 41

c. Muslim Sicily and its Influence on Sicilianità ...... 44

d. Norman Integration of Greek and Muslim Sicily ...... 45

e. The Role of the Parlamentu in Sicilian Identity Formation ...... 49

f. The Economics of Sicily in the Middle Ages ...... 52

g. Conclusion ...... 56

III. TOMMASO FAZELLO: WRITING THE SICILIAN RENAISSANCE ..58

a. Writing History in Renaissance Sicily: The Italian “Other” ...... 58

b. Tommaso Fazello: Le Due Deche della Storia Siciliana ...... 66

c. Fazello and the History of Norman Sicily ...... 81

iv d. The End of the Norman Dynasty and the Arrival of Spain...... 90

e. Conclusion ...... 97

IV. TOMMASO SCHIFALOD AND LUCIO MARINEO SICULO: SICILIAN

HUMANISM ...... 102

a. Introduction: Sicilian Academies and Sicilian Humanism ...... 102

b. Tommaso Schifaldo and the Sicilian Schools ...... 110

c. Lucio Marineo Siculo: A Sicilian Humanist in Spain ...... 121

d. Conclusion ...... 151

V. CLAUDIO MARIO D’AREZZO AND ANTONIO VENEZIANO: SICILIAN

POETS ...... 160

a. Language, Literature, and Subverting the Tuscan Paradigm ...... 160

b. The Standard Sicilian Form: The Case of Claudio Mario D’Arezzo....163

c. Sicilianità in the Art of Language in Antonio Veneziano ...... 185

d. Conclusion: The Literary Construction of Sicilianità ...... 203

VI. CONCLUSION: REFRAMING MEDITTERRANEAN IDENTITY IN THE

EARLY MODERN PERIOD ...... 205

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 211

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: SICILIANITÀ IN THE RENAISSANCE

The island of Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is not well documented in current Renaissance historiography, particularly that which is produced in the

Anglophone world. While some recent historians have attempted to bring attention to

Sicily’s role in the Renaissance, they often do so superficially or through their discussions of the court of Naples, since Sicily and Naples were both part of the southern

Italian Kingdom.1 In this dissertation, I aim to begin filling this gap in Anglophone

Renaissance historiography. Doing so will provide insight into the functions of identity formation in the early modern Mediterranean. I will analyze the work of five Sicilian humanists: Tommaso Fazello (1498-1570), Tommaso Schifaldo (1430-1500?), Lucio

Marineo Siculo (1444-1533), Claudio Mario D’Arezzo (?-1575), and Antonio Veneziano

(1543-1593). I chose these humanists because they represent different facets of the rhetorical humanist movement of the Renaissance: Fazello and Siculo wrote histories, while Schifaldo, D’Arezzo, and Veneziano wrote about pedagogy, grammar and linguistics, and poetry respectively. These humanists have been given little attention in

1 Guido Ruggiero, The Renaissance in Italy: A Social and Cultural History of the Renaissance, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 1

current Renaissance historiography, and each of them conceptualized a unique

Sicilian identity (Sicilianità), which scholars initially thought did not exist until the nineteenth century. Thus, in this dissertation I argue that Sicilian humanists had a distinct multicultural conceptualization of Sicilian identity which can be traced through the contribution of Sicilian intellectuals in the Renaissance.

Throughout this dissertation I will use the work of these Sicilian humanist intellectuals to show how they helped Renaissance humanism develop in Sicily. I will highlight the changes and continuities between the northern Renaissance and the southern

Renaissance to show Sicilian contributions, and to help reintegrate Sicily into the narrative of the Renaissance. In so doing, I will also trace the changes and continuities in the development of Sicilianità from a cultural conceptualization to the embodiment of an identity. The evolution of Sicilianità shows that it was not a static concept, but rather was an idea that was conceptualized in many ways throughout time by different Sicilians.

Sicilianità will also serve as an indicator of the humanist movement on the island.

Analyzing Renaissance Sicily will help overturn problematic nineteenth and twentieth century Italian nationalist narratives of the island which continue to propagate racist, classist, and sexist beliefs about Sicilians to this day.

By reexamining the role of Sicily in the Renaissance we are able to understand several key factors. First, examining Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries will allow us to explore the development of Sicilian identity. Sicily had a “parliament” and a

“constitution,” these two state structures indicate the process of state-making, however while this may indicate the formation of a state it is necessary to do more research before

2 discussing a Sicilian “nationalism.”2 In addition, the words of these Sicilian humanists indicate that they all identified with a similar ancestral heritage, formulating their culture by blending the tradition of primarily three groups: Greeks, Arabs, and Normans. Later

Sicilian humanists used the word “nation” in discussing Sicily, and many even used familial rhetoric such as the “Father of the nation” or a “mother tongue.” Though familial language is common in the process of conceptualizing national identity we must first contextualize Sicilianità without the veil of nationalist assumptions. The identity

Renaissance Sicilian humanists conceptualized was inclusive, and strikingly different from the way northern Italians were conceptualizing identity. As I will show in subsequent chapters, Sicilians embraced non-Christian groups as part of their ancestral lineage, this was not always the case in northern Italy. Therefore, early modern Sicilian identity may be different because Sicilian intellectuals claimed a heterogenous ancestry.

Second, beginning with the historical works of Jacob Burckhardt and continuing through more recent monographs, scholars have long accepted that Florence was the center of Renaissance culture. While I am not working to disproving this point, it has caused scholars to focus solely on the northern Italian Renaissance often to the exclusion of the Italian south. This historiographical legacy persists, and to this day there are still very few scholars that venture further south than Naples when examining the

Renaissance. Naples, while certainly important, particularly for the Spanish court, cannot be the only model of the southern Italian Renaissance. This flattens the history of the

2 While we cannot impose the “parliament” in the English sense of the term on Sicily, we must recognize that the island had an organization of assent that would hold influence over the King’s decisions. They also had a set of written laws called the constitution. More research is required in order to understand how this body and this document functioned within the context of medieval and early modern Sicilian politics, but they are worth noting as markers of early state formation. Therefore, in the subsequent chapters I will refer to the Sicilian parliament in the words of the scholars discussed in Sicilian (u parlamentu) and in Latin (concilii). 3

Italian south, and stifles further historical inquiry into how we conceptualize and examine the Renaissance. Looking at Sicily through the work of Sicilian intellectuals—because of the unique position and cultural mixture on the island—provides a new way to frame the questions concerning the Renaissance and identity formation.

Third, because Sicily’s history in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries has not been well documented, biased nineteenth- and twentieth-century narratives about the history of the Italian south persist. During the Risorgimento (the period of Italian

Unification) from 1860 to 1862, many Italian historians wrote histories of Sicily that depicted the people of the island as “backwards,” “uncivilized,” and lacking in culture.3

These histories were intended to stir up a sense of a unified Italy through the inclusion of the Italian south. To that end, these historians took a paternalistic tone in their discussions of the Italian south to gather support for the inclusion of Sicily into an Italian whole in a sort of civilizing mission. Sicily was also the only part of the Italian peninsula that was once under the control of Arab caliphates and is geographically very close to Africa.

Therefore, racial undertones were also part of these arguments.

Also, nineteenth and twentieth century Italian nationalist historians often blamed the state of degradation of the Italian south on the Spanish, who, they claimed, made the

Italian south decadent, thus creating a lazy and delinquent populace. Since Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was under the control of the Spanish Empire, it is important to understand the relationship between the two regions. For the purposes of this

3 These national histories will be discussed more in depth in chapter one; however, these ideas about the uncivilized nature of the Italian south were very common in the works of Risorgimento historians such as Benedetto Croce and Francesco De Sanctis. This tradition of constructing the greatness of the Italian north in contrast to the degradation of the Italian south can be seen as early as the works of Dante and Petrarch, and the tradition was crystalized with the onset of Italian unification. 4 dissertation, I will study the words of the humanists within the political confines of

Spanish imperial power. Doing so will further demonstrate how the power of Spain in

Sicily was contingent at best, which allowed for Sicilians to negotiate their power within the Spanish imperial structure. Examining the intellectual culture of Sicily and its connection to Spain during the Renaissance will help dispel these problematic Italian nationalist beliefs and narratives by providing a more nuanced contemporary view of the existing culture of early modern Sicily. Allowing nationalist narratives to persist uncontested is also connected to the accepted view that Sicilians did not conceptualize a national identity until the nineteenth century, since the “incivility” and “lack of culture” of Sicilians caused them to lack “progress” and therefore lack the historical tradition upon which to build a unique Sicilian identity.

Fourth, understanding how the Italian Renaissance developed in Sicily reveals a world of scholars and intellectuals who have barely been explored. Many of these intellectuals conceptualized the world differently from their northern Italian contemporaries. One way through which to demonstrate how Sicilian scholars interpreted their world is to understand how they formulated their identities. I argue in this dissertation that there is evidence to suggest that Sicilianità was a distinct identity. While some recent scholars and linguists suggest that Sicilianità was born from the rhetoric of the Risorgimento, I believe that there is evidence in Sicilian humanists’ documents of a

Sicilianità born long before the nineteenth century. In fact, I believe Sicilianità was formed concurrently with Machiavelli’s Italianità in response to the Italian Wars (1494-

1559).4 Therefore, the Sicilianità of the Renaissance is the term to which I will be

4 Linguist Vincenzo Orioles from Udine stated that Sicilianità was a nineteenth-century invention. However, I believe the humanists discussed in this dissertation prove otherwise. The Sicilianità of the 5 referring, not the Sicilianità of the nineteenth century. Sicilianità developed through historical processes that occurred in Sicily during the early modern period, and this can be seen with continued analysis of the Sicilian Renaissance.

Sicilian Identity Formation in the Renaissance

Renaissance Florence, Venice, Rome, and Milan have been well documented.

Florence, in particular has had a long-standing tradition of exceptionalism captured throughout the whole of Renaissance historiography. This tradition of Florence as the forbearer of modernity and high Renaissance intellectualism and culture dates back to

Dante, persisted through Petrarch, and is legitimized and substantiated through historians of the Italian Risorgimento (1860-1862), such as Francesco De Sanctis and Benedetto

Croce, who spoke of the Italian South in paternalistic terms. Francesco De Sanctis and

Benedetto Croce were two of the most influential Risorgimento Historians of Italy, and the historiography of Italian nationalism is built upon their works. Adding to the tradition of Florentine greatness is Jacob Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, where he glorifies the magnificence of Florence as the center of Renaissance culture and, therefore, of modernity. Burckhardt’s work is also one of the most influential of

Renaissance historiography, and is often discussed and contested by contemporary

Renaissance historians. In this section, I will be situating Sicily and Sicilian culture

nineteenth-century was a term of literary analysis, which often described stereotypical attributes of works written by Sicilian authors. Therefore, a Sicilianità born out of this context would be imbued with nineteenth-century biases. However, I am reconceptualizing Sicilianità, and use the term to discuss Sicilian identity in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries, not only because it is explicitly present in the works of the Sicilian humanists discussed, but also because the Sicilianità born in the Renaissance was free of nineteenth-century nationalist stereotypes. 6 within the historiography of the Renaissance. I will contextualize some of the arguments made by the most influential contemporary historians of the Renaissance, and demonstrate the place of Sicily within the historiographical narrative.

As the histories mentioned above point out, Florence was somewhat peculiar because of its Republican city-state political structure in contrast to possessing a despot or a monarchy, as much of the rest of continental Europe. Venice also shared the

Republican political structure with Florence, and like Florence was very wealthy.

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century historians including Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) pointed to the city-state structure of Florence as proof of the superiority of Florence, and its place as a forebearer of modernity. The wealth of the city-states allowed for greater access to the newest technologies such as the printing press, and also facilitated the patronage of artists, writers, historians, and other humanist scholars who could immortalize those cities’ magnificence with the written word. Thus, the historiographic tradition of early modern Italy, economic stability, and political structures are just a few reasons among many why Florence, and Venice closely following, are often held as bastions of Renaissance culture in this period.

While the “parliament” and the constitution of Sicily may not have functioned as the Florentine Republic or as a parliamentary body would today, I argue that it was an important place for understanding the process identity formation in early modern Sicily.

The Sicilian “parliament” became a place for interaction between different religious groups and between different social classes. It is important to note that Michelet, who is credited with giving us the word “Renaissance,” was primarily a historian of the French

Revolution who constructed the Renaissance as the moment in which the ideals upon

which the French Revolution was based came into existence. These include ideas of the state and ideas of the individual man. Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in

Italy published in 1860, during the Risorgimento, echoed Michelet’s construction of the

Renaissance as the beginning of the “modern world.” While new historians have worked to dismantle these problematic histories, little has been done to do so in the case of Sicily and they still influence the foundations of understanding state-making in the Renaissance in more recent historiography.

I do believe that we need to consider the complexities of the existence of identity formation throughout the early modern period, analyzing each region and groups of people within their historical context. Sicily, during the Renaissance, was a peculiar and unique space. Before Sicily came under Roman control, the island belonged to the Greek- speaking Hellenistic world and was a part of Magna Graecia. The Roman Empire conquered Sicily in the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.E), and shortly after the fall of the

Roman Empire, Sicily came under the control of three separate caliphates: the Ifriqiya

Caliphate (831-909), the Fatimid Caliphate (909-948), and an independent Emirate, which remained autonomous from 948 until 1044. In 1071, the first Norman King, Roger

I, arrived in Sicily and soon the island was under Norman control as the last Muslim city of Noto fell to the Normans in 1091. The French Anjou monarchy followed the succession of Norman Kings, and soon after the Spanish House of Aragon took over after the Rebellion of the Vespers in 1282. There were also Jewish communities that had inhabited Sicily since the fourth century, along with Spanish converso and Sephardic

Jewish communities that settled in Sicily in the fourteenth century.5 Additionally, there

5 Nadia Zeldes, “Conversos, Finance, and Military Campaigns in the Reign of Ferdinand the Catholic: A View from Sicily,” The Journal of Levantine Studies, 2016, 109. 8 was a constant exchange of peoples between North Africa and Sicily, a connection first established through their unity in antiquity. Sicily’s rapid succession of culturally, ethnically, and religiously distinct rulers and regimes makes Sicily a complex space for historical analysis. Sicily is also in a complicated geographic location in the center of the

Mediterranean Sea, and the cultural implications of looking at an island implies different identity formation when compared to broader territories containing multiple regional nodes of consolidated power that border other such territories.

Scholars have written extensively about Sicily within the historical record of the

Middle Ages when Palermo was one of the most prestigious cities holding the court of

Frederick II. Under the reign of Frederick II Sicily flourished in both wealth-seeking and political pursuits. The School of Sicilian Poetry established under Frederick II was one of the most influential intellectual institutions of the period. The sonnet--the premiere form of poetics which would later be adopted by Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch)--was originally written at the Sicilian School of Poetry by Giacomo da Lentini. However, after the

Middle Ages and after the Sicilian School of Poetry was moved to the North of Italy, there is very little historical exploration of the intellectual traditions on the island until roughly the early 1700s. Filling this historiographical gap will demonstrate how Sicily contributed to the Renaissance. I am arguing that the development of the Renaissance in

Sicily was demonstrative of a mixed Hellenistic tradition in Sicily, which was blended with different Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arab, African and a variety of other cultural influences that resulted in the formation of a heterogeneous Sicilian identity. This heterogenous ancestral tradition became the foundation of Sicilianità in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

9 Conceptualizing Sicilianità

The term Sicilianità as the construction of an identity was utilized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and was previously applied to post-Risorgimento analyses of Sicilian authors such as Pirandello, Quasimodo, Verga, etc. to underscore essentialized “Sicilian” qualities perceived in their works. The term was first applied to

Francesco Crispi, the first Southern Italian Prime Minister who served from 1887 to1891 and subsequently from 1893 to1896, usually to stereotype his “fiery” nature. According to historian John Dickie, whose work focuses on regional identities throughout Italy, during the Risorgimento and post-Risorgimento years Sicilianità delineated Sicilian stereotypes that upheld narratives of Sicilians as culturally inferior to Northern peninsular

Italians.6 This is not the Sicilianità to which I will be referring. I argue that Sicilianità pre-dated and opposed this post-Risorgimento qualification. To be clear, Sicilian humanists of the early modern Mediterranean did not use the term Sicilianità; however, I am using the term to define the identity construction of Sicilian-ness evident in the writings of humanists such as Tommaso Fazello, Tommaso Schifaldo, Lucio Marineo

Siculo, Claudio Mario D’Arezzo, and Antonio Veneziano. Thus, as Machiavelli defined

Italianità, simultaneously a distinct Sicilianità was constructed by Sicilian intellectuals.

To the contrary of its post-unification application, Sicilianità is what I have termed the

6 John Dickie, Darkest Italy: The Nation and Stereotypes of the Mezzogiorno, 1860-1900, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999).

10 fifteenth and sixteenth century construct of Sicilian identity developed by the island’s intellectuals.7

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was, and remains, one of the most well-known pieces of Renaissance literature. Often considered one of the first works of political theory Machiavelli outlined various attributes that one must possess in order to be the proper ruling prince. The last chapter of The Prince, however, was quite different in tone and subject matter from the previous sections of the book. Entitled “An Exhortation to

Liberate Italy from the Barbarians,” chapter twenty-six outlined the necessity for the unification of Italian regions in order to thwart the continued oppression of Italy from outside powers, primarily France and Spain.8 Here, Machiavelli addressed the reader of his work directly—Lorenzo de’ Medici to whom he dedicated The Prince— declaring him a possible redeemer and unifier of the Italian peninsula. Machiavelli began by calling for an “Italian hero” to lead Italy out of foreign tyranny as Moses led the Hebrews out of

Egypt.9 Machiavelli continued to construct an Italian identity comprised of all peninsular regions including Lombardy, Tuscany, and Naples to show the rest of Europe the

“greatness…of the men who have delivered their country in past ages…although every single man of them be good, collectively they will be better.”10 The consistent elaboration

7 I use the word Sicilianità because I believe placing its genesis in the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries is incorrect. In doing so, Sicilianità becomes only a word imbued with nineteenth- and twentieth-century Risorgimento biases, as is evidenced above. Therefore, I will show evidence from the selected fifteenth- and sixteenth-century humanists expressing a Sicilianità that does not hold these negative connotations, and reclaim the word as the proper title for the Sicilian identity. The parallel with Machiavelli comes because they are constructing a similar sort of identity as Machiavelli. However, saying that Italianità was developed by Machiavelli in the 1500s while Sicilianità did not come into being until the 1800s—though there is clear evidence to the contrary—further propagates Risorgimento biases about the Italian south.

8 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, (Harvard Classics, Vol. 36, 1910), 80.

9Ibid., 81.

10 Ibid., 82-83. 11 on this collective and unified identity referred to as il sentimento di nazione in

Machiavelli’s work, established the foundation of Italianità. Machiavelli ended this chapter with his continued appeal to Lorenzo, “This opportunity then, for Italy at last to look on her deliverer ought not to be allowed to pass away…This barbarian tyranny stinks in all nostrils,” and finally Machiavelli concluded with the words of Petrarch:

“Brief will be the strife, /When valor arms against barbaric rage; /For the bold spirit of the bygone age, /Still warms Italian hearts with life.”11

Machiavelli’s collective identity of the Italian peninsula reflected in the words of

Petrarch served as a concept of a unifying comradeship under one leader, or state head, with a culturally unified population. In unifying both north and south of the Italian peninsula it is evident that Machiavelli was conceptualizing an Italy comprised of all those living on the peninsula, who were Catholic and spoke Italian. Machiavelli outlined this regional identity that was unified under one governing body. In a similar way, humanist intellectuals in Sicily constructed Sicilianità.

While the term Sicilianità was not used by the humanists of fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Sicily, they clearly discussed the same elements of “Sicilian-ness” as those of “Italian-ness” that Machiavelli discussed in reference to Italian identity.

According to influential linguistic scholar Vincenzo Orioles from the University of

11 Ibid., 90. The National Center for Italian Philosophy in Rome published a book on the origins of Italian national philosophy in 2012 titled L’Unita Nazionale nella Filosofia Italiana: Dal Rinascimento al Risorgimento e Oltre. Here they attribute the origins of “national sentiment” to Machiavelli’s last chapter of The Prince as part of a growing movement of National sentiment growing in Italy in the history of Francesco Guicciardini, and the works of Giovanni Pontano and Baldassare Castiglione. These scholars attribute the growth in Italian identity formation in this period to the invasion of Charles VIII of France in 1494 beginning the Italian Wars. They say this is evident in Machiavelli closing the chapter with Petrarch’s poem Italia Mia. These scholars also provide evidence of this movement in the actions of local elites, such as Francesco Gonzaga the Marquess of Mantua minting coins soon after the French invasion engraved with the phrase “ob restituam Italiae libertatem” “for the restoration of Italian freedom.” 12

Bologna, “Sicilianità,” as a term developed and was initially utilized in 1864 shortly after the onset of Italian unification. In his qualification of the term, Orioles states that

Sicilianità signified “the unique characteristics which comprise what is properly Sicilian, or traditionally attributed to Sicilians linguistically, culturally, in ritual and custom, and in civility.”12 This definition of Sicilianità contains remarkably similar elements to an

Italian identity as Machiavelli described. However, because Italianità pre-dates Italian unification—as it is often ascribed to Machiavelli and Guicciardini—it is free of nineteenth-century unification biases. Utilizing my own qualification of Sicilianità I am arguing that rather than being fully conceptualized in 1864, the Sicilianità of the

Mediterranean island developed in the early modern period. Therefore, Sicilianità pre- dated its 1864 conception. Additionally, to Orioles’ definition I am adding that the

Sicilianità of Renaissance humanists was regionally, ethnically, and racially inclusive.

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Sicily was part of the Spanish Hapsburg

Empire. The island was tied to the southern Kingdom of Naples and consolidated under the crown of Aragon; however, until the rise of King Alfonso V of Aragon, Sicily often operated politically as a semi-autonomous part of the Kingdom. The concept of

Sicilianità in the case of quattrocento and cinquecento Sicily is a regional manifestation.

Regional qualifications of the Italian state have been previously discussed in reference to the established Italian city-states. In one of the earliest collections to look at the origins of the state in Italy, Historian Julius Kirshner, for example, acknowledges that while Italian

12 Vincenzo Orioles, “Tra Sicilianità e Sicilitudine,” Demetrio Skubic Octegenario II, 2010, 228. 13 states were regional nodes of consolidated power, they lacked autonomy and modern notions of sovereignty.13

I suggest, however, that in some ways Sicily was more autonomous than some of its northern Italian city-states, since Sicily had its own “parliament” and functioned with relative independence from Naples beginning with the revolt of the Vespers in 1282. It was not until Sicily’s consolidation with the Kingdom of Naples under the rule of

Alfonso V in 1443 that the “parliament” began to weaken steadily under Spanish rule.

However, while the “parliament’s” power dwindled, the political entity was never completely dispelled—acting, in part, as a consejo (council, groups of learned men that the Spanish monarchs would often look to for advice on legal, political, and religious matters) during the years of Spanish rule—and, later continued to contest the presence of outside political presence through to the early nineteenth century.14

For centuries, the island’s multicultural makeup differentiated Sicily, politically, geographically, and socially from the rest of the Italian peninsula. The Vespers, which I will subsequently explain in further detail, served as an example of the distinct political atmosphere in Sicily that broke Sicilians away from the dominant Anjou monarchy of the

Southern Kingdom during the Middle Ages. After the Vespers, Sicilians petitioned the

13 Julius Kirshner ed. The Origins of the State in Italy 1300-1600, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

14 In his recent work L’Amministrazione del Regno di Sicilia, historian Alessandro Silvestri focuses primarily on the administrative infrastructure of fifteenth-century Sicily. While, under the Norman monarchies and through most of the fourteenth-century the main administrative body in Sicily stayed primarily housed within the parlamentu in Palermo, Silvestri demonstrates that this did not remain so under Aragonese rule. With the rise of Alfonso the Magnanimous Spanish dependence on documenting nearly everything required greater resources to be allocated to documentary positions. This caused decentralization and greater numbers of Sicilians to be trained as chancelleries, secretaries, and government registers which were housed in separate regional buildings which all reported to the “parliament.” and that then reported to the viceroy. Silvestri argues that the sprawling network of the newly decentralized documentary body created more autonomy and agency for Sicilian elites in terms of creating policy, applying policy, and negotiating benefits and privileges from the court. 14 Pope Marin IV for a monarch of their choosing, which demonstrated Sicilians’ ability to act on their own behalf in selecting their own governing body.15 Sicily’s proximity to

Greece and the legacy left on the island by Magna Graecia forged its unique Hellenistic heritage.16 Analyzing Sicily’s position in the early modern period as the result of these processes complicates accepted historical views of Sicilian identity since it requires different questions and more nuanced approaches to understand how Sicilianità was constructed. Additionally, Sicily is a complicated space when analyzing early modern identity formation as it falls under, not only a European sphere of influence, but also under an African, and Middle Eastern spheres of influence.

The Sicilian humanists analyzed in this dissertation constructed an undeniable

Sicilianità that is evident in their works. Sicilianità for D’Arezzo and Veneziano progressed beyond the boundaries of ethnic identity or regional identity; it was a shared

15 The Sicilian Vespers occurred on March 30, 1282. Many historical narratives exist of this event, and the various details in those histories all differ slightly. However, most all historians agree that the rebellion began with people gathering for the Easter Vigil service mass outside the Church of the Holy Spirit just outside the city of Palermo. According to historian Steven Runciman the group of Sicilians gathered outside the church were engaging in preparatory festivities for the Easter holiday the following morning when a group of French soldiers came by and began to drink heavily. One of the commanding officers began to pester one of the married Sicilian women in the group. As the woman struggled to thwart his advances her husband, who was also in the crowd, saw and attacked the French officer and stabbed him to death. As the other French soldiers moved to attack the crowed to avenge their fallen leader the Sicilians attacked and eventually killed all of them. At that moment the church bells rang and news of the Sicilian peasants killing the French soldiers began to spread. This was the beginning of a peasant rebellion that eventually drove the Anjou monarchy out of Sicily, and by April 1282 Sicily was a free island. This would not remain the case. The Sicilians initially petitioned Pope Martin IV to recognize them as a free island but he denied their request, and then Sicilians petitioned to have Peter of Aragon as their leader since he was married to Constance daughter of Manfred Hohenstaufen, the son of Frederick II. This event became the image of Sicily propagated in nineteenth-century Italian nationalist imagery, and is in fact mentioned in the Italian national anthem as the depiction of Sicily. This moment becomes a defining moment in Sicilian identity formation.

16 Magna Graecia was the Latin name given to Sicily and the Italian south by the Romans when those territories were primarily settled by Greeks, and were Greek-speaking. In the case of Sicily, the island continued to be part of Magna Graecia until the first Punic War (264-241 B.C.E.). However, even after the Roman conquest and into the Middle Ages the Byzantine connection with Sicily was never broken, and Greek continued to be taught and spoken well into the early modern period. Documents in Sicily were written in Greek as late as the fourteenth-century, and the best Greek academies during the Renaissance were in Sicily. 15

bond that linked each individual on the island of Sicily to one another. The identity constructed by these humanists was one that accommodated people from various backgrounds and various classes; they were not stratified by racial, ethnic, or regional lines. They were however, all Sicilians. Aside from the inclusivity of Sicilian identity as expressed by these Sicilian humanists, some characteristics of Sicilianità that can be seen in these humanists’ writings are: the claiming of a mixed heritage primarily Greek, Arab, and Norman. While all of these humanists recognize the importance of Latin and Roman culture, it becomes secondary to Greek language and philosophy. Additionally, all of the

Sicilian humanists discussed in this dissertation draw on examples from a body of other

Sicilian intellectuals. For example, Siculo who was a historian drew on examples and models from Diodorus Siculus, and the others did so as well. Sicilianità, therefore, can be understood as a unique early modern heterogenous identity.

Reconceptualizing the Mediterranean

Since Sicilianità is a Mediterranean identity that formed out of a heterogenous ancestral tradition, new paradigms are necessary to properly analyze it. Therefore, I have found it useful to understand Sicilianità through theoretical frameworks that have been used by scholars to understand identities that developed in the Atlantic world since Sicily is located within the Mediterranean world. The scholars I will discuss in this section have theorized diverse methodologies for understanding identity formation in and around oceanic basins of travel and exchange, and have provided me with some theoretical perspectives to corporate into my analysis. It is evident that there is a different cultural

16 environment around the Mediterranean basin which is distinct from that of northern

Europe; however, this difference in culture between the two spaces often goes unaccounted for. In a very presentist way, because Sicily is now part of Italy, it appears that many scholars assume that the country developed homogeneously and was subject to the same historical processes from Milan to Sardinia and Sicily. In my qualification of the Mediterranean, I argue that it cannot continue to be conflated with Europe; it is culturally, socially, and historically different even though parts of some European countries are Mediterranean. I will further explain my theoretical qualification of the

Mediterranean as I contextualize Sicily as a space within the Mediterranean, which means it is not solely a European space, but rather a space of cultural contact between

Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Byzantine world; thus, solely European theoretical paradigms are flawed in order to analyze identity formation in this space.

The Mediterranean must be understood as a cultural crossroads, in the book

Mediterranean Crossings: The Politics of Uninterrupted Modernity, Political Scientist

Iain Chambers suggests that the Mediterranean’s disunity is what demonstrates that the region is a product of modernity. The constant processes of racializing between rich and poor refugees and migrants show “…the sea itself, as the site of dispersion and drift.”17

Historian David Abulafia provides a comprehensive study of the Mediterranean in The

Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean. Abulafia’s purpose is to challenge previous comprehensive histories written of the Mediterranean such as the famous The

Mediterranean and Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II written by Fernand

Braudel. Abulafia states that while Braudel suggested that all change was slow and man

17 Iain Chambers, Mediterranean Crossings: The Politics of Uninterrupted Modernity, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), 149. 17 was imprisoned in a destiny in which he had very little control, his study shows that this is in fact not the case. “Whereas Braudel offered …a horizontal history of the

Mediterranean, seeking to capture its characteristics through the examination of a particular era, this book attempts to provide a vertical history of the Mediterranean, emphasizing change over time.”18 Ultimately Abulafia’s purpose is to reinsert human agency within the context of the Mediterranean basin beginning in Antiquity through the

1990s.

Abulafia employs a primarily intellectual framework for studying the “human history” of the Mediterranean as he traces the ideas both “rational and irrational” that led individual actors to make specific decisions. Abulafia carefully delineates activities through Mediterranean ports that he describes as “vectors of transmission” within the culturally and linguistically varied region.19 By providing such a vast history of human activity Abulafia demonstrates how “the roulette wheel spins and the outcome is unpredictable, but human hands spin the wheel.”20 Ultimately, Abulafia argues, the

Mediterranean must be understood as an area of conflict and change, and multicultural identities. Abulafia wrote, “The unity of Mediterranean history thus lies, paradoxically in its swirling changeability…Its opposing shores are close enough to permit easy contact, but far enough apart to allow societies to develop distinctly under the influence of their hinterland as well as of one another.”21

18 David Abulafia, The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), xxvi.

19 Ibid., 643 . 20 Ibid., xxxi.

21 Ibid., 648. 18 In The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness, scholar Paul Gilroy analyzes how Atlantic interaction contributed to the construction of black identity, particularly in the United States. Renaissance Sicily, for example, was formed in the

Mediterranean basin and was subject to a different type of historical process—one that resulted in a heterogeneous identity formation. We must understand the Mediterranean basin in a similar way to how Gilroy conceptualizes the Atlantic basin, as a space composed of different temporalities.

Paul Gilroy’s work in The Black Atlantic is also beneficial for reconceptualizing the Mediterranean, since some of his methodology would be can be used to highlight interactions in the Mediterranean. Like the Atlantic, the Mediterranean was a body of transcultural exchange that shaped and informed new identities. Through this methodology we can recognize fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Sicily as an anomaly because of its racial, ethnic, and cultural mixing leading to the formation of a heterogenous identity. It would be valuable to look at how the Mediterranean as a space, shaped identities since the process of economic, political, and social development evolved differently in southern Europe than in northern and central Europe. One thing to note is the concept of race, nineteenth- and twentieth- century concepts of race cannot be conflated with concepts that may have existed in the fifteenth-century. While distinct differences are made between the north and south of the Italian peninsula, usually they are cloaked in the discourse of “civility,” “culture,” “honor,” etc. However, Gilroy’s contestation of the “nation-state” provides avenues to understanding identity formation in a way that is not centered on a European standard.

In Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, scholar Dipesh Chakrabarty problematizes Marxist theoretical frameworks in the study of

India, noting that European universals that were informed by specifically European histories and traditions could not claim universal validity in non-European regions.

Chakrabarty’s aim is to better understand processes of “globalism by deconstructing the process of “historicism.” Chakrabarty qualifies “historicism” as a mode of thinking in which a concept is assumed to have a consistent affinity through the course of time and region assuming it developed in the secular present. Chakrabarty, then, problematizes the process of historicism by revealing the Eurocentric tendencies to which it adhered and then was imposed in the whole of the global community, Western and non-Western countries in tandem. Thus, concepts like “modernity” and “globalism” according to

Chakrabarty are simply teleological lens through which to explore nations, and universals were simply place-holders to work through the problem of modernity.

For Chakrabarty, like for Gilroy, temporalities and localities become significant; therefore, Chakrabarty revisits Europe as a concept, analyzing it as a geographic region rather than a theorized the body of academic universals utilized to understand globalism and modernity. In focusing on Europe in this way, Chakrabarty “provincializes” it as one region among many in the global community, not a concept in a superior or default position.

In conceptualizing the early modern Mediterranean taking into account

Chakrabarty’s rejection of the European universals allows for the nuanced understanding of regional localities facilitating the understanding of a particular space outside the process of historicizing; therefore, this would allow for Sicily to be understood in relation

to, but not neutralized by, the Spanish Empire. While Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was partaking in developing modern processes such as expanding global capitalism, it is often relegated to a small part of the Kingdom of Naples that fell under

Spanish control. This does not take into account the local culture, political environment, or economy and therefore cannot fully explain Sicily’s relationship or identity in relation to Spain, Italy, and other surrounding regions.

Concepts of Empire: Sicily and the Influence of Spain

Spain is often considered one of the first “global empires” in the world. It was without question one of the most powerful countries in early modern Europe. However, for the purposes of this work it is important to recognize the contingency of Spanish hegemony while understanding that Spanish power fluctuated and changed in each of its imperial holdings. In this section I will be giving a short summary of the historiography of the Spanish control over Europe, and also its lack thereof. The scholars in this section are those historians that have contributed to both sides of the debate on the Pax

Hispanica and have analyzed how strong Spain’s dominance in its imperial territories truly was. I argue that Sicily was not a “unique” part of the Spanish Empire, but was treated by Spain as any other imperial holding in Europe in that there was consistent negotiation of power between Sicily and Spain. There is a particularly stark contrast, for example, between the way Spain enforced its power in its American territories in comparison to its European territories. In this section I will also discuss the role that

Spain will play throughout my argument in this dissertation. I conceptualize the Spanish

Empire under Charles V as the political backdrop for the writings of my Sicilian humanists, and show how the rise of Spain crystalized the concept of Sicilianità in early modern Sicily.

In Europe the Spanish Empire functioned more as a composite monarchy, a network of states that all were either politically or monetarily subservient to Spain. The historiography of the Spanish Empire points to this, and further highlights the nuances of

Spanish control in Italy, since Spain often negotiated differently with the territories it controlled in the northern part of peninsula in contrast to those it controlled in the south.

This, therefore, is how the Spanish Empire will function in this dissertation--as a hegemonic specter whose power was contingent based on the specific region of the empire in question. I will show that the contingencies of Spanish power highlight the autonomy of Sicily and other territories under Spanish control. Additionally, the majority of the study will be looking at the Spanish Empire under the rule of Charles V, since most of the Sicilian humanists discussed in this dissertation worked during his reign. This section will serve as a review of the current historiography of Sicily and its place within the broader context of the Spanish Empire.

Early historiographies such as those of Fernand Braudel argued that the presence of Spain in Italy was one of absolute domination. The Pax Hispanica, as Braudel termed this period, was one of Spanish oppression in Italy that began in 1559 with the signing of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrèsis and ended the Italian Wars, in which France renounced its dynastic claims to Italy.22 In Italy, historical narratives of Spanish domination of the

Italian south were particularly popular through the period of Italian Unification (Il

22 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II, (New York: Harper and Row Publishing, 1973), vol. 2, 993. 22

Risorgimento, 1860-62). In 1917 Benedetto Croce published La Spagna nella Vita

Italiana Durante la Rinascenza in which he argued that during the Renaissance Italy suffered under the tyrannical rule of the Spanish empire. Croce’s agenda, however, was not simply to record Italian history. As a nationalist, Croce had to justify the unification of the Italy. He did so by employing a paternalistic tone towards the Italian south, which,

Croce argued, had become “decadent” under Spanish rule. According to Croce, the reason the Italian south was in such a pitiable state in the nineteenth-century was because of “the Spanish domination which in the Kingdom of Naples created a lazy populace prone to indulge in lurid and miserable vices…and it is from the Spanish language that

Neapolitan dialect derived its three most popular words: handsome, scoundrel, and criminal.”23

Il Risorgimento is also the period in which the “black legend” of Spain was said to have originated in Italy, and was then continued and refined by the English and the

Dutch Protestants. It is evident that Croce had a clear purpose in the ways in which he constructed his history; he glorified the accomplishments of Renaissance Italy—a cultural signifier of Italian national identity—and blamed Spain for Italy’s instability and weakness in the subsequent years after the Spanish resigned their power on the Italian peninsula. The argument of Spanish domination in Sicily also benefitted Croce’s agenda of glorifying the Italian north, which he viewed as “civilized” and culturally advanced, while maintaining the weakness of the Italian south, which he believed to be culturally inferior. Croce’s narrative not only blamed the Spanish for the underdevelopment of the

Italian south, but entrenched the narrative of the Italian south within a “civilizing

23 Ibid., 249-50. (all translations are mine unless otherwise state). 23

mission” discourse after the damage wrought on them by Spanish hegemonic domination.

These Italian nationalist histories from the nineteenth century set the foundation for the subsequent exclusionary policies applied to the Italian south, and the racializing rhetoric from which those policies were produced. The narrative created by Italian national histories and those that propagate the pax hispanica established the flawed foundation for the scholarly and cultural prejudice that exists against the Italian south.

Rather than focusing on the “absolute rule” of Spain in Europe I will be conceptualizing the Spanish Empire in Sicily differently. Later histories make a distinction between how the Spanish Empire operated in Europe in contrast to how it operated in the Americas. Many of them suggest that in the Americas Spain sought to actively acculturate native American populations, while in Europe it proceeded as the leader of a “composite monarchy.” In Empires and World History: Power and Politics of

Difference, historians Frederick Cooper and Jane Burbank demonstrate that Spain maintained control and power in its territories in Europe, not through processes of acculturation—as they had done in the Americas—but through loose legal frameworks held by viceroys, lords, counselors, and other officials. Additionally, the majority of

Spain’s territories in Europe were kingdoms within their own right, such as the southern

Italian kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. As Cooper and Burbank assert, “The king’s

‘jurisdiction’ was in effect a contractual arrangement that recognized the rights of subordinate magnates.”24 This is a concept Burbank and Cooper refer to as the

“composite monarchy,” which was written about by historian J.H. Elliott, and coined by historian H.G. Koenigsberger. According to Koenigsberger, “the constituent parts of a

24 Frederick Cooper and Jane Burbank, Empires and World History: Power and Politics of Difference, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 120. 24

multiple monarchy came together in most cases by common consent, as in the case of

Sicily and Aragon…In all such cases the prince swore to observe the existing laws and privileges of his newly acquired state.”25

Since Spain operated in Europe as the imperial structure supporting a “composite monarchy,” many local ruling and administrative positions were left to local nobles. Alan

Ryder shows this in his book The Kingdom of Naples Under Alfonso the Magnanimous:

The Making of a Modern State. Ryder argues that the rule of Alfonso did not attempt to centralize power, but rather, the monarch replaced the former system of baronage, so that the closest circles in his court were predominantly Spaniards, leaving most Neapolitans in lower administrative positions. Thus, most local governments stayed well under the power of Neapolitan nobility.26 This speaks to the relative autonomy of the Neapolitan nobility, at least on a local level, which was what some of the “petty rural and urban knights” actually wanted.27 Spanish dependence on local ruling bodies was also discussed by Manuel Rivero Rodríguez in his book Felipe II y el Gobierno de Italia. Rodríguez argues that when Charles V came to power he established the consejo as an organized way to rule his territories. Rodríguez explains that this happened through the placing of letrados (highly educated men of letters) on the consejos, many of whom were often from

Italy or Sicily; however, the letrados were chosen by Spanish regents.28 This system allowed for more contact between Italians and Spaniards, which caused more

25 H.G. Koenigsberger, Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments: The Netherland’s in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 11.

26 Ibid., 162.

27 Ibid., 51.

28 Ibid., 35. 25

transcultural movement between the two groups. This is how I intend to consider Spain-- as the imperial specter of a composite monarchy that included Sicily as one of its many territories, and regularly utilized local nobles and intellectuals as part of local governing bodies.

By conceptualizing the Spanish Empire in this way, I am able to consider the nuances of the contingency of Spanish power throughout different areas in its empire, including Sicily, which I argue still operated with a reasonable amount of autonomy under Spanish rule. The collection, Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-

1700, edited by Thomas Dandelet, and John Marino is a collection of nineteen essays, all of which focus on understanding how strong the Spanish hegemony was on the early modern Italian peninsula. The first essay is by historian Francesco Benigno and is entitled “Integration and Conflict in Spanish Sicily.” Benigno explains that he is concerned with integration and conflict but not as contrasting categories. Benigno argues that rampant expansion of Spanish fiscal policy combined with a lack of Sicilian representation—due to the earlier Aragonese restriction of the Sicilian “parliament”—led to open revolt. Benigno’s broader point is that Spanish institutions could often complicate one another, and at times, remove power from the monarch.29

Historian Michael Levin focuses on the contingency of Spanish power in Europe by analyzing the fear and trepidation with which Spanish ambassadors discussed Italian actions in his book, Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth Century Italy.

Levin does a careful linguistic analysis of the letters of the Spanish ambassadors from

Venice and Rome, and discusses how often the tone of these letters was fearful and

29 Francesco Benigno, “Integration and Conflict in Spanish Sicily,” Thomas Dandelet and John Marino Ed., Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700, (Holland: Brill Publishing, 2007), 23-44. 26

uncertain. Particularly, Levin concentrates on the ambassadors’ fears of Italians as a populace “addicted to novedades.” Novedades, as Levin explains, had a very specific meaning generally referring to novelties, changes, or upsets. The ambassadors described

Italians as people who wanted change simply for the sake of change. Levin argues that the fear of Italian novedades by the Spanish ambassadors calls into question the true strength of the pax hispanica established by Braudel. Levin argues that instead we should see Spanish hegemony as the Spanish saw it themselves, “contingent and often contested.”30

Historian Gene Brucker supports Levin’s argument in his book, From the Vespers to Garibaldi: Sicily Under Spanish Rule (1282-1860). Brucker examines the social motivations behind the political action taken of Sicilians. According to Brucker, “the

Sicilian population was never wholly reconciled to Spanish rule.”31 Brucker discusses the revolt at Messina in 1670 at length. The Messina revolt of 1670 differed from the previous revolts in Sicily such as the ones in Palermo, Syracuse, and Trapani because those behind this revolt were not from the lower classes; instead, these were the merchant elite of the thriving port city. This rebellion occurred because many Spanish officials, merchants, and viceroys were fleeing the island in fear for their lives from previous rebellions—particularly the revolt in Palermo in 1647, which ended with the execution of a viceroy; sadly, many merchants in Messina did business with this escaping elite

Spanish class. The loss of earnings from the fleeing Spanish nobility angered the nobility of Messina so much so that they in turn expelled any other Spanish noble left in the city

30 Ibid., 12.

31 Gene Brucker, From the Vespers to Garibaldi: Sicily Under Spanish Rule, (Berkley: Berkley University Press, 1998), 6. 27

and called upon the French to aid them in blocking Spanish troops from suppressing the revolt.32 With French help the Messina nobility were able to keep the Spanish out of the city for three years; however, dwindling support and a diminishing economy eventually forced Messina to open its port once more.33

This event again proves the contingency of Spanish power in Sicily in the early modern period. The fear of the Spanish officials on the island of Sicily was similar to the fear Levin discusses in his examination of Roman and Venetian ambassadors. This not only prompts us to question Spanish power, but then one must inherently acknowledge

Sicilians’ ability to shape their own history; after all, there is a reciprocity and negotiated relationship within the “composite monarchy.” This is not a history of the “domination of

Spain;” it is far more complicated and dialectic in form.

The historiography of the Spanish Empire shows that it was not comprised of a monolithic scourge of tyrannical and domineering control. As seen in the previous scholars’ works, it is clear that various regions on the Italian Peninsula, including the

Italian south, possessed a fair amount of power and autonomy under Spanish rule. It is important to note that all histories whether economic, intellectual, cultural, military, or political, reveal various nuances and complexities of the Spanish Empire and its relationship with its imperial holdings. It is important to recognize the reciprocity in these relationships as well as to understand that power was constantly negotiated in these spaces; this speaks clearly to the contingent nature of Spanish imperial rule. This is evident in looking at various parts of the Italian Peninsula and how they each interacted

32 Ibid., 8.

33 Ibid., 9. 28

with the Spanish imperial structure. All regions of Italy are important and necessary when situated within the context of the Imperial Spanish structure, with particular concentration on the Italian south, which fell directly under Spanish rule.

Understanding the contingent power of the Spanish Empire is not only useful in dispelling myths of the “Black Legend,” but also serves to highlight some of the reasons why the Italian south was constructed as culturally inferior during the Risorgimento.

Throughout this dissertation I intend to show how through examining the intellectual culture of Renaissance Sicily we can continue to contest the “dominance” of the Spanish

Empire in Italy and call into question the myths regarding the lack of culture in the Italian south. Therefore, I will analyze my sources understanding that many of the humanists were writing not only under Spanish patronage but also for Spanish readers. This provides context for my methodology as it informs the purpose and motivation that these

Sicilian humanists may have had in writing their works.

Methodology

In order to analyze my sources, I will be blending two primary theoretical frameworks. One will be a literary close reading analysis, which consists of carefully examining the text and the words these humanists utilized, or did not include, in order to express their individual arguments and messages to their readers. The second methodology I will incorporate with close reading, I borrowed from Anthony Grafton in his book, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers. While

examining “exceptional readers”34 of the Renaissance, Grafton sets individuals within the context of the historical environment in which they lived as he analyzes the complex activity of reading, and how these readers engaged with and interpreted what they read.

While I examine the actual writings of this group of Sicilian intellectuals, like Grafton I would like to situate them within their historical environments and illuminate what they meant to convey to their readers given the period in which they worked. In addition, I would like to utilize an inverse of Grafton’s approach by understanding that Renaissance writers, being readers themselves, would have understood the methodology employed by readers in order to decipher the content of their works; therefore, I would like to attempt to uncover the rhetorical tools utilized by these writers in order to engage their readers.

I will be analyzing the works of these humanists as political pieces while I contextualize them within their historical environment. As I borrow this framework from

Rif’at ‘Ali Abou-El-Haj’s work, I will be looking for the voice of the struggle within the ruling classes that these humanists are bringing to light. These writings are not impartial; they were written with specific political messages that these humanists tried to legitimate within their works. In terms of understanding Sicilian identity formation, this methodology will allow me to highlight the nuances of fluidity and inclusion in the conceptualizations of each humanist. Sicily is a Mediterranean space, which is multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious, and must be understood within that context.

I also intend to focus on languages to speak of identity. The use of vernacular languages rather than Latin was expanding throughout Italy in the 1400s and 1500s.

34 Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997), 133. 30

These languages became the foundations of cultures and identities. In Sicily during this period, the use of Sicilian served as a tool to differentiate Sicilians from other Italians,

Spaniards, the French, and many others. Having a linguistic mechanism through which to create poetic works of art-- meant having a culture, and there is significant evidence to suggest that each of these humanists felt this way about Sicilian.

While I would like to engage in more theoretical analyses through the lenses of race, class, and gender, unfortunately the source material does not allow me to do so responsibly for all three. Certain arguments about race can be ascertained through these writings; however, this is not race in the context of the eighteenth-century forward.

Rather, this is a cultural construction of racial identity. Class, also appears in the group of sources I have chosen to analyze, but only three humanists—Tommaso Fazzello, Claudio

Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano—reference a distinction between the “popular” or “peasant” classes and the “noble” or “elite” classes. The general distinction drawn between these two classes by both humanists is in their access to education; however,

Fazello, D’Arezzo, and Veneziano include both classes in their constructions of

Sicilianità. Each one of the humanists I will be analyzing, however, came from a privileged background. Some were more privileged than others, but all of their families were able to afford them proper educations. The construction of Sicilianità as discussed by these humanists may be assessed through a gendered lens. However, none of these sources discussed femininity or masculinity, and women’s voices are simply not present.

While women do appear in these works, such as Veneziano’s “patronessa,” as objects of love, or Fazzello mentioning women participating in the Rebellion of the Vespers, there

is not enough substantial material to undertake a gendered study at his time. Perhaps, with further investigation I will be able to do so in the future.

Conclusion

The existence of Sicilianità is important to delineate for several reasons. First, it allows for a nuanced understanding of how Sicilian identity developed. This is particularly true since Sicilian identity is a Mediterranean identity which, I argue, does not simply fall within a European orbit, but also within Middle Eastern and African spheres of influence as well. Further, the establishment of Sicilianità shows Sicilian intellectual, pedagogical, cultural, social, and political traditions as being distinct from those of Italy, Spain, France, Greece, and all other areas. The existence of these unique intellectual traditions, which were exported through the Spanish Empire, call into question notions of the Italian south as culturally inferior, backward, or underdeveloped.

In addition, a more expansive and nuanced understanding of Sicilianità would also allow for further appreciation of southern Italian contributions to the Renaissance. While it is necessary to do further research before ultimately arguing for the importance of Sicilian humanism in relation to northern Italian humanism, I believe the works of Tommaso

Schifaldo, Lucio Marineo Siculo, Tommaso Fazello, Claudio Mario d’Arezzo, and

Antonio Veneziano capture more than the existence of Sicilianità in a way that lends credence to this intellectual movement, and I intend to show this as I conduct a careful analysis of their works.

In chapter two I provide a summary of the multicultural interaction in Sicily from antiquity through the middle ages. Giving the context of the multicultural groups and traditions that developed in Sicily will demonstrate the heterogenous identity that is displayed by Sicilian humanists in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This identity is completely unique in origin and therefore, shows that Sicily is a Mediterranean space and not a European space. This chapter will trace the historical processes that resulted in the construction of Sicilianità.

Chapter three focuses on the process of writing history in the Renaissance. I discuss how scholars have looked at northern Italian humanists and how they approached history, and I also go further in depth into how Sicily has been made an Italian “other” in

Renaissance historiography. As an example of Sicilian history writing in the Italian

Renaissance, I analyze Tommaso Fazello’s Le Due Deche della Storia Siciliana, a two- volume history of Sicily. In that chapter I demonstrate how Fazello was establishing the historiographical basis for Sicilianità. I point out major themes within Sicilianità that are demonstrated by the intellectuals in the subsequent chapters. These themes include: acceptance of non-Christian groups and acknowledging an ancestry from non-Christian groups primarily Greek and Arab, finding a culmination of Sicilian culture in the Norman monarchy particularly that of Frederick II, using Greek language and instruction as indigenous markers of Sicilian intellectualism, and an acknowledgement of Sicily as a country of Sicilians distinguished from Italy, Spain, France, etc.

In chapter four I focus on the academic atmosphere of Sicily. I discuss the Sicilian

Greek Academies and look more in depth at how Sicilian intellectuals conceptualized humanism, learning and pedagogy. For this chapter I look at the works of two humanists-

-Tommaso Schifaldo and Lucio Marineo Siculo. Little is known about Schifaldo; however, he was a professor of rhetoric and a trained Dominican theologian. I will be analyzing a work by Schifaldo entitled Commentarioli in Persium, which was an instructional guide on the proper ways to interpret and teach the Satires of the Roman poet Persius. Schifaldo’s text highlighted some points about Sicilian humanism, particularly the way Sicilian humanists emphasized Greek tradition, and the language he used emphasized his Sicilianità since he wrote in a Latinized Sicilian dialect.

The second text analyzed in this chapter is a history of Spain written by Lucio

Marineo Siculo entitled Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas

Memorables de España. Siculo is the most famous of the humanists analyzed in this dissertation. This is because he became the Head of the Department of Humane Letters at the University of Salamanca in Spain, which made Siculo well known in Spanish humanist circles. Siculo wrote his history of Spain during his time at the University of

Salamanca and it was commissioned by Charles V. While Siculo’s work was one of

Spanish history he had to discuss Sicily because it was part of Spain’s kingdom. The way in which Siculo discussed Sicily and framed it within the context of the Spanish Empire raises some interesting points on how Siculo conceptualized Sicilianità and his own identity.

Chapter five focuses on language and poetry during the Sicilian Renaissance. I will discuss the writings of two humanists Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio

Veneziano. D’Arezzo was born to a noble family in Syracuse, Sicily, he was educated in

Sicilian Greek academies and became politically active during the Italian Wars.

D’Arezzo wrote pamphlets urging Spain in particular to stop its part in the battles which

were destroying Sicily economically. D’Arezzo’s political involvement in the Italian

Wars caught the attention of Charles V who appointed him as his court historiographer.

During his time in Spain, D’Arezzo wrote a Sicilian grammar book entitled Osservanti

Dila Lingua Siciliana, Et, Canzoni, Inlo, Proprio Idioma. In this grammar book

D’Arezzo not only sought to standardize Sicilian, but he also attempted to correct what he claimed was an incorrect history of Tuscan intellectual superiority. D’Arezzo inverted the paradigm of Italian literary history that centered Tuscany, and instead placed Sicilian literature as the foundation of poetic tradition. The central place of Sicilian literature and language in D’Arezzo’s work was made evident in his choice to write the entire work in

Sicilian dialect.

Antonio Veneziano was also from a wealthy family and lived in the city of

Monreale just outside Palermo. Veneziano was a poet and the text of his that will be analyzed in this dissertation is a poetry book that he wrote entirely in Sicilian dialect entitled Canzuni Amurusi Siciliani. In this collection Veneziano expressed his regret that this collection was his only work written in his “mother tongue;” he also combined elements of Greek and Arab culture in his poetry, which served as indicators of

Sicilianità.

Through the works of each of these intellectuals I will also show how Sicilianità evolves and changes with the passage of time. In the earlier works, those of Fazello,

Schifaldo, and Siculo, Sicilianità was discussed much more as an ideology, or something that was carried culturally in writing, art, poetry, etc. However, in the later works, those of D’Arezzo and Veneziano, Sicilianità became the embodiment of an identity. For the latter two humanists Sicilianità was carried in the blood, in the tongue, and the expression

of the Sicilian language manifested one’s Sicilian identity. This evolution shows that these concepts were not static; they were everchanging as were Sicilian concepts of humanism and the nation. This change continues and can be seen in how Sicily is conceptualized to this very day.

CHAPTER II

THE MIXED HERITAGE OF SICILIANITÀ

As historian David Abulafia stated, “…it is simply not the case that southern Italy and Sicily produced no native writers and artists of exceptional caliber…This, again, is evidence of historians’ obsession with Florence…”35 The legacy of multiculturalism in

Sicily offers a unique lens through which to analyze the development of Sicilian intellectual culture. The Sicilian intellectuals discussed in this dissertation made evident in their writings how Sicily’s geographic location caused the intellectual tradition of the island to develop in a culturally heterogenous manner. The Sicilian multiculturalism that the historiography of the 1900s ignored and subsequently tried to deny the existence of was a hallmark of the island’s intellectual culture. Sadly, one wonders if it was so often overlooked because of racial or ethnic prejudice held by northern Italians and European intellectuals.36 To address these issues, I will use this chapter to provide a history of

35 J. Woolfson, Ed. Renaissance Historiography, (Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 28.

36Benedetto Croce, La Spagna nella Vita Italiana Durante la Rinascenza, (Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli, 1917), 249-250. As will be further explored in the subsequent chapter, racially charged language was often used by historians of the Risorgimento to discuss the Italian south. For example, Benedetto Croce, one of the most famous Unification historians said that the population of Naples under the rule of Spain became “lazy,” “indulgent,” and prone to “miserable and lurid vices.” He went on to say, “it is from the Spanish language that Neapolitan dialect derived its three most popular words, handsome, scoundrel, and criminal.” Croce is just one example of many who used a “civilizing mission” style rhetoric in order to argue for the necessity of bringing the Italian south into the unification process. It is necessary to consider the dismissal of Sicilian history in Anglo-American historiography from this perspective because of the preponderance of such arguments which came primarily from the nineteenth- and twentieth centuries. 37

Sicily’s cultural exchange, while also showing how Sicilianità was the product of a unique multicultural historical process. This ethnic and cultural mixing allowed for the development of a unique Sicilian identity that was made up of diverse groups of people.

Sicily in the Middle Ages: A History of Cultural Exchange

When examining the history of Sicily through Antiquity and during the

Middle Ages it is evident that the island was a place of cultural exchange and intersectionality. Considering its central location as the largest island in the

Mediterranean Sea, many diverse populations—including the Romans, the Greeks, and various Middle Eastern and North African groups such as Berbers and Vandals— considered Sicily a convenient trading post that allowed them to maintain control of the broader Mediterranean. However, the histories of social communication, trading networks, and cultural exchange on the island have not been as extensively explored as those of the monarchies and ruling houses of Sicily. In part this is due to a lack of source material resulting from the destruction of several strong earthquakes, as well as sources that were destroyed by various invasions.37 Additionally, understanding cultural exchange from a social historical perspective in Sicily can be challenging since it often

37 On January 11, 1693, the southeastern coast of Sicily became the epicenter of a devasting earthquake, which killed nearly two-thirds of the population of the city of Catania. Catania and Val di Noto in particular had to be nearly entirely rebuilt. The same happened in Messina on December 28, 1908 a series of earthquakes which took place over three consecutive cities completely destroyed the city. Numerous archives, libraries, and political buildings were destroyed through the course of these natural disasters which is why there is often little documentation about specific government structures and administrative offices. Additionally, it was not uncommon for new rulers of the island to destroy cities as they entered into power. For example, when Charles of Anjou became King he had many of the documents held in the Norman Parliament burned. 38

requires the understanding of at least three to five languages depending on the period in question.

The linguistic variance of Sicilian documentation serves as further evidence that

Sicilian history should not be limited to European history, but as part of the history of the wider Mediterranean world. While in contemporary history Sicily is part of Italy, a

European country, Sicily’s culture historically has been significantly influenced by North

African, and Middle Eastern cultures as well. Thus, to understand identity formation in

Sicily it is necessary to take these cultural influences into account. One such example of looking at Sicily through a multicultural social lens is captured in the book, Where Three

Worlds Meet: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean by historian Sarah Davis-

Secord. Secord traces avenues of cultural exchange in Sicily from the sixth century to the twelfth, and pays particular attention to the period of Muslim rule in Sicily, which is not as well researched as Norman Sicily. By tracing trade and communication networks

Secord demonstrates that in order to keep a peaceful and prosperous kingdom the

Normans manipulated systems that already existed on the island, bringing together the

Muslim world they found, and the Byzantine world, which still had a significant hold on the eastern side of the island.38 Secord effectively argued that the Normans effectively integrated the Muslim and Byzantine worlds with their own. Building on Secord’s thesis,

I argue that the Sicilian humanists of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries saw the

Norman monarchies as the culmination of the three cultural traditions they claimed as part of their Sicilianità: Arab, Greek, and Norman.

38 Sarah Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017), 28. 39

One of Secord’s major points is that from the sixth to the twelfth centuries Sicily must be analyzed as a “borderland.” Secord writes, “from the sixth to the twelfth centuries…Sicily functioned in a number of different ways at the border of each of the three major civilizations that overlapped...”.39 Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Sicily could also be viewed as a borderland; however, it was a significantly different type of borderland than Sicily in the Middle Ages and earlier periods. Secord argues that analyzing Sicily in the Middle Ages as a borderland emphasizes the permeability of cultural exchange. A “borderland” regarding sixth- to twelfth-century Sicily was “…a place of separation and a space for interaction: a location where several, states, cultures, or civilizations meet each other, oftentimes both sharing cultural elements or diplomatic relationships and vying for resources or political or religious supremacy.”40 I am arguing that Secord’s qualification of “borderland” may not directly apply to the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Sicily because while there was still a great deal of cultural exchange occurring, both through trade and through daily social practice, the imposition of Spanish rule crystalized Sicilian identity because individual groups on the island were no longer fighting with each other for political or religious supremacy. While Sicily evolved as a

“borderland” from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, the cultural contact and exchange that existed in the Middle Ages continued to exist in the early modern period. However, by the early modern period the primarily Christian population of Sicily came together to contest Spanish power, and to restore the independent authority of the Sicilian parlamentu and the rulership of fellow Sicilians. During the Renaissance Sicilians constructed Sicilianità through processes of claiming Arab and Greek traditions to

39 Ibid., 8. 40 Ibid., 7. 40

distinguish themselves from Spain and other parts of Italy, and by excluding the cultural traditions of all those rulers who came to be in control of the island after the demise of the Norman Kings. What made the early modern construction of Sicilianità unique was how Sicilian humanists claimed their Sicilianità by claiming a heterogenous ancestry.

Greek Culture in Sicilian Identity and in Northern Humanism

One such example of how Sicilians distinguished themselves from northern Italy was in their use of Greek. According to historian Hans Lamers, in northern Italy during the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries Greek philosophy and culture were necessary fields of study; however, northern Italian intellectuals believed Greek culture to have been improved upon by the Romans. The Latin language culture took primacy, even if Greek was becoming more the prerogative of Italian scholars who taught Greek and less a prerogative of Greek scholars themselves. Through the fourteenth century few northern

Italian scholars knew Greek, but this began to change in the fifteenth-century. Lamers uses the example of Italian humanist Angelo Poliziano, who was interested in a “Latin- oriented Greek,” a Greek education that bolstered Latin superiority by showing that Latin speakers could master Greek better than the Greeks themselves.41 Lamers’ argument demonstrates that northern Italian humanists did not feel an affinity with the ancient

Greeks, but rather sought to supersede them through use of Greek language and culture.

Northern Italian humanists did, however, feel an affinity with ancient Rome and the superiority of Latin because that was the foundation of their identity and culture.

41 Hans Lamers, Greece Reinvented: Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism in Renaissance Italy, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 166. 41

In contrast to northern Italian humanists, Sicilian humanists emphasized the

Greek tradition when focusing on the classical period, and when discussing classical forms of thought because they felt an affinity with the Greek past. While the intellectuals of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Sicily did acknowledge the importance of Rome and the importance of Latin as a language, they did not claim a Roman ancestry as much as they did Greek. In part this was because from the time Sicily was part of Magna Graecia

(from the eighth century B.C. E. to the Punic Wars 264-146 B.C. E.), the island never fully lost contact with the Byzantine world, and in fact, Greek communities continued to live in Sicily long after the Punic Wars and through the period of Muslim rule (831-

1091). Additionally, the largest port in early modern Sicily was in the city of Messina located on the eastern corner of the island. The short distance to the Byzantine world from Messina allowed for consistent trade and travel between Sicily and the Eastern

Empire.42

Sicilians in the early modern period maintained this Greek tradition primarily through the use of the Greek language and through the schools. Instructors in Sicily were trained in Greek academies that had long been scattered across the island. The Greek schools in Sicily were renowned through all of early modern Italy as the best place for the study of Greek; even northern humanists such as Pietro Bembo traveled south to study

Greek on the island. The two most well-known instructors of the early modern period,

Giovanni Naso (1420?-1491) da Corleone and Constantino Lascaris (1434-1531), both

42 As Benson and Constable argued in their book Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, “If Sicily was such a favorable place, it was not only because the chancery was trilingual, but because intercourse with the Byzantines was uninterrupted. In such places, a man brought up in the Latin West could learn Greek; only rarely was it possible to study Greek with a master in France or England.” Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, et. al., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 427. 42

taught in Sicily. Scholars such as Lamers, who have studied Lascaris show that he taught that Greekness in Sicily was “indigenous, not foreign.” This education facilitated the development of a “cultural distinctiveness” in Sicily which became the foundation of

“political self-determination” in the Spanish period.43 Historian Hans Lamers explained that the Greek academies of Sicily “…helped shape the idea of a distinctive Sicilia

Graeca that sought to achieve independence from its Aragonese viceroys.”44

Hans Lamers is not the only scholar to note this distinction in the usage of Greek in southern Italy. Paola Megna, a Philologist at the University of Messina, argues that the legacy of the great Greek instructor Costantino Lascaris reached beyond the borders of the island of Sicily to the southern Italian coast of Calabria. In a comparative study utilizing the writings from scholars of the Sicilian School where Lascaris taught, Megna argues that compared to the writings of Francesco Gianelli, a humanist philosopher from

Calabria, Lascaris carried on the pedagogical traditions of Magna Grecia; therefore, because the Italian south developed culturally and intellectually in different ways from the norther Italian peninsula it must be historically analyzed on its own terms without being examined through the lens of northern Italian paradigms. According to Megna,

Sicily and Calabria should be considered a region unto itself with its own intellectual traditions.45 Aude Cohen-Skalli, who is also a philologist, builds on Megna’s thesis by tracing the intellectual philosophy of Lascaris to Diodorus Siculus (90-30 B.C.E.), a

Sicilian historian who worked for the Roman Senate, but was also trained by the Greek

43 Lamers, 195.

44 Ibid., 196.

45 Paola, Megna, “Per L’Ambiente del Lascari a Messina: Una Sylva di Francesco Giannelli.” Studi Umanistici. Messina: Sicania Press, 1993. 43

schools during his upbringing in Agyrium, Sicily. In demonstrating the pedagogical training of Diodorus, Skalli suggests that perhaps the Greek influence in Sicilian intellectualism can be traced, during the time of the Roman Empire, to the greater intellectual accomplishments of Constantinople. Thus, Skalli argues that there was a reciprocal transfer of pedagogical ideologies from Sicily to Constantinople and vice versa.46

Muslim Sicily and its Influence on Sicilianità

Similar elements of exchange from Muslim culture can be seen in Sicilianità as those from Greek culture. The first Caliphate in Sicily was established in 800, even though Muslim raids from Egypt and Berbers from North Africa began invading the island in 650. However, these types of invasions changed in nature through the 700s from invasions of resource retrieval to invasions of conquest.47 By 831 the Aghlabid Emirate of Ifriqiya had conquered Palermo and moved eastward conquering the whole of the island to Taormina in the year 902. In 909 the Fatimid Caliphate was proclaimed, and continued to rule over Sicily through the late eleventh century. Using first-hand accounts from the Cairo Geniza, Secord explains that during this time Sicilian cities and towns held mosques, Muslim schools, and resembled parts of North Africa, more than parts of southern Europe.48

46 Megna, Paola and Cohen-Skalli, Aude. “De Byzance À Messine: Le Vitae Siculorum de Constantin Lascaris, Luer Genèse, et Luer Tradition.” Revue d’Histoire de Textes. Belgium: Brepols Publishing, 2014.

47 Secord, 1-10.

48 Ibid., 15. 44

Secord also discusses the personal travel logs of Ibn Hawqal (?-978 A.D.), a

Muslim cartographer and trader who journeyed regularly through the Mediterranean basin. According to Hawqal’s travel logs he was appalled by what he saw in Muslim

Sicily-- people on the island were intermarrying with Christians, speaking bastardized

Arabic, and practicing strange versions of Islam. While Hawqal’s account is one of disapproval, what he described was the creation of a heterogenous culture. Secord suggests that perhaps Hawqal’s description of Sicily may also indicate his disapproval of the Fatimid Caliphate in control of the island.49 There also exist multiple maps from

Muslim cartographers that placed Sicily within the Dār Al-Islām, or within the Muslim world.50 However, the struggle for control of Sicily would continue as the Fatimid

Caliphate devolved into an internal struggle between Egyptian and North African

Kalbids. To oversimplify a more complex matter, the internal struggle of the Kalbids became an opportunity for the Norman count Robert Guiscard, who had already conquered Calabria to infiltrate Sicily.

Norman Integration of Greek and Muslim Sicily

As Secord demonstrated, Sicilian society retained its multicultural traditions within the “Norman Conquest” since the Normans adapted to and integrated many of the institutions in place from the Caliphates. The Norman courts were also spaces for cultural exchange, and were filled with Muslim, Greek, and Latin courtiers. In the book Roger II

49 Ibid., 133.

50 Ibid., 134. 45

of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, historian Hubert Houben defines the court of the early Norman monarch as one demarcated by the mixed heritage of Greeks and

Arabs, and a highly developed bureaucratic system driven by absolutist ideologies.51 By analyzing the process of state-making, Houben finds that the adaptive nature of the

Norman kings led to the incorporation of heterogenous elements within Sicilian institutional bodies themselves, which allowed the Normans in Sicily to establish“…a new and novel state” as the Kingdom of Sicily was united with the German Empires, thus solidifying the Staufen Dynasty.52 Houben suggests that we must understand the early

Sicilian state under Roger II as a complex and ambivalent structure, “…Eastern in bureaucracy, Western in structure, and Arab in court.”53 Houben’s work complicates the understanding of “state” development. Rather than assessing the development of a state based on presentist nineteenth-century European standards, we must assess “the state” on the historical and cultural context of the region or space in question. Therefore, theoretical frameworks must be tailored to the area of study not the area study fitted to the theoretical framework.

Literary historian Karla Mallette also adds to the conversation of the mixed heritage in Sicily during the Middle Ages by studying literature on the island in her book,

The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250. Mallette argues that the Norman kings added on and adapted to the Muslim state they found on the island, utilizing Latin alongside the

51 Hubert Houben, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1.

52 Ibid., 1.

53 Ibid., 4.

existing Greek and Arabic as languages of their official bureaucratic documents.54 While

Mallette focuses primarily on poetry from Sicily in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries she argues that, in fact, Muslim and Christian elements in Sicilian poetic tradition are so intermingled that it is problematic to classify Sicilian poetry from this period as either solely Christian or solely Islamic in nature.55 Mallette also argues that the “Tuscanizing” of Sicilian poetry that occurred on the Italian peninsula is also an indication of Christian

Italians distinguishing themselves linguistically from the Muslim other.56 This occurred because Sicilian vernacular, particularly poetic forms, emerged from Arabic, whereas

Latin was utilized primarily for historical writing, and Greek for pastoral texts.57 As

Mallet describes, when Tuscans began modeling Sicilian poetry they removed elements from the poetic works they could not immediately identify as Latin, which “whitened”

Italian poetry from the Middle Ages.58

In Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought, Historian Margaret

Meserve also analyzes how distinctions were drawn between Islamic and Christian in

Europe; however, Meserve’s work differs from Mallet’s in two significant ways. First,

Meserve is looking at the Renaissance, starting specifically in the 1450s; this is much later than Mallet’s study, which focused on the middle ages. Second, Meserve is not a literary scholar; her methodology consists of reading the political implications of her

54 Karla Mallette, The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 6-7.

55 Ibid., 128-129.

56 Ibid., 122.

57 Ibid., 110.

58 Ibid., 111. 47

sources in order to determine how Renaissance humanists were constructing Islamic identity while simultaneously deciphering Islamic state-making in the southeastern

Mediterranean. Meserve analyzes primarily political correspondences between Italian humanist scholars, historical sources written by them, and academic sources such as textbooks.

While Meserve demonstrates how Christian prejudice in her humanist sources often depicted Islamic culture as inferior, she also argues that this is the first time Islamic state-building is described in a positive way. Meserve contended that the positive tone of

Islamic state-making came in the distinction made by humanist scholars between Turks, and Muslim populations from further inland in the Ottoman Empire. This distinction, according to Meserve, emerged because “Turkic peoples were necessary to elucidate the content of the late antique and medieval source material which Renaissance historians used.”59 Further, Meserve showed how particularly in the Italian south and in Sicily, humanists such as Pietro Ranzano would hail Turkish conquerors as “humanist heroes” versed in art, literature, and possessing great military prowess.60 This may have been, as

Meserve suggests, because of the consistent contact between the Turks and Sicilians in the Mediterranean basin; however, she adds that further research is required in order to prove that this was in fact the case.

What becomes clear through the works of Lamers, Secord, Houben, Mallette, and

Meserve is a consistent structuring of Sicilian politics, society, economy, and culture on

Arab, Greek, and Norman foundations. This did not vanish in the fifteenth and sixteenth

59 Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), x.

60 Ibid., 149. 48

centuries, and these traditions became the foundation of Sicilianità. However, I argue that the political situation became more complicated with the implementation of Spanish rule, and after the demise of the Norman Kings. Spanish culture was never incorporated into

Sicilianità because Sicilian humanists saw the full expression of a Sicilian identity in the

Norman courts. When the Aragonese came to power, as David Abulafia suggests, the consistent interaction between Arabs, Greeks, and Latin Christians became tentative, and this was not the Sicily or the Sicilian tradition with which these humanists identified.61

For the Sicilian humanists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the foundations of

Sicilianità rested in the tri-cultured traditions of the Norman court, and of Norman Sicily.

They were calling upon past traditions while stressing their multicultural history in order to differentiate themselves from other parts of Europe. This embracing of Greek, Arabic, and Norman traditions led not only to a different type of Sicilian identity, but as Houben suggests it also led to the formation of a different type of state.

The Role of the Parlamentu in Sicilian Identity Formation

The one element that these histories of Sicily do not engage with in depth is the parlamentu. In fact, there is very little secondary-source material that examines the governmental administration of Sicily beyond the monarchical courts. Historian Carmelo

Trasselli focuses primarily on the relationship between Sicily and Spain in his book, Da

Ferdinando il Cattolico a Carlo V: L’esperienza Siciliana, 1475-1525. Beginning in

1475, Trasselli examines Jewish and Muslim groups that settled in Sicily as they fled the

61 David Abulafia, Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 439. 49

Spanish Reconquista. These groups, according to Trasselli, stayed mostly on the Western coast of the island, and formed their own cultural communities, which eventually became blended with other Sicilian groups and traditions. With the rise of Charles V, Trasselli argues, Sicily lost a great deal of its autonomy particularly through the economic exploitation by Spain over the island’s goods; however, this was not enough to cause the dissolution of the Sicilian parlamentu, which continued to meet and often petition or summon Charles V to their court. Trasselli is less interested in how little this meant to

Charles V, who regularly ignored their requests, and instead emphasizes how the actions of the Sicilian parlamentu were a means of understanding Sicilian agency in the early modern period.62

Historian Alessandro Silvestri aims to shed light on the parlamentu and the working bureaucracy of Sicily in his book, L’Amministrazione del Regno di Sicilia:

Cancelleria, Apparati Finanziari, e Strumenti del Governo nel tardo Medioevo. Silvestri focuses specifically on the administrative bodies of late-medieval Sicily, and how they change under Habsburg rule in the early modern period. According to Silvestri, official

Sicilian court documents and registers under the Norman dynasties were all held in the main state house Plazzo dei Normanni in Palermo. However, once the House of Aragon entered as the official monarchical government in control of the island this system changed. In order to have stronger centralized power over Sicilian society, the house of

Aragon decentralized the creation and storage of documentary information generating regional chancelleries, registers, and clerical offices across the island.

62 Carmelo Trasselli, Da Ferdinando il Cattolico a Carlo V: L’esperienza Siciliana, 1475-1525, (Rome: Rubbettino, 1982). 50

What Silvestri discovers is that the Aragonese decentralized local records with the intention of gaining greater control over Sicilian policy making and the Sicilian social order, but conversely the system became much more difficult for the Aragonese viceroys to manage. Due to the lack of central control over official documents, Sicilian chancelleries and registers were creating two or three copies of each document, and falsifying them in order to garner special privileges and positions for themselves. This matter eventually caused members of the Sicilian parlamentu—who still met on a regular basis—to denounce the Aragonese viceroys who were becoming more stringent as they recognized that their policies were not being applied correctly. According to Silvestri, the parlamentu sought to abolish all Aragonese forms of registration and policy implementation in order to reinstitute their own.63

While this pursuit was not successful for the Sicilians, it does show their ability to voice contempt for and disappointment in the Aragonese throne. Understanding Sicilian

“parliamentary” processes also provides evidence of the legal avenues by which Sicilians were able to communicate their disapproval of the Spanish hierarchy. The greater force the Aragonese Viceroys employed the greater resistance they encountered from the

Sicilian “parliament.” Silvestri argues that the consistent struggle for power between the

Sicilian parlamentu and the house of Aragon eventually manifests in the revolts in

Messina against the Spanish crown that took place in the 1670s.64 The resistance of

Sicilians through the “parliament,” through the manipulation of records, and eventually in revolting against the crown is indicative of the lack of affinity Sicilians felt with Spain. It

63 Alessandro Silvestri, L’Amministrazione del Regno di Sicilia: Cancelleria, Apparati Finanziari, e Strumenti del Governo nel tardo Medioevo, (Rome: Viella, 2018), 1.

64 Ibid., 1-20. 51

also demonstrates that they were not a poor, ignorant, and powerless population dominated by a tyrannical Spanish hegemony. Power between Spain and Sicily was regularly and consistently contested and negotiated throughout the period of Spanish rule.

The Economics of Sicily in the Middle Ages

One of the reasons Sicily is often overlooked in current historiography is because

Sicily was believed to have been a poorer region through the early modern period, which caused stagnation in cultural and intellectual pursuits on the island. Since culture and economics reciprocally affect each other, looking at Sicilian economics during the early modern period will provide further context for the formation of Sicilianità as well as provide context for understanding why Sicily is often overlooked in current early modern historiography. While it is known that under the reign of Frederick II Sicily was economically prosperous, narratives concerning Sicilian economics in the early modern period suggested that Sicily was in a state of economic decline. In his book, An Island for

Itself: Economic Development and Social Changes in Late Medieval Sicily, historian

Stephen Epstein openly rejects paradigms of Sicilian economic backwardness juxtaposed with northern prosperity and progress. Epstein calls for understanding regional economic structures rather than looking at broad systems of economic trade in the late Medieval period.

Epstein critiques previous historians, arguing that they ignored the fact that Sicily was and continued in the late middle ages to be predominantly an export economy. This caused prior historians to overlook the slight economic growth that was occurring in the

eastern part of the island into the Renaissance. Epstein ultimately proposes a new paradigm for understanding the development of the Sicilian economy. He suggests we must study the economic development in Sicily regionally, rather than through long patterns of export trade. Particularly Epstein takes to task historian Henri Bresc, who argued that Sicily’s economy was dependent on outside export relationships, but had no interior growing economy. Epstein states that Bresc came to this conclusion because his sources were comprised primarily of notary contracts that favored high-value and foreign trade items. Conversely, Epstein’s sources consisted of royal edicts, local statutes, and community petitions to the crown. Upon further inspection of these documents Epstein concluded that while Palermo’s economy was indeed stagnating, the economy in the eastern corner of the island was actually expanding from 1300 to 1450.65

Historian Simona Laudani, in her book, La Sicilia della Seta: Economia, Società, e Politica, builds upon Epstein’s main thesis by looking specifically at the production and sale of silk in Sicily from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Laudani demonstrated that, particularly in the northeastern part of the island silk became a staple good for export and trade—since it was more stable in some instances than wheat because wheat was more susceptible to climate change; thus, silk brought money, patronage, and a growing middle class to northeastern Sicily. Laudani argues that with growing regionalism in Sicily, these upper-class merchants benefitting from the growing silk trade were able to establish significant political and social alliances outside of the island, all

65 Stephen Epstein, An Island for Itself: Economic Development and Social Changes in Late Medieval Sicily, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

while forming counseling ruling bodies with established political autonomy in the regions in and around of Messina specifically.66

Antonio Calabria focuses on the Kingdom of Naples, which included Sicily, in his book, The Cost of Empire: The Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the Time of Spanish

Rule. Calabria assesses the financial relationship between the Kingdom of Naples and

Castile from the mid-sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth century. Calabria places much of the blame for The Kingdom’s economic strain in this period on Spanish imperial indirect taxation, and exploitation of southern resources of which Spain was given free reign.67

Most of these taxation revenues, according to Calabria, went into fighting Spanish wars against Muslims and Protestants. However, what stands out is how Calabria is able to highlight the relationships created economically between the northern and southern half of the Italian Peninsula, as Lombardy was spared from harsh taxation by Spain and

Genoese bankers held a “stranglehold” on the Kingdom of Naples’ finances.68

Calabria’s work focuses on the Italian south in a later period than Epstein’s or

Laudani’s works, but it shows how Spanish distribution of wealth and goods changed according to the region in question. For example, as Calabria’s work shows, while

Lombardy was also under the control of Spain it was not taxed as the Kingdom of

Naples. Rather, taxes from the Kingdom of Naples were used to reinforce the northern

Italian region. Calabria suggests that this is because the climate of the Italian south was more conducive to growing exploitable goods like wheat, and since Lombardy was

66 Simona Laudani, La Sicilia della Seta: Economia, Società e Politica, (Molfetta, Bari: Meridiana, Libri, 1996).

67 Antonio Calabria, The Cost of Empire: The Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the Time of Spanish Rule, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 76.

68 Ibid., 5. 54

geographically closer to Spain it made more sense to reinforce the northern region militarily and use it as a defensive border. Aside from demonstrating the nuance of policy application in the Spanish Empire, Calabria’s study provides a point of contrast to

Laudani and Epstein, suggesting that perhaps the Sicilian economy by the eighteenth century was faltering. However, it must also be clear that while Epstein and Laudani are focused specifically on Sicily, Calabria was analyzing the whole of the Italian south; therefore, the reason for the contrast in Calabria’s study is a direct result of the nuanced application of Spanish taxation through different regions of the Southern Kingdom.

The collection of essays edited by Jane Everson, Denis Reidy, and Lisa Sampson entitled The Italian Academies 1525-1700: Networks of Culture, Innovation, and Dissent, highlighting the development of Italian pedagogy from 1525 to 1700. The collection, according to its editors, is one of the first collections published in English but comprised of predominantly Italian historiography. The most important essays for my research specifically are Irene Bagni’s “L’Accademia Palermitana degli Accesi: Un Esempio di

Petrarchismo nel Tardo Cinquecento” and Salvatore Bottari’s “The Accademia della

Fucina: Culture and Politics in Seventeenth Century Messina.” Bagni looks at how

Petrarchan verse was adapted in Palermo’s schools but how it was—as she describes— improved upon through the Greek and Arab legacies maintained within Palermo’s pedagogical tradition.69 Bottari goes into greater detail in his essay on how the expanding

69 Irene Bagni, “L’Accademia Palermitana degli Accesi: Un Esempio di Petrarchismo nel Tardo Cinquecento.” The Italian Academies 1525-1700: Networks of Culture, Innovation, and Dissent, Jane Everson, Denis Reidy, and Lisa Sampson Ed. (New York: Routledge, 2016).

merchant class of Messina contributed to the academic system through their patronage of the arts and humanism.70

These economic histories depict a far more complicated narrative of Sicilian economics in the early modern period. Through these histories it is evident that while the

Sicilian economy may have been less productive in the early modern period than in the middle ages, there were particular areas of the Sicilian economy that were doing well.

Additionally, these histories show that through a system of patronage intellectual pursuits in Sicily continued through the early modern period. Regarding early modern Sicily as intellectually stagnant because of a dwindling economy is simply incorrect. Therefore, these histories show that studying the intellectual culture of early modern Sicily is necessary.

Conclusion

It is evident in tracing this historiography that scholars are beginning to rethink

Sicily and the role of Sicily throughout the history of the Mediterranean in the middle ages and early modern period. They provide the context and historical environmental processes necessary in order to understand the world in which the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century humanists discussed in this dissertation lived. While some of these works have served to complicate previous Risorgimento histories of the “backward”

Italian south, none of them have succeeded in demonstrating what Sicilian intellectualism

70 Salvatore, Bottari, Messina tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento: Il “Caso” Antonello, la Cultura, le Élites Politiche, le Attivita Produttive, (Rome: Rubbettino, 2010).

was in the early modern period. More importantly, none of these previous works have looked at the construction of a Sicilian identity during the early modern period.

The multicultural traditions and identity claimed by early modern Sicilian humanists necessitates the understanding of Mediterranean identity formation beyond homogenous cultural groups. This is particularly true for the early modern period since, under Spanish control, Sicilians came together claiming a multicultural identity to set themselves apart from their Spanish rulers. With the historical context provided by these sources, in the subsequent chapters I will show how Sicilianità was conceptualized by fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Sicilian humanists.

CHAPTER III

TOMMASO FAZELLO: WRITING THE SICILIAN RENAISSANCE

Writing History in Renaissance Sicily: The Italian “Other”

This chapter will be dedicated to the process of writing History in Renaissance

Sicily. First, I will summarize what the current historiography has said about the writing of History in the Renaissance, and then I will situate Sicilian History within that context.

I will also look at how Sicilian historians of the Renaissance have been overlooked in current Anglophone historiography of this period even though there has been a plethora of work and research done on Northern Italian Renaissance History writing. Due to the lack of scholarship on southern Italian intellectual culture during the Renaissance, prejudiced narratives about the lack of intellectual movement in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Sicily have persisted. I will attempt to demonstrate why this lack of scholarship exists, and how this historiographical gap has facilitated persisting narratives of Sicilian

“backwardness.” Tracing Sicilian Renaissance history in practice and use will show how

Sicilians defined and claimed Sicilianità. One example of Sicilian Renaissance history can be seen in the works of the Dominican Friar Tommaso Fazello (1498-1570). Fazello

was an influential theologian and historian from Sciacca, Sicily, who wrote a two-volume collection of Sicilian history that was referenced, not only by some of the other humanists analyzed in this dissertation, but also by historians in the nineteenth century.71 I will argue that Tommaso Fazello was establishing the foundations of Sicilianità in his history during the Renaissance, which also helps to fill the historiographical gap concerning the

Sicilian Renaissance in Anglophone historiography.

Many historians suggest that the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries proved a pivotal moment for humanist studies and writing. Gary Ianziti, for example, argues that the famed Renaissance historian Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444) was able to change the way history had been written through humanistic methodologies. By employing more Greek models and Greek forms into history writing, Bruni made acceptable new avenues for the writing of History rather than just Roman models. According to Ianziti, Bruni used Greek models to write for primarily political purposes and to appeal to civic elites. This new style in which Bruni wrote was a style of writing influenced by the rise of the Florentine and Venetian Republics.72 Some scholars have also looked at how scientific and technological advancements made during the Renaissance affected the process of writing

History. Historian Donald R. Kelly presented humanist Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) as an example of how new methodologies in the rise of humanist studies in grammar and

71 There is evidence to suggest that Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano were both familiar with Fazello’s Sicilian histories. D’Arezzo, who, later in his life went on to write a book of historically significant Sicilians included Fazello in that work, and the “Le due Deche” as Fazello’s work is known was found in Veneziano’s library in his home in Monreale. Both D’Arezzo and Veneziano will the discussed in chapter five of this dissertation. Additionally, Fazello was influential to Italian historians and other intellectuals in the later nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as Giuseppe Maria Capodieci a Sicilian historian and archeologist and Pietro Coniglio a Genovese lawyer famous for fighting for women’s rights.

72 Gary Ianziti, Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), 310. 59

rhetoric revolutionized the interpretation and writing of History. Kelly argues that Valla’s own methodologies can be traced in the works of intellectuals through the sixteenth century.73 In an article entitled “The Profession of the Historian in the Italian

Renaissance,” historian Eric Cochrane suggests that History during the Renaissance was

“the mirror of antiquity,” but again he focuses primarily on Valla, Bruni, Machiavelli,

Guicciardini, and many other intellectuals primarily from Florence and Venice.74 In his book, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Cochrane goes further, arguing that “…History, they [the early humanists] noted, could be of great assistance in encouraging those who read it to realize fully all of their intellectual and spiritual capabilities…History could also act as a stimulant to morality.”75 While I agree with

Cochrane’s assessment that the purpose of History for Renaissance humanists was primarily to provide moral examples, he falls into the trap of basing his argument on primarily northern Italian studies, acknowledging the Italian south only tangentially.

While these scholars focus on the different ways in which History was written during the Renaissance and how that changed from the Middle Ages, none of them examine in depth any historians or intellectuals from regions south of Rome. Cochrane, in his article, hints at the contributions of the Neapolitan court, and the Sicilian historian of the Neapolitan court Antonio Beccadelli, known as il Panormita (someone from

Palermo). However, towards the end of his study he does not include Beccadelli in his

73 Donald R. Kelly, The Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970).

74 Eric Cochrane, “The Profession of the Historian in the Italian Renaissance,” Journal of Social History, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981).

75 Eric Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 15. 60

statistical data or in his article in any significant capacity. Again, taking a much harder line in his book, Cochrane states, “Sicily produced no historians at all either before or during the reign of Alfonso (1442-58)…by reuniting it with Naples, the Aragonese conquest abolished once and for all the precarious independence it had won in 1282.”76

This statement by Cochrane is problematic for several reasons. First, how is Cochrane conceptualizing “before” and “during” the reign of Alfonso? Sicily produced historians as early as Theocritus and Diodorus Siculus, Niccolò di Jamsilla77, and later Antonio

Beccadelli—whom he even mentioned in his own article—before the reign of Alfonso, and this tradition continued through the Sicilian humanists discussed in this dissertation who lived during and after the reign of Alfonso. Thus, the suggestion that Sicily produced no historians signifies that perhaps Cochrane himself has fallen victim to the Anglophone historical narrative that intellectual culture in Sicily was stunted in comparison to the rest of Italy. Additionally, to say that the Aragonese “abolished the precarious independence” of Sicily is also deeply problematic. By referencing the year 1282 Cochrane is calling upon the narrative of the Sicilian Vespers. The Vespers rebelled after the Anjou

Monarchy came to power with the demise of the Norman dynasty; however, under the

Anjou Monarchy Sicily was independent as it had been under the Normans. Sicilians were troubled by policies the Anjou passed without approval from the Sicilian

“parlamentu,” but the “parlamentu” did not disperse with the arrival of the Anjou. In fact, the “parlamentu” began to meet with more regularity well after the arrival of the

76 Ibid., 147.

77 Charles Homer Haskins, “Science at the Court of Frederick II,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 27 N. 4, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922), 671. According to Haskins, Niccolò di Jamsilla served as a court historian for both Frederick II and later his son Manfred. 61

Aragonese in 1400. Again, it is clear that Cochrane is writing from a historiographical tradition that centers the northern Italian peninsula as the focal point of Renaissance intellectual activity. Having noticed this same trend of overlooking the Italian south in the historiography of the Middle Ages, Medievalist Ronald G. Musto states, “These works, and the body of Anglophone scholarship they reflect, maintain a concentration of the

North and the continuation of the venerable dichotomy between its republican, communal and lay culture—a ‘new’ Italy posited as derived from and continuing a new political, cultural, and linguistic freedom—and the ‘other’ Italy, the supposedly tradition-bound, clerical, royal and autocratic culture of the South.”78

One of the few, and most recent, academic collections of Sicilian History was written by British historian Denis Mack Smith; his Storia della Sicilia Medievale e

Moderna was originally published in 1975 in Italian (an English translation was published in 1986). While Smith was an historian of Sicily, his period of focus was the

Risorgimento into World War II. Thus, his training as a historian of the Risorgimento became quickly evident as he analyzed Sicily through the foundation built by nineteenth- century national histories. Nineteenth-century histories of Sicily, such as those of

Benedetto Croce and Francesco De Sanctis were, for various reasons, based on an ideology of Southern Italian backwardness. As historian Tommaso Astarita points out in his book on Naples, Between Saltwater and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, the

Italian south became an Italian “other” in part because of its supposed domination by

78 Ronald G. Musto, Writing Southern Italy before the Renaissance: Trecento Historians of the Mezzogiorno, (New York: Routledge, 2019), 34. My work differs from Musto’s in several ways. First, Musto is a Medievalist, and second Musto is not concerned with issues of identity he is simply interested in reintegrating southern Italian historians—primarily those in Naples—into the broader historiography of the Italian Middles Ages. 62

Spain and also because of its precarious economic situation, but there was also a racial aspect tied to Southern Italian identity. Sicilians were racially mixed, there were many people from different racial groups that passed through the island, and it was the only region in Italy that was, for a time, under Arab rule. Astarita, for example, points to Jesuit priests in 1575, who referred specifically to Sicily and Calabria as “the Indies over here,” and in Naples the same priests who were visiting shepherds noted that the men were not unlike “the beasts they tended.”79

Medieval historian Sarah Davis-Secord takes a more in-depth look at the racial and ethnic mixing in Muslim-ruled Sicily (827-1061). Davis-Secord uses the work of

S.D. Goitein, who utilized the records of the Cairo Geniza to look at letters and points of communication in Muslim Sicily. Through these records Davis-Secord shows how

Sicily’s ports were most highly connected with those of North Africa and Egypt. These trade networks between Sicily, Egypt, and North Africa, were networks used primarily for the trade of goods which facilitated social and cultural exchange through merchants who often spent time on the island. Additionally, these records indicated Jewish communities, that lived on the island at least since the fourth century, were an integral part of the docking community around the ports.80 Greek Christian populations continued to practice on the island, and all of these communities were working together and even intermarrying. Here, Davis-Secord mentioned the case of tenth-century Muslim traveler

Ibn Hawqal, who visited Sicily and found the Sicilians “most distasteful” since they

79 Tommaso Astarita, Between Saltwater and Holy Water: A History of the Italian South, (New York: Norton, 2005), 121-125 . 80 Sarah Davis-Secord, “Medieval Sicily and Southern Italy in Recent Historiographical Perspective,” Historical Compass, (Arlington: University of Texas, 2010), 7.

seemed to be practicing an almost unrecognizable form of Islam and were marrying

Christians.81 This mixing is ultimately what makes Sicilianità unique, but also provides further explanation for the racial discrimination of Sicilians, which itself offers further evidence pointing to the historiographical exclusion of Sicily.

Dante and Petrarch also played a role in consistently downplaying the cultural achievements of the Italian south. While Dante and Petrarch did not write about the practice of historical writing through their literary works, they helped substantiate the

“lack of intellectualism” in the Italian south, which was incorporated into the Italian literary and historical canon. Much of the animosity where Dante and Petrarch were concerned—to overly simplify a far more complicated matter— can be traced to the long feuding political battles between the Guelfs and the Ghibellines. Dante and Petrarch were

Guelfs while most of the Norman rulers of Sicily were Ghibelline-supported. This long tradition, dating back to the Middle Ages, is the tradition inherited by Denis Mack Smith.

Smith’s History of Sicily: Medieval and Modern traces Sicilian economic and political History starting with the Arab and Norman Conquests, to the rule of Aragon and later the Bourbons, and ends with regional unification and consolidation with the Italian

Peninsula. While Smith repeatedly discusses Sicily’s importance because of its strategic placement in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, he simultaneously points out the lack of social understanding from upper class groups on the island, which caused constant exploitation of Sicilian people and resources. Smith argues that because of years of exploitation—allowed by the naïve Sicilian upper class— by the mid-nineteenth century

81 Ibid., 5.

Sicily was left in tumult, and caught in a myriad of social and political quandaries.82

Thus, when discussing the populist Sicilian Revolution of 1848, Smith claimed that while elite Sicilians were calling for assistance from nations like France and Britain, they did so because there was a general lack of capability for Sicilians to defend themselves. Not only does this argument downplay Sicilians’ capacity to defend themselves, but it also completely disregards the aptitude of Sicilians to negotiate their political power, considering the relatively large number of French and English boats consistently docked in the port of Messina, which Mack discussed previously.83 It is a historiographical problem that the newest, academically published collection of Sicilian History in English is over thirty years old, and written by a historian holding nineteenth-century biases. This is part of what I would like to correct throughout the course of this chapter, and the entire dissertation: to shed new light on the intellectual movement of Renaissance Sicily in a way that reinserts Sicilian intellectuals into the historical narrative of the Renaissance.

Understanding how Sicilians wrote History in Renaissance Sicily is important because it provides evidence of the intellectual traditions of Sicily, and demonstrates how

Sicilians used humanist tools in order to formulate their identities. Additionally, it demonstrates Sicilian participation in the Renaissance, and Sicilian contributions to the

82Simona Laudani, La Sicilia della Seta: Economia, Società, e Politica, (Rome: Meridiana, 1996). Laudani has revisited Sicily’s economic situation in her book by looking at the silk trade and industry in Sicily. By looking specifically at the production and sale of silk in Sicily from the fifteenth century to the seventeenth century, Laudani shows how particularly in the northeastern part of the island silk became a stable good for export and trade—more stable in some instances than wheat because wheat was more susceptible to climate change—thus, silk brought money, patronage, and growing middle class to northeastern Sicily. Laudani argues that with growing regionalism in Sicily, these upper-class merchants benefitting from the growing silk trade were able to establish significant political and social alliances outside of the island, all while forming counseling ruling bodies with established political autonomy in the regions in and around of Messina specifically.

83Denis Mack Smith, Storia della Sicilia Medievale e Moderna, (Rome: Laterza Publishing, 1983), 100- 120. 65

Renaissance movement. To this point, I believe understanding how Sicilian humanists wrote History shows how Sicilian humanism was similar to and different from the northern Italian peninsula. In those differences and in the methodologies employed by

Sicilian humanists we can improve our reading of constructions of Sicilianità and better understand Sicilian contributions to the Renaissance.

Tommaso Fazello: Le Due Deche della Storia Siciliana

Tommaso Fazello, as previously stated, was born in Sciacca, Sicily in 1498. At some point during his teen years (some suspect circa 1513) Fazello joined the local

Dominican monastery in his town, and within the next several years was ordained a friar.

It is uncertain which university Fazello attended, but shortly after receiving holy orders, he took a job in Palermo teaching Greek philosophy—primarily Aristotle—to young men in the Greek academy. From this point forward, Fazello spent the rest of his life in Sicily except for several short trips to Rome. During his time in Palermo, Fazello became interested in archeology and topography. Fazello used his spare time to travel around

Sicily utilizing texts and histories from ancient Greeks and Romans as his guides through

Sicily. Fazello took careful and meticulous notes as he paid particular attention to the writings of fellow Sicilian Diodorus Siculus, who served as a historian in ancient Rome.

His careful note-taking and observations led Fazello to discover the ruins of the modern

Sicilian cities of Selinunte, Eraclea Minoa, and the Palazzo Acraide, which were Greek settlements that had long been rumored to have been destroyed during the years of the

Caliphates. These discoveries caught the attention of Charles V, who was passing through

Sicily after having campaigned in Tunisia (1535) and was the first monarch to have visited Sicily in a century.84 Fazello was subsequently commissioned by Charles V to write his two-volume History, the Latin edition--which came first--was published in

Palermo in 1560.

The Latin edition is the one I will be focusing on in this chapter; however, there were two more editions of the volumes; one was published in Tuscan Italian in 1574, and the most recent edition, which was also printed in Italian, was published in 1628. The

Latin edition from 1560 consists of a total 625 pages, the last ten are a table of contents, and it is separated into ten chapters. Fazello, given that his patronage came from the throne of Spain, dedicated the collection to both Charles V and Philip II. For the purposes of this chapter I will be analyzing primarily volume two of Fazello’s History of Sicily, because the first volume focuses more on archeology, geography, and topography; however, the second volume provides more of a narrative history. I will be looking at this work as a political piece, highlighting what Fazello’s message was meant to be, and how he was helping to build a foundation of Sicilianità.

The second volume of Fazello’s History of Sicily began with his account of Roger

I of Hauteville (1040-1101), and his conquest of Sicily from Muslim rule, and ends with the reign of Charles V and Philip II. To be clear, Fazello was writing a history like most

Renaissance historians, as a moral lesson to those who read it and with consistent comparisons to ancient Greece and Rome. What is different about Fazello’s History was his diverse reading and approach to specific events, which differ significantly from northern Italian and Spanish histories of the same narratives. These changes that I will

84 Geoffrey Parker, Emperor: A New Life of Charles V, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 244. 67

discuss through Fazello’s work are evidence of Fazello’s Sicilianità and his diverse cultural perspective. One of the greatest distinctions in Fazello’s history was his rather accepting tone in his discussions of groups on the island that were not Christian, specifically Muslim groups. Fazello, like many from his generation, referred to the

Muslims as Saracens. Fazello opened with the exact moment Roger I took control of the primary port city of Messina. According to Fazello, Roger I, “a great Christian Count,” entered and easily won the city of Messina; however, there was some debate over what was to be done with the captured Saracen rulers of the city. They were initially imprisoned, but then Fazello states that there were certain merchants of Messina named--

Ansaldo de’ Patti, Niccolò Camulio, and Jacopo Saccano--all of whom were Norman supporters who had the Saracen rulers hanged to make an example of them. After describing this scene Fazello wrote, “This evil act was perpetrated by the nobles of

Messina for their own fama and virtue.”85

What is striking about Fazello’s account was his rather sympathetic tone in how he discussed the Saracens. While there is no mistake, Fazello wrote in a way that advocated for the triumph of the Christian Normans—since he consistently refers to them adjectives like “great,” (magnus) “victorious,” (vicit) “benevolent,” (benevolus)—he still called the act of hanging the Saracen rulers “evil” (malus). His attitude toward the

Saracens throughout his narrative continued to be, if not benevolent, at least ambivalent.

This was a bit strange considering he was a Dominican Friar, and most other Christian

European regions in the early modern period were extremely intolerant of Muslims, including those in Spain and the northern Italian peninsula. This way of discussing the

85 Tommaso Fazello, Storia di Sicilia: Deche Due, (Palermo: Pedone e Muratori, 1560), 1-2. (all translations are mine unless otherwise stated). 68

Arab past of Sicily will become more evident with the subsequent Sicilian humanists I will discuss. I argue that Fazello’s attitude toward Saracens in Sicily was indicative of how Sicilians claimed an Arab past as part of their Sicilianità along with Greek and

Norman ancestry as well. Some Italian historians have also claimed that Fazello’s attitude toward Sicily’s Muslim past changed when he discovered Selinunte, Eraclea Minoa, and

Palazzo Acaide, since it was said that the Saracens destroyed these places but he was able to find them later, and the discovery caused him to rethink previous narratives of the

Sicilian Caliphates.86 Fazello’s tone and attitude towards the Saracens in his historical narrative was also interesting considering that the entire collection was dedicated to

Charles V and Philip II, arguably some of the most fanatical Catholic monarchs in

Europe. Perhaps this was Fazello’s way of writing a history in the name of Spain with

Spanish funding but distinguishing Sicily from the Spanish Empire, which then would reaffirm Fazello’s own Sicilianità.

Fazello continued to discuss how the Normans went from city to city expelling and killing the Saracens, he wrote “In Syracuse…they [Saracens/populi Saracenorum] fought valiantly (congregatoque exercitu) and established a great resistance against

Norman soldiers.”87 Nevertheless, the Saracens succumbed to the Normans in every city until the only one left under their control was Noto. According to Fazello, at Noto there

86 M. A. Coniglione, La provincia domenicana di Sicilia, Catania 1937, pp. 230-33; S. Correnti, Cultura e storiografia nella Sicilia del Cinquecento, Catania 1972; Le fonti del 'De rebus Siculis' di T. F. per l'età normanna, in Scritti in mem. di P. Morabito, a cura di P. Santoro, Messina 1983, pp. 457-92. These historians suggest that Fazello’s discovery of Selinunte, Eraclea Minoa, and Palazzo Acaide caused him to reconsider how “destructive” the period of Muslim rule in Sicily may have been. They are careful to note that we should not read into the intentions of historical actors, Fazello wrote pieces outside his history of Sicily that suggest that perhaps he did not believe that Saracen rulers destroyed cities, but rather incorporated them into their territorial holdings.

87 Fazello, 64.

was very little fighting. After Syracuse surrendered, the Saracen rulers at Noto released

Christians they had imprisoned whom they believed to be abetting the Normans and had begun to live among them.88 By the following year, 1091, Noto was fully under Norman control and Roger I became King of Sicily. Fazello finished this section stating, “the population of these cities still was composed of a large number of Saracens, in some cities they still outnumbered the Christians; therefore, wise King Roger continued to make laws in and for those of Arab, Greek, and Latin descent.”89

Note the use of the adjective “wise” (sapientem) in order to discuss Roger’s decision in accommodating a tri-lingual court; here Fazello was praising the king for embracing the variety of cultures and languages that existed in Sicily. Again, this was very much to the contrary of what was seen further north in Europe; however, Sicilian scholars continued to consistently emphasize an ancestry that shared aspects of all three cultures and languages. This was a defining characteristic of Sicilianità in the early modern period, which is why we cannot analyze Sicily as a strictly European space. In later chapters, I will show a similar attitude of acceptance of an Arab past in the writings of Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano. The culture and identity that formed on the island was different than what we see anywhere else in Europe at this time, and was not built solely on European/Christian customs and traditions. It is also interesting to note, that Fazello praised the multi-culturalism of the Norman court in a work commissioned by Charles V, who, despite the praises Fazello made to his patron, was decidedly not accepting of any non-Christian culture. Perhaps, then, Fazello may have

88 Ibid., 65 . 89 Ibid., 68. 70

been critiquing the Spanish monarchy, suggesting the King be more tolerant of non-

Christian populations in his territories; however, Fazello was careful to so in a way that would not be explicitly offensive to the King.

After he discussed the conquest of the Saracens, Fazello turned to the various intricacies of Roger I’s reign. Fazello followed Roger’s “illustrious reign” (imperium illustris) all the way through to his death. In relating the funeral of Roger I, Fazello stated that for such a man the church would have to honor him as they would honor the Trinity itself. In attendance, Fazello wrote, were all the powerful men, “Normans, Franks,

Lombards, Pugliese, Calabrese, and Sicilians.” 90 Note that Fazello distinguished

Sicilians as something different than the rest of these groups. Sicilians are not Norman, even though they claim Norman ancestry, but they are also mixed Greek and Arab. While

Fazello did not mention a tradition of mixed ancestry directly in this section, later in this paragraph he stated, “we are not all Christians, but King Roger of Sicily was the defender of all” (Non enim omnes qui Christiano sed Rex Rogerii erat protector est omnium.)91

This last phrase in this paragraph memorializing Roger I again did not specifically indicate Greek and Arab as non-Christian, but it did show that Fazello was recognizing non-Christians as “us” those defended by Roger of Sicily. In light of this statement it is not imprudent to suggest that Fazello was indicating the mixing of Arab, Greek, and

Norman descent in the foundations of Sicilianità.

The second chapter centered on the moment following the death of Roger I in

1101, and the succession of first his son, Simon. However, Simon died at the age of

90 Ibid., 74.

91 Ibid., 74. 71

twelve, and succession was handed down to his still younger brother Roger II with his mother, Adelaide del Vasto acting as Regent. While Fazello’s discussion of the Saracens appeared to be rather tolerant, his view of women was more typical. Fazello portrayed

Adelaide as a good regent who cunningly used her wealth and femininity to enter into a second, and financially beneficial marriage with King Baldwin I of Jerusalem. Fazello wrote, “she married that malevolent man (malevolentiae hominum), whose wife in

Jerusalem was still alive and well…he [Baldwin] mentioned nothing of this to Adelaide and the fraudulent nuptials were held in the Sicilian court.”92 Fazello stated that Adelaide was “blinded by the wealth”93 Baldwin showered upon her, until she took a trip to

Jerusalem with him, where she discovered his wife and promptly returned to Sicily in

1118.

In chapter three, Fazello turned to the reign of Roger II, who was now old enough to rule on his own without his mother. One of the most perplexing things about

Anglophone historiography of Sicily is the lack of knowledge of the Sicilian

“parliament.” Fazello did not use the word “parliament” he called the ruling body concilii

(Latin for council) only once and called those who made policy in the Palazzo dei

Normanni the populus regnandi (ruling people) for the rest of his history. Therefore, I will employ his terminology in my discussion of the governing body. The Sicilian concilii originally convened under Roger I in 1097. However, as mentioned in chapter one, this historiographical lapse is due to the lack of source material on the political body.

92 Ibid., 80.

93 Ibid., 84.

Fazello made only one mention of the concilii when he discussed the reign of Roger I.94

The initial duties of the concilii were strictly ceremonial, such as affirming sovereigns, or for advisory purposes on taxation, and war. Regular meetings were not held until 1130, and would convene in Palermo inside the fortress Palazzo dei Normanni.95 Analyzing the activity of the Sicilian concilii demonstrated how Sicilianità facilitated a multicultural political system in which all Sicilians participated.

Fazello first discussed populus regnandi when he recounted the revolt of the

Saracens in the town of Troina, Sicily. As Fazello explained, Roger I had gone to

Calabria to visit his wife, who was staying there for a short period. In his stead Roger left a man named Bettumeno, a Saracen who had been a loyal friend of his at court, as president of the Sicilian “parliament” while he was away. Sadly, Bettumeno let the power of his position consume him and began expelling Saracens from their homes. This caused a Saracen revolt in the city of Troina. Fazello stated that a “very astute man (vir astutus) and sage Saracen named Nichele presented himself to the “ruling people” and called for

Bettumeno to be indicted for his malicious deeds and fraudulent rule.”96 Once they heard

Nichele’s plight the crowd descended and someone stabbed Bettumeno, killing him for abusing his power. Upon his return Roger I went to Troina with an army and calmed the rebellion; however, recognizing what started the rebellion with Bettumeno, Roger came

94 Concilii was the Latin term Fazello used for the parliament.

95 Parlamenti Generali Del Regno Di Sicilia: Dall' anno 1446 sino al 1748 : Con Le Memorie Istoriche Dell'Antico, E Moderno uso del Parlamento appresso varie Nazioni, ed in particolare della sua origine in Sicilia, e del modo di celebrarsi, Volume 2. Bentivenga Ed., 1749, 1.

96 Fazello, 24.

to consensus with Greek and Saracen communities in Troina that they could have partial self-rule as long as they paid the proper taxes.97

It is remarkable that Fazello felt the need to record this event and emphasize its importance. Additionally, what occurred in Fazello’s narrative is equally striking. Aside from the assassination of Bettumeno, we see the operations of an early governing body in

Europe where a Saracen had the right to call into question the actions taken by an appointed representative of the monarch. The fact that the representatives in the “ruling body” so quickly turned against Bettumeno while supporting the plights of Nichele, is indicative of coexistence of many religious and ethnic groups under the Norman monarchies of Sicily since the governing body was made up of multiple cultural and ethnic groups in Sicily and not just Normans or Saracens. Additionally, the conclusion that Roger I negotiated with the Greeks and Saracens at Troina not only is indicative of the flexible rule of the Normans, but also shows the ability that these groups in Sicily had to negotiate their power.

The next time Fazello mentioned the “ruling people” it occurred in chapter four of volume two. Fazello’s consistent recording of this governing body suggests its importance in Sicilian self-governance. In this chapter Fazello was concerned primarily with the function of the monarchy, how the Norman rulers created and implemented policies of taxation, war, criminal and religious court proceedings, among other things.

Fazello discussed the creation of “a ruling body” and those people who comprised the group. Fazello stated, “the King [Roger I] called everyone to the court beneath the main palace which he called concilii, first he called upon the Clergymen so that they would

97 Ibid., 25-29. 74

guide him and he would be spared by mortal judgement, and he asked them to fulfill this duty for all. Then he added those men of note who were worthy of such an honor.”98

Fazello continued on to describe the “the men of note” as a mixture of scholars, wealthy merchants, and noblemen.99

Clearly the concilii that Roger I created was made up of primarily wealthy men-- even the members of the clergy involved were primarily bishops--but as we saw in the previous passage with Nichele and Bettumeno, there was no mention from Fazello of any religious or ethnic exclusivity in the creation of the concilii. After all, as a Saracen,

Bettumeno was left in charge of the populus regnandi when Roger I was away, and

Nichele felt that he could plead his grievances to the populus regnandi. A common trend in the development of Sicilianità was consistent class exclusivity with ethnic and racial inclusivity. All classes could be Sicilian, but the lower classes had to be taught how to do so properly. For example, as will later be discussed, Claudio Mario D’Arezzo in his

Sicilian grammar book discusses the differences in Sicilian dialects between elite educated Sicilians and “mediocre peasants.” However, while all these humanists make this class distinction, none of them suggest that poor classes are not Sicilian. For

D’Arezzo it’s a matter of education: poor classes simply need to be taught proper

Sicilian.

According to Fazello, there was a sense of reputation that Roger had to uphold through the populus regnandi in front of the Sicilian popolo (common people). For example, according to Fazello, in the concilii of Roger I and Roger II, if the Sicilian

98 Ibid., 169-170.

99 Ibid., 171.

“ruling people” could not come to consensus on a specific criminal or local affair, the matter would be made public to the popolo, and they would decide the resulting action.100

To this point, Fazello remarked, “this was a good judgement by a good King which allowed everyone, those from their villas and those from their fields, to have a voice.”101

Now surely Fazello wrote this in order to emphasize the greatness of the Norman kings; however, he also acknowledged that those from all classes had a voice in the Sicilian court. This point underscores the class inclusivity of Sicilianità that was not comprised of solely the upper class. Sadly, Fazello did not mention the “ruling people” any more after this point. Nevertheless, I suggest that this is evidence of early state-making that preceded that of the Florentine (1293) and Venetian Republics (1223-1224) by about one hundred years, and this indicates that Sicilianità did indeed come into existence well before the Risorgimento, as most modern scholars have argued.

While Fazello appeared to have a rather open attitude toward non-Christian groups in Sicily, he conversely described those from other parts of Italy or Europe in negative terminology. For example, towards the middle of chapter three, Fazello discussed the reign of William I of Sicily (1120-1166), known as William “the Bad” because he made poor decisions that caused him to be an unsuccessful monarch. Later, his son, William II of Sicily (1153-1189), was known as William “the Good” because he was a more knowledgeable and successful monarch than his father. Of course, the nicknames of the two monarchs are useful signifiers Fazello utilized to describe them as individuals, and the actions they took in the course of their consecutive monarchies.

100 Ibid., 170.

101 Ibid., 171. 76

During the reign of William “the Bad,” Fazello stated that he enlisted the help of an

“abhorrent” man named Majone, who “…was of the nation of Puglia born to a plebian family in Bari…and he was loved by the despicable King more than his own

Sicilians.”102 Fazello criticized the king for showing favor to non-Sicilians who were “his own” (popolo suo). Majone, who was part of the court of William I, was unfavorable since he was not himself Sicilian, but foreign, which made him “abhorrent.” Fazello provided some examples of Majone’s missteps, such as advising the King poorly in financial matters and in matters of criminal punishment; however, in these instances

Fazello appeared to take greater issue with Majone’s advice than with the King’s action.103

For example, Fazello gave an account of a particular summer under the reign of

William I in which there had been an issue with cultivating grain in North Africa. This hindered the food supply for some Sicilian soldiers staying there on their way back to

Sicily. Majone suggested they bring the soldiers grain from Palermo since “he had convinced the King that there was more grain in Palermo than in all of Africa.”104 Surely this absurd statement would have caused the King to question Majone’s argument, but according to Fazello “the King blindly followed his advice, embarrassing us in front of the Saracen King who had already provided grain to the men.”105 Fazello, went on to call

Majone a “buffoon” but says little of the ill-taken actions of the king, of whom he simply

102 Ibid., 112-113.

103 Ibid., 136-140

104 Ibid., 137.

105 Ibid., 138.

states “was not the monarch Sicily required.”106 It is also interesting that Fazello was concerned about Sicily’s humiliation in front of the Saracen King, this once again suggests Fazello’s general respect for Saracens.

Fazello made a clear distinction between Sicilians and peninsular Italians, whether they were of the Southern Kingdom or not; therefore, while both Sicily and

Puglia were both unified under the same monarchy, Fazello still emphasized the distinct identity of Sicilians. This demonstrated Fazello’s conceptualization of Sicilianità, as he showed how the inept ruler favored others more than the people of “his nation.” In this passage, Fazello employed the word “nation” to describe Puglia. While certainly there is no evidence to suggest that Fazello was envisioning “the nation” as historians conceptualize the modern nation-state, it is important to note that he utilized specifically the word nationi, which is Latin for nation to discuss Puglia, which suggests that Sicily was also a nation in Fazello’s view. Fazello’s usage of “nation,” in conjunction with his description of the concilii of Sicily provides evidence of his conceptions of Sicilianità.

In chapter five, Fazello focused primarily on the reign of William “the Good,” and he continued to emphasize how Sicilians were distinct from other Italians.

Additionally, Fazello discussed how Sicilians were often excluded from northern Italian political processes. Fazello was indiscriminate with his dislike of non-Sicilians, particularly those from other parts of the Italian Peninsula. In this chapter, for example,

Fazello recounted a meeting between the king and the Archbishop of Reggio Calabria, named Ruggiero. Fazello described him as “a man of great infamy, known by all for his

106 Ibid., 138.

greed and avarice.”107 However, later in the book, in chapter nine—in which Fazello reverted back to the History of Sicily in antiquity—Fazello described Pope Stephen III, who was born in Catania, as “truly a saint.”108 I do not wish to belabor this point as a means of demonstrating how Fazello disliked other Italians, but rather to emphasize that he saw Sicilians as distinct from other Italians, and that he did not consider Sicilians to be

Italian.

Fazello additionally pointed to how Sicilians were often excluded from political processes throughout Italy for various reasons. Fazello showed this to be a consistent trend that continued from antiquity into the sixteenth century when he was writing. For example, to continue with chapter nine for a moment, here Fazello described a synod of the Lateran Council that took place in the year 769 A.D. This particular meeting of the

Council was meant to deal with the influence secular nobles had on papal elections, and the issue of iconoclasm. Fazello explained that many bishops from Campania, Tuscany, and France met with the Pope, who was in fact, Pope Stephen III at that time. Fazello stated that Sicilian archbishops were excluded because Sicilian nobles were advocating for the death of the Byzantine Emperor.109 Sicilians were rebelling against the Byzantine

Empire, but it was primarily due to a lack of action on the Emperor’s part to stop continued sackings of Sicilian cities—primarily Syracuse—from Saracens, who would shortly thereafter take control over Sicily. This was excluding Sicily not only from policy-making but also from protection. Thus, Fazello stated, “The Sicilians wanted the

107 Ibid., 196-97.

108 Ibid., 336.

109 Ibid., 334-336.

death of the Emperor, but religious iconography was the Sicilian tradition, and they should have been observed, but truly the great Stephen III recognized this and made iconoclasm anathema to Christian tradition.”110

Fazello not only recognized how Sicilians had little say in this judgement that would have greatly affected them, but also recognized how little monarchs were doing in order to address their plights of being consistently invaded. Fazello also showed how

Sicilian culture was being discounted since Christian iconography was “Sicilian tradition.” Stephen III, however, as a Sicilian himself came to the correct decision, and properly facilitated “church tradition” with his decision. In the paragraph after this

Fazello stated that Stephen III died on the first of February 772 A.D.

Fazello went on to say, “contemporarily with this great Pope of our nation’s passing, there lived in our midst, in Sicily, a man of great fama and virtú Leo II of

Catania.”111 Here, Fazello provided direct evidence that he conceptualized Sicilianità as a unique identity, and the Popes Stephen III and Leo II are representations of his Sicily’s greatness. Fazello went so far as to argue that because of Leo II, the church is “more

Greek than Latin, and is of our tradition.”112 With this statement, Fazello is tying the tradition of early modern Christianity to Sicily. Again, given the context of Fazello’s dedicating this History to Charles V and Philip II, and bearing in mind the consistent struggle for power between the Papacy and Southern Kingdom this was a very bold statement. Fazello centered his life around the importance of observing church tradition;

110 Ibid., 336.

111 Ibid., 337.

112 Ibid., 337. 80

being able to tie this tradition to Sicilianità would have been a significant part of his own identity formation. This is an affirmation of Fazello’s own Sicilianità.

Fazello and the History of Norman Sicily

A recurring theme present throughout Fazello’s work was his emphasis on and praise of the Norman monarchs. The way Fazello discussed the Norman monarchs and their policy indicated that he saw them as a culmination of Sicilian tradition, Arabic,

Greek, and Christian all in one. It is well known that the Normans often adapted to the traditions that existed in the places where they came to power.113 This was indeed the case in Sicily. For example, the Norman monarchs kept the Arab system of taxation, and many cities under the Norman monarchies remained either Greek- or Arabic-speaking.

The court of Roger was composed of Latin, Greek, and Arab scholars, as can be seen through the creation of such works as the Tabula Rogeriana, which was made by a

Muslim astronomer and cartographer at the court of Roger named Muhammad El-Idrisi.

Policies and official documentation were often written in Latin, Greek, and Arabic, and this largely remained standard practice in Sicily until the early to mid-fifteenth century. A wonderful example of this is a tombstone of a woman named Anna at Roger’s court; she was the mother of his court priest. Anna’s tombstone is written in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and a blended Judeo-Arabic, which suggests a significant Jewish presence in Sicily as well.114 Thus, in understanding these practices it is logical that many humanists in the

113 Norman Tradition and Transcultural Heritage: Exchange of Cultures in the 'Norman' Peripheries of Medieval Europe, Stefan Burkhardt and Thomas Foester, Ed. (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2013).

114 British Museum. 81

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries would point to the period of the Norman monarchies as the culmination of Sicilian culture and tradition.

Fazello did exactly this, pointing to the arrival of the Norman monarchs as a pivotal moment in Sicilian history. Fazello began chapter five with a grandiose depiction of Roger as a soldier. He wrote, “…of all the Norman soldiers there was one among them, he was the most honorable, more handsome than anything human, he rode a pure white horse and was wearing white armor with a white vestment with a large red cross embroidered on it, he had an illuminating countenance, and the entire cavalry was lifted at his arrival.”115 Certainly Fazello’s description of Roger was regal and strong, and he sounded nearly god-like with his god-like good looks and his white vestments that made him shine among the others. According to Fazello, after Roger’s great victory over the

Saracens he adopted the Latin phrase “Dextera Domini fecit virtutem, dextera Domini exaltavit me” (the right hand of God has given me valor, the right hand of God has exalted me), and placed it on his crest and on the flag. Fazello then wrote, “this is why the Normans, and their inheritors were our true Kings of Sicily.”116 For Fazello, the

Normans added the one thing Sicilian culture was previously lacking and that was

Christianity, but still incorporated the virtuous elements of Greek and Islamic culture. As

Fazello wrote later in this chapter, “we have philosophy, science, and Christianity, for this all of Sicily and the city of Palermo are obliged to Roger and Robert, truer words could not have been written with pen or said with human words.”117

115 Ibid., 34.

116 Ibid., 35-36.

117 Ibid., 48. 82

One of the most important parts of Sicilian history recounted by Fazello was that of the Sicilian Vespers. This event, later in the Risorgimento years (1860-62), became the symbol of Sicilian character that is captured in the Italian national anthem today.

Historian Steven Runciman argues that the Vespers became a uniquely Sicilian symbol of resistance to foreign oppression, which was mythologized in the histories of Michele

Amari, an influential Palermitan historian of the Risorgimento.118 According to Amari, peninsular Italians were willing to embrace this depiction of Sicilians during the period of unification for a few reasons. One was that they needed to bring Sicilians into the Italian vision of the nation in order to maintain their strategic position in the Mediterranean and to gain access to the island’s resources. Another reason was because they needed

Sicilians to agree to unification with the peninsula in order to accomplish the two previously mentioned goals.119

Additionally, I argue that a violent peasant rebellion—while it can be celebrated as a triumph over foreign oppression—still does not remove many of the negative stereotypes associated with the Sicilian character by northern nineteenth-century Italians.

The rebellion itself was still violent, still carried out by those of a lower class, and as

Runciman himself stated, was a hallmark of the “brave and secretive Sicilian people.”120

This seemingly positive narrative still “othered” Sicilians while simultaneously bringing them into the Italian nation. Another Sicilian humanist, Lucio Marineo Siculo, whom I will later discuss, also gives an account of the event of the Vespers. Fazello’s account

118 Steven Runciman. The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958).

119 Michele Amari, La Guerra del Vespro Siciliano, (Naples: Centro Editoriale Meridionale), 1900.

120 Runciman., 258. 83

was written under Spanish patronage, as was that of Siculo, and both men as Sicilians had common enemies in Spain and France. The French are the arch villains in both of these historical accounts, those of Siculo and Fazello. Some small details are different between each of their narratives, though. For example, where Fazello claimed that a physical fight broke out between the French soldiers and the Sicilian men inside the church Siculo stated that the arguing began outside the church. Additionally, Fazello mentioned women were involved in the rebellion, while Siculo made no mention of women. Nevertheless, both humanists used the event to emphasize Sicilianità, and glorified the event as a success of Sicilian patriotism over foreign tyranny.

The Sicilian Vespers occurred on the night of the Easter Vigil (the Vespers) of

1282. Sicily, after the death of the last Norman monarchs Frederick II and the untimely death of his son Manfred, fell under the control of Charles of Anjou. With the end of the

Norman kings came the end of Sicilian identification with any monarch’s culture. In part, this was because of the cultural affinity Sicilians felt with the Normans, but also because

Charles of Anjou was not a very good monarch. For example, Charles was always in need of funds for wars he wished to wage, he implemented a very rigid tax in Sicily, but gave special exemptions to Provençal settlers that had moved to Sicily under his reign.

This was one of several decisions that made Charles immensely unpopular among

Sicilians. Charles also forced Sicilians to lodge French soldiers in their homes and seldom visited the island after 1268, a point when Sicilians began to actively resist his monarchy.121

121Ibid., 258. 84

According to Fazello, the Vespers occurred on the third night of the Easter celebration in the church of the Holy Spirit just outside Palermo. There was a custom that the people of Palermo would hold a city-wide procession that would end inside the church. There was also, standing outside the church, a group of French soldiers that were supposed to be keeping watch as people prayed inside the church. At some point, once the procession had arrived inside the church and the service started, the soldiers interrupted the service and one of them claimed to have lost his weapon. This soldier began looking for his weapon around the church, and suddenly began searching and touching the breasts of women in the church. This caused a group of armed Sicilian men to become “violently angry, and they quickly killed all of the French soldiers and proceeded outside killing all of the French civilians that had at one time been tolerated but no longer would be accepted with their bestiality and fiendish ways.”122

This account of the Vespers Fazello gave was very similar to the account of Lucio

Marineo Siculo, as I will discuss in chapter four. Most of the main details were the same, but one striking difference between the two accounts is that, according to Fazello, the

Sicilian men killed not only the French soldiers, but also the French citizens in town.

Siculo made no mention of this; rather, in Siculo’s account it appeared that the Sicilians were only concerned with the French military and governmental presence on the island, not the civilians.123 Fazello also described the French in rather pejorative terminology, as expected, but the language used by Fazello to describe the French is significant. Fazello referred to the French, military and civilian alike, as “bestial” (bestialis) and “fiendish.”

122 Fazello, 462.

123Lucio Marineo Siculo, Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de Espana, (Munich: The Bavarian State Library, 1539), li. 85

These terms, as explained earlier with the work of Tommaso Astarita, were also terms often utilized to describe Sicilians by non-Sicilians. Fazello was “othering” the French, and this is significant because until this monarchy (the Anjou Monarchy) Sicilians had a tradition of blending the history of former regimes with those in power. This was far from the first time the island had come under the control of a foreign power, but as I argued previously, after the collapse of the Norman monarchies Sicilians began to reject foreign monarchical presence in the Middle Ages. Sicilians of the Renaissance utilized this pivotal point of rupture in Sicilian history, along with the multicultural Norman monarchies, as the historical and cultural foundation upon which to build Sicilianità.

Fazello continued to recount the rebellion of the Vespers, which continued through the remainder of 1282 and swept through the entire island. City by city Sicilian underground militia groups were pushing out French armies and civilians. According to

Fazello, men and women from all different class backgrounds, noble and peasant, participated in the rebellion of the Vespers.124 Fazello recounted the event as one in which there was no man or woman, noble or peasant, religious or secular; rather, there was only Sicilian against French. Since Fazello saw the Vespers as a moment upon which to formulate Sicilianità.

One of the moments of Fazello’s account of the Vespers that most clearly indicated his Sicilianità, was in his recounting of the final battle. The last stronghold of the French to fall to the Sicilians was the port city of Messina. According to Fazello, the

French had closed themselves in the Duomo of Messina for a week and fortified themselves with three lines of men going around the building as a barrier. Fazello then

124 Fazello, 463. 86

wrote, “Kept off of their [the French] ships by a raging sea, the brave Sicilians came at them—without other weaponry but small knives—they began launching rocks at the

Frenchmen. To this day the vestiges of these stones lay were they were thrown by the feet of St. Anthony…the people of Messina, with little ability were able to create such resistance and putting themselves at risk were able to throw off the danger of French occupation.”125 Fazello showed how even with fewer resources at their disposal the

Sicilians were able to “bravely” throw the French out of the port of Messina. Fazello emphasized that the Sicilians “put themselves at risk” for what they clearly deemed was a necessary cause. Additionally, the way Fazello mentioned that the rocks the Sicilians threw at the French soldiers could be seen at the Duomo throughout his lifetime suggests that Fazello was utilizing those rocks as a long-lasting testament at the feet of a Saint, no less, of the greatness of those Sicilian men and women fighting for their homes. This was indeed a way Fazello constructed Sicilianità; the Vespers was an example of Sicilians fighting for their homes and for their own autonomy, and Fazello mythologized this event to create a Sicilian identity.

Another repeated theme of Sicilian Renaissance History that established

Sicilianità was the idea of Frederick II, the first King of Sicily, as the father of the Sicily.

This was evident in the work of Claudio Mario D’Arezzo, and it was equally evident in the work of Fazello. In fact, chapter three of Fazello’s Sicilian History was solely dedicated to Frederick II, and was titled “Frederick II the First Emperor of the Name.”126

125 Ibid., 464.

126 Ibid.,752.

Frederick II was the only Norman monarch that Fazello discussed who was the central focus of an entire chapter of the book.

According to Fazello, Frederick II was crowned King of Sicily “March 25, 1225 on Easter Day the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”127 According to most contemporary histories Frederick II was crowned King of Sicily on September 8, 1198.

This was not the first incidence of such discrepancies in the History of Frederick II as written by Sicilian humanists in comparison to those histories written by contemporary historians. D’Arezzo, as we will later see, claimed that Frederick II was born in Palermo, and Fazello wrote the same, even though Frederick II was actually born in Jesi, Ancona in central Italy. The reason for these apparent errors in the account of Sicilian humanist historians may, in part, be due to the use of different calendars. Some contemporary

Italian historians have noted that because of varied religious groups in Sicily some historians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries did not always use a Gregorian calendar.128 In was widely accepted by historians of early modern Italy that Frederick II was born in Palermo; this was accepted by both northern and southern Italian humanists.

This narrative of the birth of Frederick II became a useful tool for Fazello and other

Sicilian humanists to write the Norman Monarch as the “Father of the Sicilian Nation.”

D’Arezzo, for example, utilized Christ imagery and explicitly called Frederick II the

“Father of Sicily” in discussing his birth and reign.129 Fazello did something similar, by

127 Ibid., 752.

128 In the book Siculo-Norman Art: Islamic Culture in Medieval Sicily, scholars Nicola Giuliano Leone, Eliana Mauro, Carla Quartarone, and Ettore Sessa discuss how art works from Sicily in this period often displayed multiple dates to coincide with calendars of various groups. This is also common of Sicilian tomb stones from this period.

129 Claudio Mario d’Arezzo, 1543, Osservanti Dila Lingua Siciliana, Et, Canzoni, Inlo, Proprio Idioma, Di Mario, Di Arrezo, Gentil’Homo Saragusano, (Messina: Paolo Siminara, 1543), 6-7. 88

emphasizing the crowning of Frederick II on Easter, the day of the resurrection of Jesus, this coincided with the resurrection of Sicily itself, and Frederick II—like Jesus—was the savior of the island.

Fazello also emphasized the public aspect of Fredrick II’s crowning. Each of these humanists emphatically pointed out the public recognition of Frederick II as the monarch of Sicily. For Fazello, the focus was on the coronation itself. He wrote,

“Frederick was crowned publicly by the archbishop on the streets of Palermo for all his people to see.”130 The witness of Sicilians to Frederick’s birth was of the utmost importance since the public spectacle was another way to lend legitimacy to the monarchy. Fazello also emphasized that the legitimacy of the public coronation was established by Frederick II’s “people” that is the Sicilians who comprised the Kingdom of Sicily, and who bore witness to his crowning. Throughout this chapter Fazello used a triumphalist rhetoric to discuss the honor, bravery, and valor of Frederick II, particularly when faced with foreign invasion from outside forces such as the French, for whom again, Fazello showed great disdain. Fazello mentioned that the French were “cruel” and

“oppressive” and they “tortured the innocent Sicilian civilians.”131 To combat the evil foreign intruders, the noble Frederick II “with his brave band of Sicilians removed their evil presence from the island and restored peace in the regno.”132

However, at the end of this chapter, when Fazello discussed the death of

Frederick II his language not only became sorrowful, but again Fazello placed emphasis

130 Fazello., 752.

131 Ibid., 780.

132 Ibid., 781.

on the narrative of Frederick as the “father” of Sicily. First Fazello wrote, “The night he

[Frederick II] lay ill in bed, a comet appeared in the sky, this was a signal marking that he would soon be dead.”133Again, this event marked Frederick II as a monarch that was beyond the status of ordinary mortals. Nevertheless, Fazello again made the connection between the greatest monarch of Sicily and the Divine. Then Fazello continued, “…and so on December 13, 1250 our great patris to whom we Sicilians are much obliged died.

He was brought to the chapel of Saint Agatha in Catania for his burial rights, and an inscription was placed above his body which read ‘Sicily’s great sadness, is Heaven’s joy, Sicily cries out for her Father.’”134 In this passage Fazello specifically utilized the

Latin word for Father, patris, to describe Frederick II, and by utilizing the pronoun “our” before that he indicated that the deceased Emperor was the Father of Sicilians.

Furthermore, his funeral inscription also served as direct evidence that Frederick II was considered by Fazello to be the “Father of Sicily.”

The End of the Norman Dynasty and the Arrival of Spain

After his discussion of Frederick II, Fazello moved quickly through the problematic history of Norman succession. The latter half of this second volume traced the Spanish period of Sicilian history beginning with the rise of the house of Aragon, which came to power through a papal appeal from Sicilians to Rome, after the failure of the Anjou monarchy. The language Fazello used to discuss the Aragonese was different

133 Ibid., 783.

134 Ibid., 783-84.

than the language he utilized to discuss the French. According to Fazello the French were

“cruel” and “oppressed” (qui calumniam sustinent) Sicilians; however, the words he used towards the House of Aragon were more accepting. This was particularly true when

Fazello discussed the reign of Alfonso V, whom he described as “benevolent”

(benevolus) and “kind.”135

Nevertheless, as positive as some of his language towards the Aragonese was,

Fazello did not utilize the same sort of familial language or allusions to Christ as were seen in his discussion of Frederick II. Fazello wrote, “…having taken reign of the

Kingdom, though he [Alfonso V] was young, he was seen to have a great spirit, and was full of promise and hope…he was a man very devoted to his religion…and led our people with integrity.”136 What is significant about this phrase, aside from the positive depiction of Alfonso V, is how Fazello used “our people” (nostris) instead of “his people” (populo suo) as he had used when discussing Frederick II. While Alfonso V may have been a good and benevolent monarch, he was not the “Father” of the Kingdom of Sicily. Fazello was also emphasizing that he saw Aragonese rule as foreign rule.

There was a similar tone in Fazello’s writing of Charles V, and he was particularly complimentary to Charles V, who was also the patron of Fazello’s work.

Through his writing Fazello again emphasized the benevolence of Charles, but still

Fazello did not identify familially with Charles as he had done with the Normans.

Additionally, Fazello critiqued Charles V, but he did so indirectly. Fazello wrote that with the coronation of Charles as King of Sicily, “Sicily was joined happily with the

135 Ibid., 869.

136 Ibid., 869.

family of the Austrian Dukes.”137 Oddly enough, Fazello never made any reference to

Sicily “becoming” part of the Habsburg family; rather, they “joined” the family—similar to how Fazello discussed Sicily in relation to Alfonso V of Aragon. While Fazello continued to discuss Charles V in this positive tone, he had few positive things to say about the Viceroy in his stead in Palermo named Ugone Montecatino (1512-1525), who as Fazello stated, “was Spaniard on his mother’s side and Italian on his Father’s.”138

Since Fazello specifically stated that Montecatino was “Italian” on his Father’s side, I believe it is logical to infer that the viceroy was peninsular Italian and not Sicilian, since all others from the island mentioned by Fazello thus far have been referred to as Sicilian not Italian.

The way in which Fazello criticized Montecatino indicated that Fazello disapproved of the Viceroy’s actions against Sicilians; however, Fazello’s critique also suggested his disapproval for Charles V’s policies. Fazello first stated in his description of Montecatino, “his mother was of the country of Valencia, and though he was left in charge of the people and therefore, was to enforce the law of our rulers and also the law of God, did little to ensure the religious devotion of the population to the church.”139 It is reasonable that Fazello himself, being a Dominican Friar, would be concerned with the moral character of Sicilians. However, he must have known that this would be an effective way to attack the Viceroy so that he would fall out of the good graces of Charles

V, who would have certainly wanted adherence to church doctrine in his territories.

137 Ibid., 892.

138 Ibid., 892 . 139 Ibid., 892-93.

Fazello then continued to critique Ugone, and in doing so offered some advice to the

King, writing:

…Ugone hates Sicilians, he always hated most people on the island other than perhaps those in Palermo, which he barely tolerates. He does not take our voice into account, and keeps it from your just and merciful ears. Would it not be in the best interest of Sicily to have a Sicilian Viceroy? Your Great Highness, of course, has ultimate power, but surely your policies are misinterpreted by our people through this man. Sicilians would be more obedient to a Sicilian Viceroy, and thus, to You.140

Fazello’s critique was in some ways unremarkable. He was simply giving the account of an unfair Viceroy who did not want to justly rule over the Sicilians over whom he had been given charge. However, Fazello appeared to be doing so more as a rhetorical device while he employed a rather common tactic of attacking the Viceroy instead of the monarch in order to critique policies most likely approved by the monarch. Fazello explained that Montecatino would often imprison Sicilian men whom he deemed to be

“threatening” without any substantive claim or evidence. Additionally, Montecatino often gave the King incorrect accounts of concilii activity that often led to the suppression of collective meetings.141 Fazello explained that the Viceroy did not like Sicilians and perhaps barely tolerated those in Palermo because that was where he had to live.

However, Fazello’s appeal to Charles V here was insightful; Fazello manipulated the language to be positive towards the King while critiquing the Viceroy he has left in charge. Fazello also blamed the viceroy—and by extension the King—for the insubordination of Sicilians. Furthermore, Fazello suggested that some of the policies of

Imperial Spain were not being implemented correctly when he stated, “…but surely your policies are misinterpreted by our people through this man.” This was Fazello’s veiled

140 Ibid., 893. 141 Ibid., 893. 93

way of telling the King that his rulings in Sicily were unfair, but by blaming Montecatino

Fazello could criticize Charles V.

This passage, again, was evidence of Fazello’s Sicilianità. As was demonstrated by Fazello’s work, Sicilians lost the sense of familial affinity with monarchies after the

Norman Dynasty died out. Therefore, by the reign of Charles V, and long before, Fazello wanted autonomous rule, and in some ways, Sicilians kept it.142 The “parliament’s” power under Habsburg control was greatly weakened, but the governmental body was never completely dismantled.143 Nevertheless, Sicilians could not make their own laws, they did not have the resources to toss out the Spanish, and preferred Spanish rule to that of the French. Therefore, most Sicilian intellectuals saw the Habsburg monarchy as the lesser of evils, but they were still discontented with outside rule. This was at least true of elite Sicilians who had many of their “parliamentary” and trade rights taken away. While the Vespers was a peasant rebellion, it seems as though the Sicilians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that protested against foreign rule were of high-class birth with a good access to education, though peasant rebellions still occurred.

142 Francesco Benigno, “Integration and Conflict in Spanish Sicily”, Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700, ed. Thomas James Dandelet and John Marino (Leiden: Brill Publishing, 2007), 30. According to historian Francesco Benigno stabilization of Spanish governance was dependent upon the survival of the Sicilian Parliament. Therefore, the Spanish rulers of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries cloaked their tolerance of the governing body in a rhetoric of respect for the existing constitutions of Sicily established under Roger I. However, Benigno also states that the “parliament” was a way for the Spanish to maintain a report with Sicilian nobles which would allow them more access to taxes and resources.

143 Carmelo Trasselli, Da Ferdinando il Cattolico a Carlo V: L’esperienza Siciliana, 1475-1525, (Rome: Rubettino, 1982). With the rise of Charles V, Trasselli argued, Sicily lost a great deal of its autonomy particularly through the economic exploitation from Spain over the island’s goods; however, this was not enough to cause the dissolution of the Sicilian “parliament” which continued to meet and often petition or summon Charles V to their court. While this meant little to Charles V, who regularly ignored their requests, Trasselli analyzes the actions of the Sicilian “parliament” as a means of understanding Sicilian agency in the early modern period. 94

In fact, Fazello, discussing the issue with Ugone, further told of an event in which the people of Palermo took action against the Viceroy. Fazello wrote:

…It was during Lent that the concilii convened in Palermo to discuss the matter of the unruly Viceroy. The People of Palermo wanted one among them to take charge of the governmental seat, they nominated a noble man from Palermo named Girolamo Genovesi. Ugone, somehow was informed of the clandestine meeting and rushed into the hall, quickly denouncing the men as Jews and had them arrested. He dressed them in green shirts which bore red crosses and had them put in front of the inquisition. These brave men said nothing of their service to their people.144

While Fazello indicated that perhaps the populus regnandi should not have been meeting, it did not stop members of the Palermitan nobility from meeting all the same.

Additionally, the fact that Ugone denounced the ruling class members as practitioners of

Judaism suggests that perhaps he could not simply arrest them for gathering in the

Palazzo dei Normanni.145 Evidence suggests that in fact, Sicilian nobles did meet in parliamentary building under the Habsburg monarchy, and the King would at times make use of the Sicilian “parlamentu” as a consejo.146 Fazello’s description of the ruling members as “brave” (fortem) served as evidence that he was supporting their argument.

144 Fazello, 894.

145 William Monter, Frontiers of Heresey: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 179. By Fazello’s account, it was unclear whether the accused men were actually Jewish. Fazello simply stated their accusation and what happened to them as a result of that accusation, there was nothing more mentioned about these men. Additionally, this encounter raises the complicated issue of how Jewish communities were treated by the Spanish authorities in Sicily during the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries. The Spanish inquisition was established in Sicily in 1492, however much like the Spanish monarchy, it was consistently contested in multiple rebellions across the Italian south. According to William Monter’s book Frontiers of Heresey: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily during the 1530s and 1540s, Charles V regularly allowed the Sicilian parliament to restrict the power of the inquisition on the island because he wanted the parliament to allow tax raises after his campaigns in Tunisia. So, the narrative Fazello recorded above may have indeed been an abuse of power on the part of the Viceroy. However, more research is required in order to fully delve into the complexities of these relationships.

146 Manuel Rivero Rodríguez, Felipe II y el Gobierno de Italia, (Madrid: Closas-Orcoyen, 1998), 13.

The narrative of Ugone does not end well. According to Fazello:

…By this time Plebes of Palermo were in active revolt, because of Ugone’s false accusations of those men. Such an outrageous indignity to innocent men struck fire in the hearts of Palermitan plebeians, and they rioted in the streets. Ugone, for fear of his life, fled Palermo and then fled Sicily from Messina, never again to return. It must be understood that the people of Palermo did not revolt because of their magnificent King, but rather because of the injustices done to them by this man who was appointed to rule a people he did not care for.147

For the first time in the recounting of this narrative Fazello made a class distinction between those who held the apparently illegal meeting of “parliament” and those who revolted against Ugone. Perhaps Fazello did so to mend the reputation of the Palermitan nobility in the eyes of the Spanish Emperor. More importantly, however, Fazello was in his view making a justifiable excuse for the revolt against the Viceroy. Fazello emphasized that the people were not rioting against their “magnificent King”— this was to appease the anger of Charles V and to ensure he would not retaliate against the

Sicilians for such an act or against Fazello for writing in this way—but he excused the behavior of Sicilians because they were, as Fazello described, rightly angry at the injustice carried out by Ugone. There is no evidence to suggest that Charles V did retaliate against Sicilians or against Fazello for his recounting of this event or the actions of the Sicilians. Fazello’s narrative also demonstrated that Sicilians did have some ability to negotiate who would become their local rulers. After all, they did successfully thwart the rule of Ugone. Unfortunately, the limit of that power was demonstrated by the fact that a Sicilian was never Viceroy of Sicily under Habsburg rule, and ultimately Ugone was replaced with another Spanish viceroy named Didaco Aquila. Fazello’s justification of the revolt against Ugone was evidence of his Sicilianità as it indicated that he too

147 Fazello, 895. 96

believed Sicilians should have autonomous rule. Nevertheless, he was careful in expressing the love of Sicilians for Charles V and Philip II since the Habsburgs were in control of Sicily.

Conclusion

Fazello ended this volume with the end of the reign of Charles V and the succession of his son Philip II. He wrote:

…in the year of our salvation 1556, in the month of January, He [Charles V] renounced his dominion over Sicily and the rest of the Imperial territories. He left everything to his son Philip, who was, at that time, thirty years of age, he was a man of peace but illustrious in battle. Charles, however, returned to Spain and retired to a monastery in the presence of monks, and that is where he consecrated himself for the rest of his life.148

Fazello’s finale here was rather anticlimactic. In comparison to some of his other descriptions of Charles this ending feels rather abrupt. Afterall, the end of Charles’ reign, as described by Fazello, was a far cry from the “comet in the sky” present when

Frederick II passed. Of course Charles did not die, but he resigned his post which may have given Fazello less impetus to write a grandiose ending to Charles V’s monarchy.

Fazello, of course celebrated the coming King Philip, and was speaking positively of

Charles V, as he did throughout his History.

However, the connection to Charles V and the Habsburg family was very different from what Fazello described when discussing the Norman monarchs of the

Middle Ages. The way History was written in Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth

148 Ibid., 919. 97

centuries is not represented in the current historiographical record. This is because there has been little to no research on this particular subject in Anglophone historiography for at least the last thirty years. The form of Fazello’s writing was not necessarily “new” when looking at the context of Renaissance History. Like many northern humanists,

Fazello tied references and forms to Greek, primarily, and some Roman styles. Though most of his models come from Diodorus Siculus—a Sicilian historian during the Roman

Empire—and utilizing his models could speak to Fazello’s Sicilianità, since he took his primary cues from another Sicilian.

What was truly unique about Fazello’s work and what demonstrates a dramatic difference between his history and the history of other Renaissance scholars was the content. To begin, Fazello’s often ambivalent and in some cases positive attitude towards

Muslims and Jewish communities in Sicily was rather striking. Considering that he was writing a history commissioned by Charles V, Fazello’s tolerant attitude toward these non-Christian groups indicated the acceptance of multicultural traditions which formed

Sicilianità and Sicilian identity. Sicilian intellectuals in the fifteenth- and sixteenth- centuries tied their identities to Arab, Greek, and Norman traditions primarily, two of these groups were not Christian. Therefore, it is logical that Fazello was less inclined to demonize non-Christian groups, with which he felt an affinity regardless of where his patronage was coming from. As a result, we see a far more open attitude in the writings of Sicilian intellectuals towards Muslim and Jewish people on the island than we would see in the writings of intellectuals from Spain or northern Italy. Additionally, we see such open attitudes towards non-Christian members of Sicilian society that many of them

openly participated in the “parliament,” they held presence at court, and were able to use legal avenues to openly discuss their grievances.

The subject matter of Fazello’s History also negates many previously accepted beliefs about Sicilian intellectual activity during the Renaissance. For example, Fazello’s discussions of the “parliament,” the perception of Frederick II, women in the rebellion of the Vespers, and Sicilian interactions with the French and Spanish all spoke to the true nature of Sicilians’ ability to negotiate their power. Sicilians were not simply a poor victimized people in terrible economic circumstances; rather, Fazello’s accounts demonstrated how Sicilians had the ability to remove viceroys and monarchies with which they were displeased. The fact that Fazello’s volumes exist, were reprinted multiple times, and were later utilized by scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was demonstrative of the continued intellectual endeavors in Sicily during the

Renaissance.

Finally, and most importantly, it is clear that Fazello’s History was building a foundation for Sicilianità. This was evident particularly through his discussion on the

Vespers, and in the rhetoric he utilized when discussing the Norman monarchies in contrast to the Habsburgs. In his discussions of Frederick in particular, Fazello utilized familial terminology and Christ imagery in order to mythologize him as the “Father”

(pater) of the Sicilian nation (nationi). The same cannot be said for how Fazello discussed later monarchs such as Alfonso V, whom he described as a good King, but the familial affinity did not exist between him and the Sicilians as it did during the Norman monarchies. Fazello’s use of pronouns such as “ours,” “we,” “us,” etc. also indicated his

Sicilianità. This is strongly emphasized in the narrative of Viceroy Montecatino’s transgressions against Sicilians as Fazello wrote “our” voice was not taken into account

It is evident that Sicilian intellectuals such as Fazello believed the Norman monarchies were the culmination of Arab, Greek, and Christian culture. This may be, perhaps, because of Norman adaptability to other cultures—for example the Normans accepted the Arab system of taxation that had existed in Sicily when they took over—but,

I argue, this allowed Sicilians to see the Normans as facilitators of culture rather than oppressors. Through the generations of Norman monarchs Sicilians continued to practice their religious and cultural beliefs securely whether they were Christian or not. This was not so with the Anjou monarchy that came to power after the Normans dynasty ended.

Thus, familial affinity between the monarch and Sicilian people was broken. This manifested into crystalizing identities of “us” vs. “them” in the minds of the Sicilian populace. What we see then in Sicilian Renaissance intellectuals was the fruition of

Sicilianità, whose seed was planted during the Middle Ages.

Fazello’s History also provided a blueprint of the Sicilian state, starting with the concilii. While more research is required on the Sicilian concilii, Fazello’s accounts indicate that it was a political body in which religious men and nobles came together to advise the king and discuss their grievances. More research is required to understand just how much negotiating power the “parliament” had with the king. For some reason, documents discussing the “parlamentu” both in Italy and outside Italy are very difficult to find. However, regarding our knowledge of the “parliament,” it is still in existence, and meets in the same Palazzo dei Normanni, as it did when it first convened in the Middle

100

Ages. Sicily, in fact, is the only region in Italy that still has a separate house of governance.

Lastly, the way Fazello defined Sicilianità was as one identity with three different ancestries. Fazello’s Sicilianità, because it was rooted in both Western and non-Western cultures, cannot be understood using solely European models of identity formation. There existed a progression in how Sicilianità was conceptualized through time by different

Sicilian intellectuals. For example, Fazello’s Sicilianità was conceptualized more as an ideology, and a cultural system to which Sicilians adhered. Later, with humanists such as

Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano, Sicilianità became the embodiment of this identity. Nevertheless, even though he was writing for the Spanish monarchy Fazello did not obscure his Sicilianità, and this was one characteristic that all of the subsequent humanists discussed, such as Tommaso Schifaldo and Lucio Marineo Siculo, will demonstrate.

101

CHAPTER IV

TOMMASO SCHIFALOD AND LUCIO MARINEO SICULO: SICILIAN HUMANISM

Introduction: Sicilian Academies and Sicilian Humanism

To properly reinsert Sicily into the historical narrative of the Renaissance we must understand what the intellectual environment looked like in fifteenth- and sixteenth- century Sicily. In this chapter I will provide the landscape of intellectual institutions in which Sicilian humanists were trained. I will also trace elements of Sicilianità through the works of two humanists who were both professors: Tommaso Schifaldo (1430-1500?) and Lucio Marineo Siculo (1444-1533). Many of the themes evident in the works of

Tommaso Fazello are present in the works of Schifaldo and Siculo. For example, both

Siculo and Schifaldo used primarily Greek forms throughout their works, and often tied their works to the Greek and multicultural ancestry shared by Sicilians. Siculo and

Schifaldo also shared an open attitude toward non-Christian groups on the island with

Fazello. However, it is clear in the works of Siculo and Schifaldo that Sicilianità was more of a cultural conceptualization, rather than the embodiment of an identity as was the case later with Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano who will be discussed in the subsequent chapter.

102

From the works of those such as Fazello, through to the works of Veneziano, the concept of Sicilianità evolved from a set of cultural signifiers of identity to the embodiment of an identity. Siculo and Schifaldo expressed their Sicilianità through a

shared body of intellectual works, but for D’Arezzo and Veneziano Sicilianità was expressed corporeally. Sicilianità was something that ran in the blood and was manifested in the language they spoke and was displayed in their physical attributes. In this chapter I will demonstrate the continuities of Sicilianità expressed by Siculo and

Schifaldo, and I will show how the educational environment in Sicily facilitated its continued formation. I will prove that these intellectual traditions persisted in Sicily through the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and this also demonstrates that Sicilianità was conceptualized by many elite Sicilians on the island. One example of an intellectual created within the environment of Sicily’s academic system was Tommaso Schifaldo.

Tommaso Schifaldo was a Dominican theologian and a professor of rhetoric and literature. His work pointed to the existence of a Sicilian literary tradition and canon from which other Sicilian scholars drew. Additionally, the linguistic choices he made—writing his work in a Latin and Sicilian blend—provided evidence for how he felt about the pedagogical place of Sicilian culture and language. Lucio Marineo Siculo was an academic, and a rather prolific professor of Humane Letters. Siculo is, among contemporary historians, the most famous of the humanists included in this dissertation because of the time he spent in Spain working as a professor at the University of

Salamanca. Siculo’s work demonstrated, similar to Fazello, how while he was in the commission of the Spanish monarchy he still maintained his Sicilianità.

103

Humanism, as it developed in Sicily, was based primarily on Greek pedagogical roots. In Sicily literature and political policy were often written in three languages:

Greek, Latin, and Arabic. According to literary scholar Karla Mallette, through the

Middle Ages, certain types of written works were in Sicily written in one specific language. For example, history and academic books were often written in Greek, the court would generally use Latin, and poetry would often be written in Arabic. More humanist scholarship changed this by the time Schifaldo and Siculo were writing in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; most everything was written in Latin or the vernacular

Sicilian dialect. Nevertheless, tri-lingual works continued to be written and distributed in

Sicily through the mid-fifteenth century, but the forms of these works often looked rather different from the works produced in northern Italy. Primarily due to the influence of

Arabic, Sicilian poetry looked quite different. This is a hallmark of Sicilian humanism: the effect on literature and rhetoric of a trilingual society.149 Since literary forms changed based upon the language in which they were written, in this chapter we will see that

Schifaldo and Siculo centered the foundation of Sicilian humanism on Greek origins. The reason Siculo and Schifaldo focused on Greek was because Greek was the language of pedagogy, and Schifaldo and Siculo were both professors. In the next chapter, with humanists Claudio Mario D’Arezzo, and Antonio Veneziano—a grammarian and a poet—there will be more references made to Arabic origins since poetic form was influenced by the once Arab rulers of Sicily.

The primary academies for learning Latin and Greek in Sicily during the

Renaissance, were the gymnasium Graecum established in Messina in 1421 and the

149 Karla Mallette, The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250: A Literary History, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005). 104

magister scholae parvulorum established in Palermo in 1458.150 Some of the most influential instructors of the Sicilian Renaissance were Costantino Lascaris (1434-1501), with whom Tommaso Schifaldo studied, and Giovanni Naso da Corleone.151 King

Alfonso I contributed to the development of the Sicilian academy when he established the first university in Sicily--the University of Catania where both Schifaldo and Siculo were trained. During the life times of Siculo and Schifaldo the most important centers for learning in Sicily were the three largest and most economically prosperous cities of the island: Catania, Palermo, and Messina. When Alfonso I (the Magnanimous) became King of Aragon, Castile, Sardinia, and Sicily in 1416 he moved the title of the capital of Sicily from Catania to Palermo. As a means of compensating the city of Catania for this lost title of Capital City—and after he sought further territorial ambitions resulting in the acquisition of Naples in 1443—Alfonso and Pope Eugenius IV issued a bull authorizing the establishment of the University of Catania, which officially opened its doors in

October of 1445.152 Until the opening of the University of Catania the vast majority of learning in Sicily was done through small academies, such as the aforementioned gymnasium Graecum and the magister scholae parvulorum.

The city of Palermo, unlike the cities of Catania and Messina, did not have its own university until the early 1800s. However, during the Renaissance Palermo was still highly influential in terms of education. The papal bull issued to the city of Catania

150 Caro Lynn, A College Professor of the Renaissance: Lucio Marineo Siculo Among the Spanish Humanists, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937), 45.

151 Ibid., 1-45 . 152 Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 106. 105

stipulated that as part of their studium generale they would have to have classes dedicated to the studies of Greek and Latin; however—for unknown reasons—these classes and faculties do not appear in any of the documents referring to the faculties of study in the

University of Catania.153 In Palermo, with the establishment of the magister scholae parvulorum in 1458, which was a citywide establishment of public grammar schools for boys, the city officials assured that four times the regular stipend of a professor of arithmetic would be paid to a professor of humane letters, and this professor’s rank and title would be magister scholarum.154

Greek intellectual tradition studied within a Roman forum was without a doubt a hallmark of Sicilian humanism and of the Renaissance. As David Abulafia notes, Sicilian humanists, particularly instructors of Greek, were important both on the island and abroad. There was no shortage of examples, “Giovanni Aurispa di Noto (d. 1459) was a pioneer who taught Greek in Bologna, Florence, and Ferrara.”155 It is also important to note that Hellenistic tradition—while certainly present and heavily influential throughout

Sicily—was particularly strong on the eastern side of the island with the academic center being the city of Messina. The city of Messina, in the far eastern corner of Sicily, was not fully under Roman control until the second Punic War; therefore, the city maintained a direct connection with the Byzantine world well into the late Middle Ages. As historians

Jonathan Prag and Josephine Quinn argue in their book, The Hellenistic West, “The difference in fortune between war-ravaged central and western Sicily, after the first Punic

153 Caro Lynn, 45.

154 Ibid., 45.

155 David Abulafia, “The Diffusion of the Italian Renaissance: Southern Italy and Beyond.” Renaissance Historiography, Jonathan Woolfson ed. (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 46. 106

War, incorporated under Rome’s sway after 241 BC, and the stability and prosperity of the flourishing eastern part of the island, which formed Hieron’s independent kingdom was stark.”156 Prag and Quinn even go further, arguing that Roman cultural tradition was quite minimal in influencing the existing Sicilian culture.157 While these events certainly unfolded long before the birth of Schifaldo they provide context for the development and maintenance of Hellenistic tradition in Sicily, and more importantly demonstrate why

Messina was such an important center of the learning of Greek and the Hellenistic tradition.

The vast study of Greek and Latin particularly in Palermo is perhaps partially due to heavy influence of Dominican monks who were easily found roaming the city,

Schifaldo himself was trained as a Dominican theologian, as was Fazello. However, the tradition of Greek methodologies runs deep in the history of Sicily from before the days of the Roman Empire when Sicily was Greek speaking and part of the Hellenistic world.

Giovanni Naso became particularly well known as an instructor of Greek—even teaching northern humanists such as Pietro Bembo— and was made the Magister Scholarum of

Palermo in 1477.158 When Siculo learned of Naso’s accomplishments as an instructor of

Greek he traveled from Catania to Palermo to work with the great master of the Greek language.

The University of Messina was established nearly 150 years after the University of Catania. To be exact, the University of Messina opened its doors in December of 1596;

156 Jonathan R. W. Prag and Josephine Crawely Quinn, The Hellenistic West, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 79 . 157 Ibid., 79.

158 Ibid., 46. 107

however, similar to Palermo, before the University of Messina opened its doors, the city was a thriving environment of intellectuals and humanists dedicated to the study and pursuit of Greek and Latin, as well as the study of humane letters. The Society of Jesus, an order of Jesuits—again as was the model of the Dominicans in Palermo—provided the first communal intellectual system in Messina.159 Through the fifteenth century Messina became a well-known center for the study of Greek specifically.

The reputation for the study of Greek in Messina became so well known throughout the Italian peninsula that Aldus Manutius, the Venetian founder of the Aldine

Press, acknowledged that Messina was “the second Athens for those who study

Greek.”160 Aldus Manutius was arguably the most prolific publisher of the Renaissance; his acknowledgement of Messina as the “second Athens” is important because it lends credence to the argument that humanist studies were flourishing on the Mediterranean island. It is also worth noting that the first book printed by the Aldine press was the

Grammatica Greca by Costantino Lascaris in 1495.161

The development of humanist thought and methodologies in Sicily were a manifestation of this educational environment. It is evident, however, that for Sicilian humanists Greek models of learning and rhetoric were far more important than Roman models. While certainly Latin as a language played an important role, particularly since it was the language of the church, and Roman models were also held in high esteem, they were always secondary to Greek. This is different from northern Italian humanism, where

159 Paul F. Grendler, 121-22.

160 Ibid., 124. (my translation).

161 Ibid., 125. (my translation). 108

Roman models seemed to be of greater importance and Cicero was the standard of any rhetorical or oratory work. Sicilian humanism also differed from Spanish humanism, which was heavily influenced by Catholicism. Humanism in Spain developed in a blended tradition of intellectualism and religious theological practices, and this has often been misunderstood as evidence of Spain’s supposedly fanatical adherence to orthodoxy.162 In contrast, Sicilian humanism, because it was so centered on Greek tradition which was a pagan tradition, would often embrace methodologies incorporated by other non-Christian groups that occupied the island as I previously discussed in the work of Fazello. For example, Sicilian humanist Pietro Ranzano (1428-1492) openly conversed with Jewish communities living on the island and wrote treatises on Hebrew and Jewish spiritual practices in order to demonstrate Jewish influence on Sicilian culture and language.163 Lucio Marineo Siculo also discussed Jewish settlement in Sicily in his history, which will be analyzed later in this chapter. Claudio Mario D’Arezzo, and

Antonio Veneziano—who will both be discussed in later chapters—discussed Sicilian-

Arab words and the influence of “Saracen” and “Arab” culture in Sicily. Therefore, in comparison to Spanish and Northern Italian humanism, Sicilian humanism was more inclusive of varied cultural histories and traditions and placed less emphasis on

162 Carlos G. Noreña, Studies in Spanish Renaissance Thought (The Hague: 1975); J.A. Fernàndez- Santamaria. The State, War and Peace: Spanish Political Thought in the Renaissance, 1516-1559. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Ottavio Di Camillo, “Interpretations of the Renaissance in Spanish Historical Thought,” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 48, 1995.

163 In the article “Christians, Jews, and Hebrew Books in Fifteenth-Century Sicily: Between Dialogue and Dispute” historian Nadia Zeldes, discusses the “civil” and sometimes “friendly” conversations held between Domincan Firar Pietro Ranzano and his friend Isaac Guglielmo. Zeldes argued that such encounters between Christians and Jewish leaders in fifteenth century Palermo were not uncommon, and often resulted in both Christian and Jewish people in Sicily coming to similar conclusions about a shared Chaldean past on the island. However, she argued further that while these encounters were rather friendly, they always provided Christian leaders with a justification of their Christianity. 109

Christianity and Roman culture but instead focused on Greek, Arabic, and Norman roots.

This multicultural identity is the foundation of the Sicilianità expressed by Siculo and

Schifaldo as it was in the work of Tommaso Fazello.

Tommaso Schifaldo and the Sicilian Schools

Tommaso Schifaldo was particularly influenced by the intellectual environment in

Messina; though Lucio Marineo Siculo was also highly influenced by the teachings of

Costantino Lascaris, geographically Siculo stayed more within the bounds of Palermo and more so in Catania until he left in 1484 to accept a professorship at the University of

Salamanca in Spain.164 There is much less known about the life of Tommaso Schifaldo, and there is no evidence to suggest that Siculo and Schifaldo knew each other in any way.

Schifaldo was born in the city of Marsala located in the province of Trapani, on the western corner of Sicily in 1430. No one is certain when he died, but the last recorded documents of his life are from 1500.165 Based on the subject of his writings, which often were concerned with pedagogy and canon law, it appears that Schifaldo was a professor and theologian, who, like Fazello, was trained as a Dominican monk. Schifaldo’s writings are important primarily because of the language in which his work was written. While his lessons were written in Latin, they were not classical Latin, and instead they appear to be a mix of Latin and a form of Sicilian dialect.166 This is evidence of the humanist

164 Caro Lynn, 58-60.

165 Alessandra Tramontana, In Sicilia a Scuola con Persio: Le Lezioni Dell’Umanista Tommaso Schifaldo, (Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2000), 8-9.

166Ibid., 9. 110

movement and its inclination to give importance to vernacular language, but also serves as a way for Schifaldo to elevate Sicilian dialect to a language acceptable by the academic elite.

The themes of pedagogy and professorship were also emphasized within the writings of Tommaso Schifaldo. The work of Schifaldo’s that will be the focus for this chapter is titled Commentarioli in Persium, in which Schifaldo gave instruction on the proper ways of reading and teaching the Satires of the Roman poet Persius. Persius (34

A.D.-62 A.D.) was a famous Roman satirist whose works were influenced by his stoic philosophy. Persius’s works today are often noted for their highly moral tone, and the work itself was comprised of themes contemplating the public morality of men. There is only one known copy of Schifaldo’s work and it is housed in the Regional Archives of the city of Messina. While this is the only known work that exists written by Tommaso

Schifaldo, there is also a poem that is suspected to be written by him but there are only partial pieces of the manuscript. Contemporarily there is no evidence to prove that

Schifaldo is in fact the author. Commentarioli in Persium was divided in to two chapters, which indicated that they were Schifaldo’s teaching notes and lessons but they appear to be structured into small vignettes, and the third section was a type of glossary or dictionary which broke down the etymologies of terms and was combined with a history of the literature.167 I will be focusing primarily on the third section, since that is where

Schifaldo most explicitly demonstrates his Sicilianità. While the first two chapters are interesting, if not solely for the language in which they are written, they primarily

167 Alessandra Tramontana, “Commentarioli in Persium” In Sicilia a Scuola con Persio: Le Lezioni Dell’Umanista Tommaso Schifaldo, (Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2000). Published in Tramontana. (My translation). 111

concentrated on proper teaching methodologies such as “Teaching the Art of Prose” and

“the Roman satire.” Schifaldo’s use of the Latinized Sicilian dialect remained consistent throughout the entire work.

In the notes Schifaldo made in Commentarioli in Persium, there were several times when he referenced a “codex” by a scholar named Giacomo Adragna (1440?-

1500?) in order to interpret the Latin roots of The Satires in to his Sicilian blended Latin.

Adragna often appeared in Schifaldo’s notes followed by the title “il Palermitano” next to his name, indicating he was from Palermo.168 The fact that Schifaldo used Adrangna’s methodology suggests that not only was his work a product of Sicilian training and tradition, but also indicated prior attempts at Latin-blended writings. While,

Commentarioli in Persium gives no indication of whether Schifaldo and Adragna had any personal contact, at the very least, Schifaldo appeared to be familiar with Adragna’s work. This evidence demonstrates that Adragna’s work informed the blended language used by Schifaldo, which suggests that other Sicilian scholars were attempting to experiment with dialect and Latin in their own works. Therefore, I conclude that this indicates the existence of a community of Sicilian scholars that were dabbling in the same sort of linguistic experimentation during and long before Schifaldo’s time.169

Schifaldo’s linguistic analysis was as intriguing as his writing style. Schifaldo was reading The Satires, and he noted that it was a Roman satire in Greek literary form. Thus,

168 Ibid., 21 (my translation).

169 One further indication that Sicilian scholars were playing with dialect, was a document I found by a monk named Girolamo da Raccuia. He translated an epic poem from Greek to Sicilian in 1111, and dedicated to the Norman Queen Adalasia. The poem was an epic on the creation of Sicily. Which also lends credence to my argument that the foundations of a Sicilian identity had been conceptualized and reconceptualized for many years. 112

Schifaldo expounded upon whether the origin of the satire was Roman or Greek.170 For

Schifaldo, it was perfectly “natural” and “fundamental” to take selections of Greek models and place them into Latin literary forms.171 According to literary historian

Alessandra Tramontana, “Sicilian humanists did not view themselves as culturally detached from their Greek ancestry; therefore, it makes perfect sense that a Sicilian humanist like Schifaldo would find Greek literary tropes in Latin literary forms such a naturally occurring phenomenon.”172 The interlacing of Greek and Roman tradition was very common in all humanist methodology and thought, Sicilian or otherwise. This

Greco-Roman framework permeated all of Schifaldo’s work.

This Greco-Roman methodology was also deeply interwoven in Schifaldo’s notes on pedagogy and professorial methodology found in Commentarioli in Persium. As I demonstrated in the chapter on Fazello, the Greco-Roman humanist framework was not unique to Sicily, but what was unique about Schifaldo’s work was that he continually tied his methodologies to other Sicilian scholars or at the very least a primarily Greek ancestral tradition. This was important because by doing so Schifaldo’s work demonstrated the continuity of a Sicilian intellectual tradition that was made by Sicilian scholars and influenced by their Greek ancestors with much less emphasis placed on

Rome or Latin. This was often to the contrary of what many northern Italian humanists were doing—tying their cultural superiority to a Roman ancestry. As historian Paul

Kristeller shows in his book. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources, for many northern

170 Ibid., 27 (my translation).

171 Ibid., 28 (my translation).

172 Tramontana., 32 (my translation). 113

humanists the quintessential model of rhetorical form was the Roman orator and writer

Cicero, in whom northern humanists saw embodied the perfect balance of rhetoric and philosophy.173 This was not the case with Sicilian humanists, who rarely mentioned

Cicero and whose references to Roman writers were scant.

Similar to the work of Fazello, Schifaldo also discussed his belief that literature and history should be written in a way which glorified antiquity and ancient tradition, but that should simultaneously be moralistic and didactic. For Schifaldo the purpose of understanding these ancient texts should have been to impart ethical lessons. Teaching

The Satires in a way that was didactic and provided answers to moral dilemmas suggested by the structure of Commentarioli in Persium. The vignettes in which

Schifaldo’s lessons were organized consisted of a story placed in opposition to the consecutive story—both of the stories formed one unit that provided two opposing sides of a moral dilemma. This form was typical of a Sicilian Hellenistic tradition, which one can see repeated by Siculo, and which was also employed by Jacopo da Lentino (1210-

1260) 174 in the writing of the first sonnet nearly three hundred years prior to Schifaldo and Siculo. The fact that this form permeated the works of Sicilian humanists, whether

173 Paul O. Kristeller, Renaissance Thoughts and Its Sources, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 17-22. In this book Kristeller also explained how it was the addition of Greek works which caused the shift to humanist methodologies and changed scholarship in the Renaissance, making scholarly works from the Renaissance different than those in the Middle Ages. In light of Kristellers work I would argue that this was not the case in Sicily. Sicily was different because there was no need to “rediscover” Greek works, many Greek works had been written there, and many of the intellectuals on the island spoke Greek well into the fifteenth-century. I would suggest, and it is visible the writings of all of the humanists discussed in this dissertation, that in Sicily the tradition with Greek works and rhetoric was never broken.

174 Jacopo da Lentini was a poet of the Sicilian school in the thirteenth century. He served at the court of Frederick II as a notary and a poet. While many scholars credited Petrarch for the sonnet form, Lentini wrote the first sonnet; however, as suggested above Lentini’s sonnets were strikingly different. Rather than being about unrequited love, Lentini’s sonnets usually presented two sides of a moral dilemma and offered a solution at the end of the poem. 114

they were scholars of literature, history, or philosophy, is evidence of a persisting

Hellenistic methodology and pedagogical form carried through Sicilian intellectualism.

Indeed, for Schifaldo, scholars and professors, in order to be successful, had to morally and ethically challenge their students as a means of strengthening logic and reason. For example, in his lessons on teaching The Satires, Schifaldo referred to

Aristotle’s On the Soul in order to explain how pupils must understand knowledge and the purpose of knowledge. Schifaldo specifically referenced the section where Aristotle explained how the understanding of the Soul helps find truth, and how the Soul is the beginning of life. Schifaldo explained that, “as many philosophers such as Aristotle have pointed to the soul as the center of life, so has man been placed at the center of knowledge.”175 This argument posed by Schifaldo is exemplary in showing the blend of northern and southern Italian humanist ideals. This was not only indicative of a southern

Hellenistic tradition and called upon ancient Greek works in order to provide a pedagogical map for learning, but centered man as the object of study rather than God which was a core concept in Renaissance humanist philosophy.

Tommaso Schifaldo was an example of a Sicilian humanist who provided evidence of the active intellectual, humanist community of educators that existed in

Sicily through the 1400s and 1500s that were raised in the Greek tradition of northwestern Sicily. Next, I will show how Siculo served as an example of the exportation of Sicilian training and humanism. It is imperative to recognize that the

Hellenistic tradition was maintained in Sicily and blended with different Greek, Hebrew,

Arabic, and a variety of other cultural influences, which resulted in a hybrid and uniquely

175 Ibid., 92. 115

Sicilian intellectual tradition and led to the formation of Sicilian identity. As scholars argue in the book Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, “If Sicily was such a favorable place, it was not only because the chancery was trilingual, but because intercourse with the Byzantines was uninterrupted. In such places, a man brought up in the Latin West could learn Greek; only rarely was it possible to study Greek with a master in France or England.”176 It is evident through Schifaldo’s writing that Latin and

Greek elements were incorporated in the Sicilian intellectual system, and these methods of teaching were maintained through the invasion and the assimilation of Sicily in to the

Roman Empire, and then persisted through the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, with new intellectual interest in the ancients expanding, Sicily contributed through the continued study and teaching of Hellenistic tradition.

Schifaldo’s writing in Commentarioli in Persium demonstrated a clear sense of

Sicilianità, an identity that was neither Italian, Iberian, Roman, nor purely Greek. While a heavy emphasis on Hellenistic principles and traditions differentiated Sicilian humanism and intellectualism from northern Italian humanism, Sicilian thought was the product of cultural blending; therefore, it could not be fully Greek in nature. Though ancient Greeks were very much revered in Sicilian pedagogy, Arabic, and Norman influences were also a significant presence in the process of conceptualizing Sicilianità.

Certainly, the elevation of Sicilian dialect and the blending of Sicilian dialect with

Latin was a clear indication that Schifaldo believed in the strength and integrity of

Sicilian culture by elevating the status of the dialect to a language of the learned.

However, Schifaldo’s writings in Commentarioli in Persium provided more substantive

176 Robert Louis Benson, Giles Constable, et. al., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 427. 116

evidence to show that there was indeed a distinct Sicilianità. This Sicilianità became particularly evident in the third section of Commentarioli in Persium. As was previously stated, the third section of Commentarioli in Persium was a blended glossary of the etymology of some words, specifically Sicilian words with Greek roots, together with a literary history of Perseus. Schifaldo in the glossary section traced many of the words back to Greek origins, and in some cases, corrected word origins that were originally attributed to the Romans; Schifaldo argued that instead the word origins were Greek.

Schifaldo analyzed many words but perhaps the best example of his tracing this lineage can be seen with the word beatulus, which Schifaldo explained means “blessed.”

According to Schifaldo, “beatulus is not to be mistaken with beatus which is a word of

Latin origin. Rather, beatulus is of Greek origin and to use it as it was used by the

Romans is to misunderstand its true meaning.”177 Schifaldo went further as he claimed,

“Romans often oversimplified the Greeks.”178 This statement suggests that Schifaldo argued that that Greek influence was sometimes greater than Roman influence in literature.

There are two passages in this third section of Commentarioli in Persium where

Schifaldo firmly stipulated that Sicily’s cultural origins came indeed from the Hellenistic world. The first passage that demonstrated this was Schifaldo’s passage number 56 entitled “What type are we.” This title suggested a change in topic, there was no reference to The Satires or anything Schifaldo had previously discussed; however,

177 “Commentarioli in Persium”, Published in Tramontana, 174.

178 Ibid., 174.

117

linguistically Schifaldo was suggesting that he was not discussing literature alone.179 By titling this passage “What type are we” Schifaldo indicated a living subject, perhaps a group of people, rather than the opposite of an inanimate object or entity such as a literary genre, which would be implied by a title such as “What is it.” Additionally, in his use of the pronoun we Schifaldo made himself part of the group in question.

Schifaldo continued by stating, “Many great Greeks came in to Italy through

Magna Graecia and became our authors; they were immortal writers who combined their talent with our virtue. This is our mixed literary heritage…”180. Magna Graecia was the part of Southern coastal Italian lands which was mainly occupied by Greeks, before infiltration from the Romans; it included most of the coastal lands of Sicily except for the western corner, and most of the southern Italian coastal lands around the Tarentine Gulf.

Schifaldo’s emphasis on a mixed literary heritage in Sicily implied a uniquely Sicilian, or at the very least, southern Italian, school of literature, which indicated a cultural distinction from the north of the Italian peninsula and from Greece itself.

In the next sentence in this passage Schifaldo’s language became a bit cryptic.

Schifaldo wrote, “The right side interprets and suggests, but on the left side reside its true descendants, our virtue and our intelligence were the tools which rendered these writings great.”181 While it cannot be argued with complete certainty what “two sides” Schifaldo was referencing, given the context of the previous statement, it seems evident that

Schifaldo was talking about the two coastlines of Greece and Magna Graecia. Particularly

179 Ibid., 166.

180 Ibid., 166.

181 Ibid., 166. 118

the “left” coastline directly across would point to Sicily. This became even more evident in Schifaldo’s use of “our;” it is “our tools” and “our intelligence” that bring forth the greatness of these writings. Thus, it was Sicilian intellectual culture that breathed life into these ancient texts. Schifaldo closed this passage by stating, “…it is by our virtue that we become great learners and decipherers of these works.”182 According to this passage, for

Schifaldo, the greatness of Sicilian culture was rendered through a Greek intellectual heritage, but was magnified and reflected through the natural talents of the intellectuals inhabiting Sicily.

In passage 39, out of 70 total, located in the third section of Commentarioli in

Persium, Schifaldo’s construction of Sicilian culture and identity became evident. The subject of this particular passage was the naming of the island of Sicily itself along with its inhabitants. In this passage Schifaldo was very direct as he wrote, “Sicilians first said we are the Kingdom of Sicily, Italy is our brother, but we are true Sicilians our people are called Sicilians and this is our first title, our second line of heritage is Greek mixed with our bucolic ancestors.”183 Schifaldo was making a clear statement proving that there were

Sicilians during the Renaissance that recognized themselves as Sicilians, separate from

Italians, and with Greek heritage but a multicultural blend which included Greek.

Schifaldo continued to distinguish Sicilian identity from others in this passage by stating, “Some believe we are Partenope, but we are called the Kingdom of Sicily; therefore our descendants must be called Sicilian, perhaps Trinacarian could also be

182 Ibid., 166 (my translation).

183 Ibid., 160 (my translation).

119

observed as a proper name.”184 Schifaldo was also distinguishing Sicilian identity here from Neapolitan identity—by mentioning Partenope an ancient Greek name for the city—which was significant during the Renaissance because of the unity of Naples and

Sicily under the crown of Aragon. While the two kingdoms may be politically connected, they were culturally distinct. In addition, Schifaldo again tied Sicily to its Greek heritage in suggesting that “Trinacrian” was an acceptable term for inhabitants of the

Mediterranean island. This derived from the title “Kingdom of Trinacria,” which was the

Greek name for Sicily before it fell under the power of the Roman Empire, and then the

Romans simply Latinized the name to Trinacrium. What is also clear in this passage is that Schifaldo consistently tied to Sicilian identity to a Greek or multicultural tradition rather than a Roman tradition. Much as Fazello did in the previous chapter—and as we will see with D’Arezzo and Veneziano in the subsequent chapter—Schifaldo emphasized ancestral traditions of Sicilian intellectual thought that were not so closely linked with the

Christian world.

However, similar to the other Sicilian humanists, Schifaldo still emphasized the importance of Latin, but always placed it in conjunction with other roots. In one section,

Schifaldo contextualized Sicilian intellectualism within the Roman canon. He wrote,

“Our great authors have realized this dream and she [Sicily] has inspired men of celebrity, how can the testimony of Livy, Diodorus Siculus, and Pliny be denied, here many intellectuals and literary scholars have studied so we must no longer walk in ignorance.”185 For Schifaldo, there was clear proof that the ancients recognized Sicily as

184 Ibid., 160 (my translation).

185Ibid., 160 (my translation). 120

a center of culture and learning; therefore, Sicily must be distinguished as distinct from any other cultural or geographical entity. Mentioning Pliny and Livy tied Sicily to the greatness of Rome, but including Diodorus Siculus with Pliny and Livy was evidence of

Schifaldo elevating Sicilian intellectuals to the same standard as Roman intellectuals.

Diodorus Siculus—who also made an appearance in Lucio Marineo Siculo’s work—was a Sicilian historian and chronologist for the Roman Empire. Schifaldo’s argument in this section is clear: If the ancients, both Greek and Roman, recognized Sicily how can we not? This is further evidence that, at least among intellectuals, during the Renaissance there was a construction of Sicilianità.

Schifaldo and scholars like him were instrumental in preparing the way for the establishment of the intellectual tradition inherited by the humanists such as Siculo.

Schifaldo was Sicilian, and did not hide it or see himself as anything but Sicilian.

Schifaldo’s own words prove the existence of a Sicilian cultural identity that was influenced by Greek thought but still distinct from Greek culture, and was not Roman,

Italian, or Spanish. This is incredibly important since Schifaldo himself was acknowledging the existence of a uniquely Sicilian population. These elements of

Sicilianità will be echoed subsequently in the work of Lucio Marineo Siculo.

Lucio Marineo Siculo: A Sicilian Humanist in Spain

Though Siculo wrote his history of Spain with different intentions and under different circumstances from Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium, the themes of multicultural intellectualism, elevation of the vernacular, and pedagogy, culminating in

121

the construction of Sicilianità were still present. Lucio Marineo Siculo’s work Obra

Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de España, (A Work

Composed by Lucio Marineo Siculo…The Memorable History of Spain) was a manifestation of Sicilian Humanist tradition and Sicilian intellectual training. However, unlike Schifaldo, Siculo had a direct connection with Spanish academia and the Spanish elite. Thus, Siculo serves as an example of the exportation of Sicilian intellectual thought through the Spanish empire.

Originally named Lucas di Marinis, Lucio Marineo Siculo was born in the city of

Vizzini in the Provence of Catania circa 1444. At the time of Marineo’s childhood,

Vizzini was a small bucolic haven scattered in the hills of Sicily, approximately forty miles from Catania and of equal distance from Syracuse. Very little is known of

Marineo’s childhood; however, what is known is that young Lucas was born to a large family of common class and was illiterate until the age of twenty-five. At the age of twenty-five Marineo learned to read by listening to his older sister Catherine as she taught her child of five years to read. Although Siculo had little support from his parents,

Marineo cultivated a love of humane letters through his learning to read; therefore, feeling that his time for learning was running short, Marineo left Vizzini to study in

Palermo where he fell under the tutelage of the famed Giovanni Naso.186 When Siculo began studying Latin, and changed his name as many humanists did, Lucas di Marinis became Lucio Marineo Siculo, indicating his allegiance to Sicily or if not allegiance suggesting that he was not ashamed of his Sicilian background.

186 Caro Lynn, 40-44. 122

Where Schifaldo was an example of the Sicilian humanist tradition, Siculo’s works instead served as an example of the application of Sicilian humanist thought and tradition. After he studied for a couple of years under Giovanni Naso, Lucio Marineo

Siculo taught at the magister scholae parvulorum of Palermo in 1479. It was during his days in Palermo that Siculo caught the eye of Spanish nobleman Don Fadrique

Henríquez, son of Don Alfonso Henríquez, who was a first cousin of King Ferdinand of

Spain.187 Don Fadrique lured Siculo away from Palermo with the promise that he would be a personal tutor for the newly married Fadrique’s future children. Previous historians have speculated that Siculo intended that his move to Spain would allow him to gain a professorship at one of Spain’s bigger and more prestigious universities; however, there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. Fadrique’s wife, sadly, was never able to conceive and Siculo instead took the position of Chair of Letters at the University of

Salamanca in 1484.188

The University of Salamanca was very prestigious and of extreme importance during the Spanish Renaissance. Aside from being the oldest university in Spain,

Salamanca held most of the six Colegios Mayores, along with the University of Alcalá, and the University of Valladolid. The Colegios Mayores were smaller colleges held within larger universities such as the college of Santa Cruz at Valladolid and the college of Cuenca at the University of Salamanca. These schools were “…distinguished from others by their wealth, special graduation privileges which reduced examination fees for members by as much as one half, and the regulation that baccalaureate was necessary for

187 Ibid., 55 . 188 Ibid., 57. 123

admission.”189 As historian Richard L. Kagan states “…from their inception, these colleges were expected to provide their universities with an academic elite.”190 These colleges served as the instruments by which Spain created its cultural currency, the cultural currency which Spain would then use to build its empire. In Spain, universities became the central institutions for training letrados, highly educated men in legal and scholarly disciplines who comprised central government and bureaucratic bodies.

Therefore, when Siculo became the head of the Department of Humane Letters at the

University of Salamanca it was not only an important position, but a powerful position as well.

Siculo arrived in Spain during a very dynamic period in Spanish history. In 1479

Spain signed the Treaty of Alcáҫovas with Portugal, “by which (among other contested questions) Portugal accepted Castile’s claim to the Canaries…” During this period,

Spain’s imperial endeavors were aimed at capturing the Canary islands.191 Approximately eight years after Siculo’s arrival in 1492, Spain successfully toppled Islamic rule in

Granada, ending La Reconquista.192 1492 would also be the year in which Spain would gain access to the “new world,” which offered numerous new opportunities for Spanish expansion. In order to accomplish the goal of becoming a global imperial power, the

Spanish monarchy worked to propagate its power and its image of power to the whole of

189 Richard L. Kagan, Students and Society in Early Modern Spain (The Library of Iberian Resource Online: Accessed 6 May 2016), 67.

190 Ibid., 67.

191 Peter Bakewell and Jaqueline Holler, A History of Latin America to 1825, (New York: John Wiley and Sons Publication, 2010), 82.

192 David Coleman, Creating Christian Granada: Society and Religious Culture in the Old World Frontier City, 1492-1600 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013), 1. 124

Europe through the use of its cultural currency. For example, in the conquest of the

Canary Islands Queen Isabel quickly realized “… the religious adhesion of the conquered was crucial to wielding sovereignty effectively.”193 Aside from the physical takeover of lands, Spain used language, history, and religion to propagate Spanish culture in their territories outside of Europe.194 Thus, the intellectual endeavors of the Spanish became essential to their imperial ambitions.

It was during his twelve years at the University of Salamanca that Siculo wrote

Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de España.

Published originally in Madrid, this work was not printed until 1539—six years after

Siculo passed—however, it was one of multiple history texts written by Siculo. The work itself was a collection of Spanish history, which Siculo dedicated to “Emperor Charles V and Empress Doña Isabel Catholic Monarchs of Spain.”195 Compuesta Por Lucio

Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de España, was of particular interest because it was different from Siculo’s other historical writings such as De laudibus Hispaniae

Libri VII or De Aragoniae Regibus et Eorum Rebus Gestis libri V ; this piece opened with a series of letters between Siculo and other members of the Spanish elite. These letters show how Siculo conceptualized his identity even before he began the narrative history.

Siculo’s letters also showed the way he captured various events in Spanish history, which

193 Peggy K. Liss, Isabel the Queen: Life and Times (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 34.

194 The Spanish monarchy undertook very different strategies in ruling over their territories in Europe in comparison to the territories that were located outside of Europe. Scholars such as Frederick Cooper, Jane Burbank, J.H. Elliot, and H.G. Koenigsberger have all discussed Spanish rule over Europe as a system of “composite monarchies.” While in the Canary Islands, The Americas, and elsewhere Spain employed a process of acculturation.

195 Lucio Marineo Siculo, Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de Espana, (Munich: The Bavarian State Library, 1539), ii. 125

represented the expansion of the Spanish empire through cultural currency. For the purpose of this dissertation, these letters serve as exemplary writings through which to trace the four previously delineated themes of Sicilian humanism and Sicilianità.

Siculo, like many Renaissance humanists, was driven by the underlying movement to restore the greatness of ancient Rome; as a result, many Italian humanists would often make links historically, linguistically, and philosophically to Rome. For example, in one of the letters from Las Cosas Memorables de España Siculo wrote to

“Conde Don Baltasar.” The recipient of the letter was in fact Baldassare Castiglione

(1478-1529), the writer of the famed The Book of the Courtier, who found himself in

Spain as Ambassador to the Holy See under Pope Clement VII. As Ambassador to the

Holy See, Castiglione traveled with the court of Charles V to Toledo, Granada, and

Seville, among other Spanish cities.196 Baldassare Castiglione was a very influential figure in Renaissance history, since he is known by contemporary Renaissance historians—along with Guicciardini and Machiavelli—to have been a significant part of early modern Italian civic humanism. The Book of the Courtier was widely read throughout Europe and well regarded in aristocratic circles for establishing the rules of how one must behave in order to be the perfect courtier to the King or ruler.197

In the same letter from Las Cosas Memorables de España Siculo asked

Castiglione where he could go in Spain to see historically important Spanish sites.

Specifically, Siculo asked Castiglione, “in Spain which cities were colonies or held the

196 Julia Mary Cartwright Ady, Baldassare Castiglione the Perfect Courtier: His Life and Letters, 1487- 1529 (The University of California: John Murray, 1908), 273-292.

197 Peter Burke, The Fortunes of the Courtier: The European Reception of Castiglione’s Cortegiano (London: John Wiley and Sons, 2013), 54. 126

highest populations of Roman nobles.”198 These cities would have been the most important for an Italian humanist in his endeavor to restore the greatness of Rome. This indicated the opposite of Nebrija’s assertion that Italians could not be trusted to write a history of Spain since Siculo’s name in itself pointed to his lack of affinity with an Italian identity. Thus, when Nebrija suggested that an Italian scholar would be biased in writing

Spanish history, Siculo’s very name showed that he was not writing a Spanish history from an Italian perspective or to glorify Italy in any way. As mentioned previously, when

Siculo began writing for publication he changed his name from Lucas di Marinis to Lucio

Marineo Siculo, indicating his allegiance to Sicily or if not allegiance suggesting that he was not ashamed of his Sicilian background. The same cannot be said for any Italian identity of Siculo, if he in fact would have seen himself as “Italian” given that Italy would not be unified for quite some time, otherwise Siculo may well have been Lucio

Marineo Italo. Siculo’s very name is evidence of one of the themes of Sicilian humanism and humanists mentioned previously. Siculo’s name was an indicator of Sicilian cultural identity, and evidence of Sicilianità being projected outside of the island of Sicily itself.

This same letter by Siculo to Baldassare Castiglione also showed how Siculo used mythology to construct the classical past of Spain. Immediately after he asked about which parts of Spain fell most under Roman influence, Siculo asked Castiglione, “In the same way where are the columns that were given to Hercules at the end as a sign of his works.”199 Here Siculo invoked a discourse propagated by Nebrija, as well as other

Spanish humanists, in which they made a clear link to ancient mythology as a way of

198 Lucio Marineo Siculo, iiii.

199 Ibid., iiii. 127

justifying Spanish heredity and right to the crown. According to scholar Mayasuki Sato,

“To provide the basis for classical ethnology for the Spanish monarchy, historians also turned to the myth of Hercules, who served as Brutus did for the Britons and Francus for the Franks, to link ancient Spain to the myths of the classical world.”200

According to the mythos of Hercules, after his tenth labor Hercules came to the frontiers of Europe and Africa. In order to commemorate the completion of his tenth labor Hercules built a land bridge connecting the two continents, and then Hercules proceeded to build a trench through the land bridge. This trench allowed the Atlantic

Ocean to flood into a valley creating the Mediterranean Sea, and the northern shore became the Strait of Gibraltar. The two sides are the Pillars of Hercules.201 Siculo’s allusion to this myth serves as evidence of the importance of Greek mythology—apparent in the analysis of Hellenistic tradition traceable in the writings of both Siculo and

Schifaldo—but, this again situates Siculo as an agent of the Spanish Empire and simultaneously a scholar within the Sicilian humanist tradition. Siculo was helping to construct Spanish greatness by connecting it to the mythical past; however, here there is indication that Siculo’s work was distinctly Sicilian because of his emphasis on Greek culture. I am suggesting that Sicilian humanism had an influence on the Spanish Empire through the exportation of Sicilian intellectualism by Sicilian intellectuals. However, more research is required in order to substantiate this argument.

While always connecting a history or literature to the greatness of Rome is not distinctly a Southern Italian or Sicilian trend in the work of Renaissance writers and

200 Masayuki Sato et. al. Ed. , 434

201 Marc Alexander, Gibraltar: Conquered by No Enemy (Charleston: The History Press, 2011), 1. 128

scholars, there were other characteristics in Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de

Las Cosas Memorables de España that were distinct to Siculo’s writing precisely because they were traditions taught through the Sicilian schools. Contemporary Italian scholars suggest, for example, that beginning a history—such as Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo

Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de España—with letters showing one’s methodology for the historical work was originally based in the Hellenistic culture which so heavily dominated the island of Sicily until the Punic Wars (264 BC-146 BC); however, this scholarly tradition was maintained through the Reign of Frederick II, and finally was a technique employed by the great Greek scholar Costantino Lascaris.202 This form of back and forth debate and intellectual discourse was an innately Greek feature carried through most Sicilian literature, which can be seen in the original sonnets written by Jacopo da

Lentino. The debate form gave the sonnet its structure; however, the sonnet was then changed and became synonymous with the love poetry written by Petrarch.203 This was indicative of the strong Greek influence on Sicilian humanism, which was acknowledged and utilized by Sicilian humanists such as Tommaso Schifaldo and Lucio Marineo

Siculo.

Another notable component of Siculo’s letter to Baldassare Castiglione appears in his closing, and how he chose to sign farewell. After Siculo asked Castiglione where he could go to see and write of the greatness of Spain, “so that I do not return to Italy denied of the greatness of this province,”204 Siculo went on to end the letter by closing with the

202 Alessandra Tramontana, L’eredità di Costantino Lascari a Messina Nel Primo ‘500 (Messina: Università Degli Studi di Messina, 2011), 128.

203 Tusiani, Joseph. The Age of Dante. New York: Baroque Press, 1974.

204 Lucio Marineo Siculo, iiii. 129

phrase “for the Praise. Honor and glory of Sicily” (Dale. Honrra y fama de Sicilia).205 In the original text Siculo used specifically the Latin word “fama.” The concept of fama

(glory in Latin) which was one of earthly reputation, dated back to Cicero and ancient

Rome. The concept of fama for Cicero and other Roman authors “constituted one of the essential building blocks of the Republic: ‘The leading men of state must be fed glory.’”206 In signing his letter this way, Siculo once again demonstrated his allegiance to

Sicily, not to Spain or Italy. While the concept of fama was demonized in some circles— as it often was linked to undesirable qualities such as vainglory and self-interest—“…few humanists dared challenge the proposition that individuals who performed noble and virtuous deeds for the benefit of their city, country, or prince, or even more importantly, for God, merited fama.”207 Thus, I argue that Siculo perceived himself as performing virtuous deeds in the name of Sicily. Once again, Siculo proudly linked himself with his

Sicilian cultural identity.

Following Siculo’s letters, Las Cosas Memorables de España opened with two lengthy prologues in which Siculo explained to his most honorable patrons Charles V and his wife Isabel of Portugal, “Some offer you pearls and precious stones…some offer you exotic creatures lions and tigers… I being of poor birth…offer your Majesties this book which I have written in honor of Spain and in memory of your progenitors.”208 Siculo repeatedly wrote that his sole purpose in this book was to capture the greatness of Spain,

205 Ibid., iiii.

206 Richard L. Kagan, 40.

207 Ibid., 40.

208 Ibid., ii. 130

and to honor his royal patrons, whose patronage maintained Siculo at the University of

Salamanca and ensured his future employment. Siculo wrote, “Understanding the value of history and knowing how precious it is (to be certain princes) I hope to do your

Majesties a great service in this history of things to be taught about your Spain.”209 This line represents how Siculo understood the effect history had on the public. In other words, in this sentence Siculo was acutely aware of how history was used as a tool of power by monarchs and the elite.

It is well known that the Spanish monarchy during the Renaissance commissioned humanists to write histories and grammar books to be used as tools for spreading empire.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is Antonio Nebrija’s Gramática Castellana written in 1492—which would then become the grammar book brought to the New

World— this was the book where Nebrija famously wrote, “Language has always been a companion of empire.”210 Siculo was commissioned in the same way as Nebrija to write a history of Spain for the Spanish Crown to be used as a tool of Spanish power, as historian

Richard Kagan writes, “History was also integral to the monarchy’s growth and propaganda machine…”211. Through his position at the University of Salamanca Siculo became part of the Spanish “propaganda machine.” Siculo and Nebrija were also well- acquainted contemporaries at the University of Salamanca. Both men wrote histories of

Spain for the consumption by, and by appointment of, the Spanish crown. However,

Nebrija and Siculo had a contentious relationship. Nebrija was a vehement Spanish

209 Ibid., iii.

210 Richard L. Kagan, Clio and the Crown: The Politics of History in Medieval and Early Modern Spain, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 16.

211 Ibid., 46. 131

nationalist, and in being so despised Siculo so much so that “he reportedly refused to walk on the same street as his Sicilian colleague.”212 Nebrija also took issue with Siculo’s narrative of Spanish history.

Siculo wrote several other Spanish history books besides Las Cosas Memorables de España; however, most of the others were written in Latin and those most familiar to

Nebrija most likely would have been De Hispaniae Laudibus and De Rebus Hispaniae

Memorabilibus. In each of these histories Siculo tied the greatness of the Spanish Empire to the greatness of Rome. Siculo’s “work emphasized Spain’s debt to the Romans, and heralded the apotheosis of Hispania restored to its ancient borders…In particular,

Marineo Siculo sought to bring Spain back into Roman history…”213 Siculo’s method of tying the greatness of Spain to the greatness of Rome in these two previous historical texts was also evident in his use of Latin. Siculo utilized the language of the Romans to emphasize the influence of Rome in Spanish history. However, in Las Cosas Memorables de España, Siculo used Spanish to tie the history of Spain to the greatness of Rome. Las

Cosas Memorables de España was one of Siculo’s later works, which suggests that the movement of using the vernacular had, at this point, reached the level of the academic elite. More importantly, by the time Siculo wrote Las Cosas Memorables de España,

Spain was in the midst of multiple global imperial endeavors; therefore, it was necessary to have a Spanish history written in Spanish to spread the language of the expanding empire.

212 Ibid., 17.

213 The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume III: 1400-1800, Masayuki Sato et. al. Ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 433. 132

Nebrija despised Siculo’s writing of Spanish history. After reading De Rebus

Hispaniae Memorabilibus Nebrija said, “I do not consider it quite safe to rely on foreigners for historical truth…and least of all on Italians who call us barbarians and peasants and insult us with derogatory epithets.”214 To combat Siculo’s version of

Spanish history, Nebrija wrote his Muestra de la Historia de las Antiguidades de España in which he gave Spain a “prehistory that had Iberian civilization beginning well before that of Greek city-states, and which sought to demonstrate the antiquity of Spanish culture as well as its independence from Rome.”215 Nebrija was very wary of foreigners writing Spanish History, as we see with Nebrija’s attitude towards Siculo’s Spanish histories. Certainly, this was because of Nebrija’s own nationalistic preferences in his writing of Spanish history; however, to the contrary, Siculo’s historical objectivity instead was influenced by Sicilian thought.

Siculo’s historical objectivity was also colored by Sicilian intellectualism. Siculo made no secret of his Sicilian heritage, personally or academically; however, he went on to become well respected in many Spanish humanist circles. When writing a letter to a former history student, Alfonso Segura (1486?-1530),216 Siculo closed by saying, “…you have turned to gold the princes of Aragon and the heroes of Castile…by the touch of that gold-tipped brush which is your just inheritance from Acorax, Atisias, Agorgias,

214 Richard L. Kagan, 17.

215 Masayuki Sato et. al. Ed., 433.

216 Little is known about Alfonso Segura, but he was a student of Siculo’s at Salamanca and is often referred to by contemporary historians as a “disciple” of Siculo’s. The only written work by Segura is a biography of Siculo which is called De Lucio Marineo Siculo per Alfonsum Seguritanum perbrevis narratio. Real Academia de la Historia.

133

Epicarmus, Theocritus, and Empedocles—learned Sicilians all.”217 This was the Sicilian pride reflected in Siculo’s work and the intellectual tradition that he brought with him to

Spanish humanist circles, and the tradition in which he trained his own students as was clearly shown by this letter. Thus, Siculo without question had influence in Spanish humanist circles primarily through the training of his students at the University of

Salamanca.

After the prologues, Siculo delved into the history of Spain in his 493 pages of

Las Cosas Memorables de España, he meticulously catalogued the natural resources found in Spain. Siculo’s topics of exploration included: metals and minerals, various types of flora and fauna, wines of Spain, and animals and fish, among many other things.

Siculo used ancient Roman and Greek scholars and philosophers as his guides to explain the geographic features found in Spain. In the margins of the manuscript Siculo referenced the names of the ancient philosophers and scholars he drew upon in each particular section, and he cited a myriad of people including Pliny, Homer, Virgil, Ovid, and many more. What became quickly evident in these sections was how often Siculo tied the origins of many of Spain’s resources back to Rome but also to Sicily. For example, Siculo explained the superiority of the fish found in the Spanish seas calling them “precious” and “not to be found in many other parts of the world;” however, Siculo was certain to mention that the only other places such fish were found was in “Rome and

Sicily.”218

217 Published in Caro Lynn, 206.

218 Lucio Marineo Siculo, iii. 134

Siculo’s discussion in this section is reminiscent of Schifaldo’s writings in the third section of Commentarioli in Persium, where Schifaldo outlined the etymologies of words. In Las Cosas Memorables de España, however, one section where Siculo discussed the origin of names of Spanish territories, or territories in Europe which held political or economic significance in regards to their relationship with Spain showed how

Siculo utilized a Greco-Roman framework, which called upon his training in the Sicilian schools. The first of the Italian territories that Siculo focused on was Venice. Here Siculo called upon the work of Roman historian Tacitus as he wrote, “Cornelius Tacitus said: In past times there arrived in Italy those people called Eneos, or as they are known better

Venetians. For this name, the land which they settled became known as Venice.”219 What

Siculo did in this section was interesting because he called upon Roman historiography by utilizing the work of Tacitus, but gave the original Greek term Eneos for Veneti or

Venetians. This Greco-Roman framework would be employed by Siculo throughout his history in Las Cosas Memorables de España. Utilizing a combination of Greek and

Roman models was evidence of Siculo’s training in the Sicilian intellectual tradition.

Siculo’s next sentence, which referred to the archipelago of Venice, was also telling; he wrote, “…let us move to the Eliseos: those which the Greeks have named

Eolios …which are found in the sea of Sicily. They were therefore named the Sicilies, and belonged to Sicily and her Sicilians.”220 The subject of Siculo’s discussion was the archipelago of the Aeolian Islands located off of the north eastern coast of Sicily in the

Tyrrhenian Sea. The small group of islands was named after Eolios the Greek god of the

219 Ibid., f iiii.

220 Ibid., f iiii. 135

winds. What is important to note about Siculo’s discussion of the islands was first his claim that they belong to Sicily, rather than Spain, the Kingdom of Aragon, or to Italy.

However, perhaps even more pertinent is the last sentence wherein Siculo stated that the islands belonged to “her Sicilians.” Siculo was directly stating his categorization of

Sicilians as a distinct people. This lends credence to the argument that Siculo, like

Schifaldo, defined Sicilians as separate from Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards; instead, they were Sicilian. Implicit in Siculo’s statement was the Greek heritage of the islands, and of Sicilian culture which was also greatly emphasized by Tommaso Schifaldo. As

Siculo stated that the Greeks named them Eolios, and Siculo simultaneously recognized the ability of Sicilians to establish territories of their own, just as he did in his discussion about Venice. In addition, Siculo set Venice and Sicily against each other, similar to how

Schifaldo set his vignettes in his lessons, as two sides contributing to one discourse.

Again, this structure is indicative of Siculo’s Sicilian intellectual training in the

Hellenistic tradition.

De Las Cosas Memorables de España provided an extensive pre-history of Spain.

In the pages of this lengthy work Siculo recounted everything from the landscape of

Spain to the rise of the house of Aragon; however, in addition to the pre-history of Spain

Siculo also discussed at length “The Traditions of the Ancients in Spain” as well as “The

Origins of the Spanish Language.”221 Book IV of La Obra Compuesta por Lucio Marineo

Siculo also provides evidence of Siculo’s Sicilianità, and it is titled “Of the Colonies

Made by the Romans in Spain and the Surnames of Their Households.”222 As was

221Lucio Marineo Siculo.

222 Ibid., iiiic. 136

previously mentioned, Siculo immediately opened this section of Las Cosas Memorables de España, by tying Spain’s history back to the greatness of Rome and to the mythos of

Hercules.

This section of Siculo’s historical analysis serves as quintessential example of his

Italian humanist philosophy blended with his Sicilian Hellenistic intellectual training.

While Siculo insisted that Hercules did indeed contribute to some of the greatness of

Spain—particularly in regards to founding great cities around Cadiz and Seville—Siculo also claimed that the military strength of Spain came from the Romans. Siculo wrote,

“…the ancient colonies by Cadiz, or as others have said in Seville: all of those are called signs and results of the works of Hercules…For the bridges and fortresses: and many other ancient structures from antiquity found in Spain: not to Hercules but certainly to the

Romans can they be attributed, principally to Julius Caesar.”223 Siculo continued in this way throughout each section of Las Cosas Memorables de España to weave an intricately blended Greco-Roman methodology similar to what was seen in Schifaldo’s work.

In chapter five of Las Cosas Memorables de España entitled “The Traditions of the Ancients in Spain,” Siculo’s historical narrative progressed and referenced the work of previous historians in order to trace the history of the Iberian civilization. Many of the historians such as Diodorus Siculus and Theocritus, whom Siculo cited, were Sicilian as well; this reaffirmed Siculo’s Sicilian training and called attention to Siculo’s Sicilianità.

Siculo began this section in similar fashion to the previous two, by establishing that the ancient “authors wrote their histories in Greek and Latin”—thus, reinforcing the Greco-

Roman tradition of his work through the languages utilized by the ancients—and opened

223 Ibid., ciiii. 137

his narrative with the great Roman general Scipio who was famous for his military prowess in the Second Punic War, and for ultimately defeating Hannibal.224 However, as he continued to recount the rise of the history of the rise of Iberian culture, Siculo emphasized the work of Diodorus Siculus, the Sicilian historian mentioned previously by

Schifaldo, who was a chronologist who wrote from 90 to 30 BC.

Diodorus Siculus was from Agyrium, a city in the province of Enna in Sicily, and he wrote extensively on the Celtiberian civilization of the early centuries BC. Siculo used

Diodorus’s work in order to establish a historiography of Iberian culture. Schifaldo also referenced Siculus in his writings of Roman satire in Commentarioli in Persium. Siculo devoted a good deal of this chapter to Diodorus and the Celtiberians. In understanding the work of Diodorus Siculus we can trace how Siculo applied the models of ancient Sicilian writers to his own work. Diodorus Siculus wrote his histories in Greek, and wrote histories for both the purposes of entertaining his audiences while simultaneously making moral arguments. The goal of history for Siculus was to be didactic, otherwise it was without purpose. Following this model, Siculo would also write teleological historical narratives for the purposes of instruction. The emphasis on writing in Greek was necessary, and becomes clear when understanding Diodorus’s audience.

Diodorus Siculus wrote in a period when many Italian, but particularly Sicilian, cities were becoming wealthy. Though Sicily had already been absorbed into the Roman

Empire, Diodorus Siculus wrote for Sicilian elites living in the bigger cities who spoke

Greek primarily.225 This was important because by reaching his audience in Greek and

224 Ibid., dii.

225 P.J. Stylianou, A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 1-8. 138

writing histories in a way that made them didactic, as both Schifaldo and then Siculo did,

Diodorus Siculus indicated that Hellenistic traditions were preserved in Sicily even though the language of the Romans was Latin not Greek. Diodorus’s work also provides evidence that at least a substantial number of Sicilian elites remained Greek-speaking even though they fell under the rule of the Roman Empire. This is important because it shows that Hellenistic tradition in Sicily was preserved in its original language. This demonstrates how the development of the intellectualism in the early modern period came to be, and how ancient pedagogical methodologies persisted. This is also indicative of the blended linguistic and academic tradition in which Lucio Marineo Siculo was educated, a tradition he clearly drew upon in his work. Once again, this provides a link— not only to the Sicilian cultural identity born in Lucio Marineo Siculo’s work—but, between Sicilian scholarship and Spanish humanism.

Moving chronologically through Spanish history, Siculo next discussed the

Crown of Aragon and its acquisition of the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily (1414). While

Siculo’s account of how Sicily fell into Spanish hands was not far removed from the narrative of modern historians, his language when discussing the rebellions that occurred in Sicily was quite different. Sicily had long been a land of social unrest, which began with the Vespers (1282) and continued intermittently through the seventeenth century. In the discussion of the Kingdom of Aragon, Siculo elaborated on quite a few Sicilian rebellions. The first of these rebellions discussed by Siculo occurred in Messina,

Palermo, and Ragusa during the reign of Charles V. Siculo used specifically the term novedades, which, as I showed previously through the work of historian Michael Levin, had a very specific meaning as understood by the Spanish; generally it referred to

139

novelties, changes, or upsets.226 Siculo wrote, “When King Charles [V] learned of these novedades coupled with the movement and rebellion in Sicily…he quickly began to think of how to remedy them.”227 Siculo went on to explain that King Charles V, fearing novedades in other parts of Italy, sent “many armed soldiers” into Sicily and along the

Southern coastline to capture any of those rebels who were trying to escape Spanish punishment for their actions.228

While Siculo explained that all of those responsible for the chaos in Messina,

Palermo, and Ragusa were properly punished, he closed this narrative by stating, “…the prisoners taken were a large number, a large number of men who suffered for Sicily.”229

Ending this narrative in this way implied a certain amount of empathy for these men. In the repetition of “a large number of men” and acknowledgement of their suffering for

Sicily, Siculo did not paint these rebels as traitors to the Spanish crown. To the contrary, this ending implied some compassion or sympathy for the Sicilian rebels. Remembering that the Hellenistic tradition in which Siculo was trained was one in which history was meant to be didactic, what lesson was Siculo trying to convey by ending this narrative about these Sicilian rebels in such a way? In utilizing this language, Siculo was covertly applauding the actions of these rebellious Sicilians while still being reverent of his

Spanish patrons.

226 Michael Levin, Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), 12.

227 Lucio Marineo Siculo, lxxxi.

228 Ibid., lxxxi.

229 Ibid., lxxxi. 140

In the next section in his history of Sicilian rebellion, instead of continuing to move chronologically, Siculo jumped backward to the reign of King Manfred of Sicily

(1258-1266), and focused on the abuses of the French in Sicily. Siculo titled this particular section “How the Sicilians Rebelled Against the French: Among other

Things.”230 Siculo wrote in the opening line of this section, “Many were the damages and wrongs done against the Sicilians by the French.”231 The strained relationship between

France and Spain during the period in which he was writing was certainly at the forefront of Siculo’s thoughts. Siculo’s interpretation of the French soldiers was also influenced by his Sicilianità since the Sicilians themselves had a long and contentious history with them.

There was also a complicated relationship between France, Spain, and the south of Italy in particular since both France and Spain claimed dynastic rights to the Kingdom of Naples, which led to the Italian Wars. The power struggle between France and Spain for Italy would not come to an end until 1559 with the signing of the Treaty of Cateau-

Cambrèsis, the treaty in which the French renounced all dynastic rights to Italy and ultimately ended the Italian Wars. In addition, Siculo—as Fazello did in the previous chapter— addressed the rebellion of the Sicilian Vespers in this section, which occurred after the death of King Manfred in 1282, when Sicily was under the rule of Charles of

Anjou. With a clear indication that Siculo felt a strong connection to his Sicilian heritage, all of these political and social factors made Siculo’s interpretation very complex, and complicate the way in which he captures the image of the Vespers.

230 Ibid., l.

231 Ibid., l. 141

Siculo explained that after the death of King Manfred of Sicily and of Emperor

Conrad IV, Sicily fell into the hands of Charles of Anjou. Siculo described the French forces of the King as, “…all French men, they are cruel with a prideful nature, distasteful, easily given to fury, intolerable in conversation, and killed an infinite amount of

Sicilians.”232 Evidently, Siculo was not depicting the French in any way but violent, oppressive, and barbaric. This less-than-kind description of the French in Sicily is not surprising given the context of Siculo’s heritage and patronage. However, Siculo’s description of the Sicilians that followed, while simultaneously not surprising, was demonstrative of Sicilianità. Siculo wrote, “Such was the furious fantasy of those governors: such was the cruelty of those barbaric people that to them Sicilians were not seen as free men: more universally to them Sicilians were slaves and captives.”233 While

Siculo properly captured the violent propensity of the Anjou regime against the Sicilians,

Siculo’s language indicated that he viewed Sicilians as “free men.” This speaks to how

Siculo viewed the inhabitants of Sicily--they were simply Sicilians, and had no need to be subjugated to the rule of an outside power.

As Siculo continued in this passage he discussed the punishments issued to those

Sicilians who were seen to be defiant to the French crown. Among these punishments he included beheadings and public executions. Siculo wrote specifically, “When one’s patrimony was too great: then the more dangerous it would be: whoever was so filled with this richness that it would pour out of them, they were considered traitors to King

232 Ibid., l.

233Ibid., li.

142

Charles…”234 The use of the term “patrimony” by Siculo was indicative of the way

Siculo viewed Sicilian cultural identity. The Spanish term Siculo wrote specifically was patrimonio, which is often translated into English as heritage or culture; however, it is also the Spanish translation for patrimony. The context of this phrase written by Siculo would only work if patrimonio was translated as patrimony. It is the patrimony of

Sicilians that could betray the rule of King Charles of Anjou. In order for Sicilians to have had patrimonio they must also have had culture, heritage, and they must have seen themselves as distinguished from the French, the Aragonese, and the Italians. Siculo again lends credence to the existence of Sicilianità in early modern Sicily.

Siculo continued on with the narrative of the Vespers as he wrote in further detail about the cruelties endured by Sicilians under the rule of the Anjou King. Siculo claimed that “for many years” Sicilians endured these abuses, and that it became common for

Sicilian women to have “carnal injuries perpetrated against them.”235 The narrative of the

Vespers Rebellion in 1282 differed only in minor ways from what many contemporary historians have written about the famous rebellion. According to Siculo the Vespers occurred the night before the Easter holiday just before the evening vigil near a local church in the small town of Monreale in the province of Palermo. Siculo explained that the local populations came out “dressed up for the festival” which was set to follow the evening service. While many contemporary historians suggest that the initial violence that started the Vespers rebellion occurred inside the church,236 according to Siculo the

234 Ibid., li.

235 Ibid., li.

236 Steven Runciman. The Sicilian Vespers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958). 143

violent exchange began outside the church as town locals prepared for the evening festivities.237 This is in contrast to Fazello’s narrative, which placed the Sicilians inside the church listening to mass when French soldiers interrupted service. According to

Siculo, a group of French soldiers passing through town saw the festival preparations, and began to “bother” some of the local men. When the soldiers noticed that the local men were armed, “they turned their gaze toward the beautiful women and began grabbing their breasts in a most disgraceful manner, with no shame, and even less honor.”238 Siculo then wrote, “At this, the Sicilians could suffer no longer, they began the fight by punching them and throwing rocks, some took to their arms and used them, they did this so quickly that soon there was not a Frenchmen standing.”239

According to Siculo the success of these villagers against a group of trained

French soldiers, “bolstered the confidence of the rest of Palermo,” and in a short time the rest of Sicily.240 Historically the Vespers Rebellion led to the removal of the house of

Anjou from power in Sicily. Siculo ended his narrative very much within the traditions of his Sicilian training, with a quote from Cicero Siculo stated, “For this confirms the statement made by Marcus Tullius Cicero who said, ‘There is no greater necessity to princes or to men of noble birth than to be virtuous and just to their states and their subjects.’”241 By ending the story of the Vespers in this way Siculo showed not only his

Sicilian intellectual training, but he also showed his humanist practice as he ends this

237 Lucio Marineo Siculo, li.

238 Ibid., li.

239Ibid., li.

240 Ibid., li.

241 Ibid., li. 144

narrative with a moral given by perhaps the most revered ancient Roman intellectual,

Cicero.

Additionally, the use of “virtue” (virtú) here by Cicero and by Siculo carried much meaning for Renaissance scholars. Similar to the use of fama, which I discussed previously, scholars of humanist philosophical thought were meant to be men of virtue.

Virtue was a complex concept for Renaissance writers, scholars, philosophers, and politicians. Baldassare Castiglione—to whom Siculo previously wrote his letters— discussed the concept of virtue at length in The Book of the Courtier. Castiglione defined virtue as he stated, “Thus virtue may almost be said to be a kind of prudence and wit to prefer the good…” Castiglione set this definition of good in opposition to vice which he defined as “…a kind of imprudence and ignorance which lead us to judge falsely…”242.

This was the context in which Siculo was using the term virtue, and Siculo further employed the term to impart the lesson to his readers of what happens when men do not behave virtuously.

Historian John Marino suggests the concept of virtue was illustrated through

Spanish rituals in Naples during the Renaissance. In the book, Becoming Neapolitan:

Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples, Marino delineates five main themes: “The Cult of

Saints,” “The Architecture of Devotion,” “Spanish Good Government,” “The Coming

Millennium,” and “Civic Humanism and Court Society.”243 As Marino traces the ritual aspect of each of these themes a major unifying motif surfaces, and that motif is virtue. It is interesting to note that Marino places the birth of the concept of Virtue in the Italian

242 Conte Baldassare Catiglione, The Book of the Courtier (New York: Scribner & Son’s, 1903), 254.

243 John A. Marino, Becoming Neapolitan: Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), 25-26. 145

south during the reign of the Spanish monarchy and the infiltration of Spanish ritual into

Neapolitan tradition. Siculo’s writing certainly lends credence to his argument and provides evidence for the importance of virtue in Renaissance Spanish and Italian tradition. As Siculo stated through the words of Cicero, the most important quality for princes and those of noble birth to possess is the quality of virtue.

After thoroughly explaining the rebellion of the Sicilian Vespers, Siculo went on to explain how Sicily came to be under the rule of the crown of Aragon. Siculo stated that once King Charles was captive in Messina—one of the last cities to fall to the Sicilian rebels against the Anjou—the Sicilians sent their “supplications” to King Pedro of

Aragon, because he was married to Constance, the daughter of the late King Manfred of

Sicily; therefore, because of the lineage of his wife, King Pedro of Aragon was believed by Sicilians to be the rightful ruler of their kingdom.244 Throughout this section however,

Siculo continued to describe the French with very derogatory language. Nearly every time the French were mentioned Siculo referred to them as “cruel,” “barbaric,”

“dishonest,” “dishonorable,” “shameful,” “lacking in virtue,” etc. However, when discussing King Pedro of Aragon, Siculo used significantly different adjectives such as,

“honest,” “honorable,” “respected by King Manfred.” This was certainly a clear indication of Siculo’s purpose in writing for his Spanish patrons, and to write a history which glorified Spain. However, this was also perhaps evidence of Siculo’s idea of

Sicilian identity. Siculo as a Sicilian grew up with a particular narrative of the Vespers and would have felt less affinity with the French.

244 Lucio Marineo Siculo, lii. 146

In reading Siculo’s narrative of the Vespers, there was a clear protagonist (the

Sicilians) and a clear antagonist (the French). Given the context of the intellectual tradition in which Siculo was trained, Siculo’s patronage, and the complex socio-political relationships between Spain, France, Italy, and Sicily it was not surprising to see which historical agents became demonized and which historical agents were represented as virtuous and great. Most important however, was that Siculo throughout his work constructed Sicilianità. Siculo constructed a Sicilian identity, which was strong, independent, rich with culture, and distinct from any of the major powers trying to lay claim to the island and the southern half of the Italian peninsula. The Sicilians were indeed the unsung heroes of his narrative with a sense of patrimonio so strong they were able to topple the Anjou monarchy on the island.

The next section of Siculo’s history was focused on the transition to the rule of the house of Aragon in Sicily and was titled, “How Don Pedro King of Aragon Came to be in Sicily and What He Accomplished There.”245 Siculo’s very first sentence immediately began discussing how he wished to portray the Aragon King and the people of Sicily. Siculo wrote, “Greatly moved, the King of Aragon, along with the reason and direction of the Sicilians (to whom he listened carefully) came to clearly recognize the will and desire they held…”246 Siculo described King Pedro as a reasonable and just monarch who took into account the will of the people, and simultaneously Siculo depicted the Sicilians as reasonable and guiding the monarch in the proper direction.

Siculo placed the Sicilians in a position which gave reason and direction to the incoming

245 Ibid., lii.

246 Ibid., lii.

147

King. Thus, Siculo was showing the culture and intellect present within the Sicilian population.

Siculo continued this as he wrote, “…it appeared to him [King Pedro] that he would have to lose his previous disposition and intentions to win the respect of a

Kingdom so culturally rich and esteemed as Sicily.”247 Once again, as in the previous statement Siculo was reverent of his patronage while describing Sicily as an island that was “rich in culture” and “esteemed.” This section differed from the section where Siculo discussed the rebellions in Sicily. Siculo utilized the Vespers to construct Sicilian cultural identity, and indeed proved that such identity did exist and was recognized by his contemporaries. Siculo also used the Vespers to vilify the French who continued to be rivals with the Spanish during his lifetime. However, this section on the house of Aragon establishing rule in Sicily was meant to show the just and virtuous rule of the Spanish monarchy while continuing to establish a narrative of Sicilian cultural identity. Thus,

Siculo, in the establishment of such a narrative, became an agent of Spanish empire and an agent of Sicilian identity.

Siculo ended this short section saying that King Pedro was “grateful for the assistance” of the Sicilians upon his arrival, and that the king was “only concerned with maintaining the honor and the prosperity of the Island of Sicily.”248 The use of the word

“maintaining” was interesting since by utilizing it Siculo suggested the unbroken honor which had and continued to persist in Sicily. Siculo also added how King Pedro was able with “numerous soldiers” to drive King Charles out of his hiding place in Messina in the

247 Ibid., lii.

248 Ibid., lii-liii. 148

north of Sicily, but this was only accomplished through the “first honorable and successful rebellion from the Sicilians.”249 While certainly Siculo established the power, virtue, and just action of the crown of Aragon, Siculo constantly maintained the honor of

Sicily and the Sicilians who rebelled. This serves as evidence of Siculo’s recognition of

Sicilian identity and the unbroken tradition of its existence.

Siculo ended De Las Cosas Memorables de España in chapter 34, where he detailed each member of the Habsburg family beginning with the King and Queen and moving down through every Baron and Baroness and Duke and Duchess. At the end,

Siculo wrote “This [the genealogy] is for the glory of Spain, who has now been known throughout the world, and for the King and Queen who are not known for their royal titles, but for their great mercy and virtue.”250 Similar to Fazello, Siculo ended his work with a final and triumphant salute to his patrons.

Siculo, unlike Schifaldo, did not engage specifically with the discourse of pedagogy and methodologies of proper ways teaching literature or history. As I mentioned briefly, Las Cosas Memorables de España was written for a different purpose than Commentarioli in Persium. Tommaso Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium was intended to be his teaching notes. Schifaldo’s writing was not commissioned by any aristocrat, and they were meant to be seen only by himself. While Schifaldo’s notes certainly displayed elements of humanist vernacular admiration, Sicilian Hellenistic tradition, and Sicilian cultural identity, their main purpose was to instruct. Thus,

249 Ibid., liii.

250 Ibid., cccii. 149

Commentarioli in Persium lacks the political implications of Siculo’s work; however, as of yet, Schifaldo’s political work has not been properly studied and analyzed.

Las Cosas Memorables de España by Lucio Marineo Siculo was written as a product of Siculo’s patronage from the Spanish Monarchy as he was being compensated for his position as Head of the Department of Humane Letters at the University of

Salamanca. Siculo was to write a history that glorified Spain in order to create the cultural currency upon which Spain would expand its imperial endeavors. While Siculo never betrayed his Sicilian patrimonio, and in fact incorporated elements of Sicilianità, his position in regards to this particular work of history was to give a narrative of the greatness of Spain. However, Siculo still tied the greatness of Spain and Iberian culture to a Roman past. The political aspect of Siculo’s work was also clearly visible. Siculo’s vilification of the French, coupled with his exaltation of the Spanish and woven with the maintenance of a distinct Sicilian identity all speak to the socio-political climate in which

Siculo operated, and his own ideas of Sicilian identity.

In addition, it was evident in Siculo’s writings that he applied similar methodologies to those of Schifaldo. Siculo incorporated a Greco-Roman methodology into his work, and followed the Sicilian Hellenistic intellectual tradition in which history was written with the purpose of imparting a moral or ethical lesson upon the reader. It was also clear in Siculo’s work, and in the letter he wrote to his former student, that he was proud of his Sicilian training and the intellectual tradition in which he was taught.

Siculo also intended to maintain that tradition and pass it on to his own students and colleagues. Siculo himself followed a historiography of predominantly Sicilian historians.

Siculo and Schifaldo had similar ideas of Sicilian cultural identity that were reflected in

150

the works of both men. This was clear evidence—since there was no indication that

Siculo and Schifaldo ever knew or met each other—that there was some idea of

Sicilianità that permeated the scholarly community on the Mediterranean island and this

Sicilian identity was one which the people of the island identified with. They saw themselves as Sicilians.

Conclusion

Tommaso Schifaldo and Lucio Marineo Siculo are two representatives of the

Sicilian humanist movement. Their works serve as evidence not only of the occurrence of a southern Italian Renaissance, but also that the south of Italy played an integral role in the Renaissance. While the north of Italy was bursting with intellectual fervor in the

1400s and early 1500s, so was the south. The under-representation of the Kingdom of

Naples, and Sicily in particular, in Renaissance historiography has caused a crucial part of Renaissance philosophy to go unexamined. In understanding the Hellenistic tradition cultivated in Sicily and its dissemination through the Kingdom of Naples, it is clear to see how the Greek tradition of the south mingled with Roman tradition of the north, and how it was exported and used through the building of the Spanish empire. Further, the writings of these two humanists show the existence of a Sicilian identity, and more importantly prove that this identity was circulated among the educated elite on the island.

In Tommaso Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium there is clear evidence of the continued Hellenistic intellectual tradition present on the island of Sicily during the

Renaissance. Schifaldo’s notes demonstrated the unbroken Hellenistic tradition in

151

intellectual thought in Sicily that flourished on the island from before the days of its rule under the Roman empire. Schifaldo displayed the continuity of this tradition by constantly tying elements of Sicilian intellectualism back to the greatness and tradition of the ancient Greeks. Schifaldo valued Greek traditions over Roman. The greater affinity toward a Greek tradition, displayed by Schifaldo, was unique to Sicilian humanism. This was evident in the value Schifaldo placed in his lessons on the teaching of a moral or ethical lesson through the teaching of literature and history. This serves as an example of the Hellenistic traditions that Schifaldo employed in his work. The structured debate format of his vignettes also indicated Schifaldo’s training in Hellenistic and Sicilian

Intellectual tradition. These were elements that were explored and emphasized in Sicilian humanist thought.

Schifaldo’s use of Latin-Sicilian dialect proved that Schifaldo was interested in elevating vernacular languages, but in elevating Sicilian dialect Schifaldo was making

Sicilian a language of the learned. Schifaldo proved that Sicilian was a language that belonged among the intellectual elite. This suggests that Schifaldo believed in a Sicilian identity. Schifaldo gave further indication of how he viewed Sicilian identity in his discussion of the naming of the island of Sicily. Schifaldo emphasized that Sicily was called Sicily because, “her people,” the Sicilians, gave her that name. Schifaldo went further, emphasizing that “Italy is our brother,” and that Sicilians were descendants of

Greek ancestry; however, Sicilians were not to be confused with “Partenope” (inhabitants of Naples). By distinguishing Sicilians in this way, Schifaldo emphasized a unique

Sicilian identity separate from all those he mentioned previously. Schifaldo also referenced a unique Sicilian identity when he referenced the “mixed literary heritage” of

152

the island. Schifaldo demonstrated that the “mixed literary heritage” of Sicilians made their work diverse from Italian, Greek, or any others. Similar to Fazello, cultural mixing was what made Sicilian culture uniquely Sicilian.

While Sicily was under the rule of the crown of Aragon during Schifaldo’s lifetime there was little to suggest his involvement with the Aragonese court. Certainly

Schifaldo would have had some understanding of how the court functioned and how

Sicily in turn functioned as a subject of the Spanish crown; however, there was no mention of the Spanish crown in Commentarioli in Persium. Schifaldo did write a poem on King Ferdinand’s victory in Granada of the Muslims in 1492, but very little is known about the poem and the purposes for Schifaldo’s writing it, if it is indeed his writing.

Tommaso Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium was a work of Sicilian humanism that clearly demonstrated Sicilian intellectualism and scholarship, combined with elements of Sicilianità. Schifaldo’s pedagogy and methodology proved the existence of an unbroken Hellenistic tradition within the intellectual culture of Sicily. As a professor of literature at Messina, Schifaldo served as an example of the Sicilian intellectual tradition in which other Sicilian humanists, such as Lucio Marineo Siculo, were trained; therefore, Schifaldo, through the training and teaching of his pupils, indirectly imparted the Sicilian intellectual tradition, and the Hellenistic tradition upon other Sicilian humanists who carried it with them. Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium was an example of the methodology, while Lucio Marineo Siculo’s Obra Compuesta Por

Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de España, was an example of the methodology applied.

153

Lucio Marineo Siculo wrote Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las

Cosas Memorables de España while he was Head of the Department of Humane Letters at the University of Salamanca. While Siculo’s writing was certainly still the product of

Sicilian humanist training and thought, it was written under different circumstances and with different purposes than Schifaldo’s Commentarioli in Persium. Siculo wrote Las

Cosas Memorables de España under the patronage of the Spanish crown with the intention of writing a history that glorified Spain; Charles V. Schifaldo’s work, by contrast, which consisted of notes on how to teach Perseus, delineated the history of the genre of literature in which Perseus was written with the exception of the notes on the etymology of words in the final section. Thus, Siculo’s Las Cosas Memorables de

España had a direct political element that was lacking in Schifaldo’s work.

However, Siculo’s work shared many of the same elements visible in Schifaldo’s work. Siculo was well aware of how history, philosophy, language, and literature worked together in order to build cultural currency. Since Siculo began his work at Salamanca during a time when the crown of Spain was interested in expanding its imperial endeavors, Siculo’s position as the head of Humane Letters at Spain’s most prestigious university made him an instrument in the creation of Spanish cultural currency. Las

Cosas Memorables de España then, was written by Siculo in Spanish in order to glorify

Spain, and to be used as tool to spread Spanish culture during the “Age of Exploration.”

This image of Spain that Siculo was constructing, along with many other humanists and scholars, was further emphasized through the use of the Spanish vernacular. The greatness of Spain was even carried through the greatness of the Spanish language.

154

Siculo’s intellectual training and Hellenistic background became evident as he wrote the history of Spain. Siculo linked the greatness of Spain to the greatness of Rome, which caused contention with the Spanish humanist Antonio Nebrija, who was also a colleague of Siculo’s at the University of Salamanca. There was also a Greco-Roman framework within which Siculo set his historical narrative, which was similar to the one employed by Schifaldo. This can be seen in Siculo’s letters to Baldassare Castiglione, which indicated the Hellenistic tradition in which he was trained by delineating his methodology. While Siculo tied the origins of Spanish culture to Rome, he was also certain to mention Sicilian cultural origins as well. This was done to link Roman greatness to Hellenistic tradition. In order to do so, Siculo utilized a Sicilian and Roman historiography predominantly emphasizing his Greco-Roman methodology. Siculo was very clear in his loyalty to his intellectual tradition and his intention to propagate it. This was evident in the letter he wrote to his former student, in the way he discussed Sicilian identity, and was also evident in the way he placed the origins of “greatness” in his narrative of Spanish history in Sicily as well as in Rome. In doing so, Siculo also enhanced the cultural currency of Sicily itself.

The letters to Castiglione from Siculo and the linguistic choices he made to discuss Sicily throughout Las Cosas Memorables de España also showed how Siculo viewed Sicilian cultural identity. Through the use of the terms fama, virtue, and patrimonio he established a unique particular, the use of terms like fama (glory) which tie directly back to Cicero, and the belief in the ideal that men must be men of virtue as

Castiglione defined virtue, were core concepts to the Renaissance movement. Therefore,

Siculo in describing Sicilians in this way, coupled with their strong sense of Sicilian

155

patrimonio, elevated the greatness and indeed the existence of Sicilian heritage to that of equal rank with the Spanish, Florentines, or the Venetians.

The way Siculo constructed the narrative of the Sicilian Vespers signified how

Siculo was simultaneously an agent of Spanish empire, and an agent of Sicilian identity.

Siculo’s narrative of the Vespers was also indicative of the socio-political context in which he wrote Las Cosas Memorables de España. Siculo used language that glorified the bravery, courage, and strength of the Sicilians who served as the protagonists of his narrative. Siculo then vilified the French, the clear antagonists of his narrative, while praising the Spanish, who played a just and heroic role. While the event of the Sicilian

Vespers took place roughly two hundred and fifty years before Siculo was writing Las

Cosas Memorables de España, during Siculo’s lifetime there continued to exist the contentious relationship between Spain and France.

In addition, the Kingdom of Naples, which included Sicily during Siculo’s lifetime, had been the battleground for French and Spanish power during the early modern period, as both France and Spain claimed dynastic rights to the Neapolitan crown. Since Siculo’s source of patronage was the Spanish crown however—and it could be argued that Sicilians felt more affinity with the Spanish because of the atrocities committed against them by the Anjou monarchy—Siculo constructed a narrative emphasizing that the French were “violent”, and “barbaric,” and the Spanish were “fair,” and “good.” The most important thing to note, however, is Siculo’s construction of the

Sicilian identity.

Siculo constructed Sicilians as a distinct people and emphasized multiple times that they were not Spanish or Italian but Sicilian. Siculo also recognized the agency of

156

Sicilians in overthrowing the Anjou monarchy, and petitioning to be ruled by the crown of Aragon because Queen Constance, the wife of King Pedro of Aragon, was the daughter of King Manfred, the late King of Sicily. Siculo in the end did not concede that

Sicilians relinquished full power to King Pedro of Aragon. While certainly King Pedro was the victor of this narrative, according to Siculo, it was with the “reason and direction” of the Sicilians that King Pedro became the successful ruler of such an

“esteemed and culturally rich” island. Siculo acknowledged the power given to the

Aragonese crown, but not through the relinquishing of Sicilian’s ability to negotiate their power. Siculo therefore used a narrative of Spanish greatness in order to simultaneously develop the narrative of a Sicilian identity.

In the writings of both Siculo and Schifaldo there existed an identity that was distinctly Sicilian. While certainly both humanists shared qualities with northern Italian humanists, there were elements in their work that differentiate them as well. Many of these distinctions have to do with Sicilian reliance on Hellenistic tradition and training, which was significantly present in these works because it was carried through the Sicilian intellectual system. This Hellenistic tradition was not only heavily drawn upon in the works of Siculo and Schifaldo, but was also recognized by northern Italians, such as

Aldus Manutius, that Sicily was the place to study Greek. In addition, Sicily had the best instructors of Greek during the Renaissance whom were well known even in northern

Europe such as Costantino Lascaris and Giovanni Naso.

Both Siculo and Schifaldo used vernacular languages as a tool to further their purposes. Siculo drew on the importance of Spanish culture by writing Las Cosas

Memorables de España in Spanish, rather than Latin which as the language of the

157

Romans, and Schifaldo elevated Sicilian dialect in blending it with Latin to make it a language of academic circles. Further, both men constructed Sicilians as an agentive group with a strong sense of culture and patrimony, separate from Italian or Spanish identity.

While it is necessary to do further research in order to prove the importance of

Sicilian humanism in relation to northern Italian humanism, I believe the works of Siculo and Schifaldo discussed here establish clearly the existence of Sicilian cultural identity.

Through the strong ties to Hellenistic tradition seen in Sicilian humanist writing—such as the debate format, and the moral and ethical didactic nature of the works of both Siculo and Schifaldo—it is evident that the humanist movement was not one that simply started in the north of the Italian peninsula and filtered down. Rather, the continuity of the

Hellenistic intellectual tradition in Sicily was a movement that filtered up the Italian peninsula. I am not suggesting that this movement simply filtered up through Italy, and thus, that Sicily was responsible for the Renaissance in its entirety; however, I am suggesting that the humanist movement in Italy is a blended movement of many traditions throughout the Mediterranean basin. In terms of Italy, elements of southern humanism, particularly those of an intellectual and Hellenistic tradition filtered up while the political and Latin traditions of the north filtered down, and blended.

Several key points can be drawn out of each one of the sources previously discussed in each chapter. One is that the Italian south was engaged in the movement of the Renaissance. Sicily in particular was the birthplace of poetry and mythology. While there is certainly more work to be done and more to be said about the Italian south during the Renaissance, it is evident that it was not a backward, cultureless, stain on the face of

158

the Italian peninsula. In understanding the intellectual movement of Sicily, we begin to see the construction of Sicilianità, which was a heterogenous identity that was constructed by the intellectuals before, during, and after the Renaissance. In the next chapter we will see similar themes echoed by grammarian Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and poet Antonio Veneziano. However, one striking difference between D’Arezzo and

Veneziano and Siculo and Schifaldo was that the former developed a conceptualization of

Sicilianità that was the physical embodiment of an identity. This was a significant change in how constructions of Sicilianità evolved from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century.

159

CHAPTER V

CLAUDIO MARIO D’AREZZO AND ANTONIO VENEZIANO: SICILIAN POETS

Introduction: Language, Literature, and Subverting the Tuscan Paradigm

Claudio Mario D’Arezzo (?-1575) and Antonio Veneziano (1543-1593) were two

Sicilian humanists who established an oral and literary tradition that was fundamental to the formation of Sicilianità. Born in different parts of the island, both humanists emphasized the importance of recording the Sicilian language and bringing to light

Sicilian poetic tradition. Both intellectuals claimed that the Sicilian language and the tradition of Sicilian poetry preceded that of the Tuscans, yet it had never been equally acknowledged by early modern scholars. Both humanists were also familiar with the histories of Tommaso Fazello, and because of that, the recurring themes of multicultural identity, acceptance of an Arab past, and consolidating the lineage of Sicilian identity within the Norman monarchies were evident in the works of both men. While both men were aware of Fazello, I have found no evidence to suggest that they knew each other or were in contact in any way. However, as I will more fully explain below, both

D’Arezzo’s and Veneziano’s conceptualizations of Sicilianità took on more corporeal forms of Sicilian identity than those conceptualized by Fazello, Schifaldo, and Siculo.

160

While the main characteristics of Sicilianità remained the same, in the works of

D’Arezzo and Veneziano Sicilianità became less of an ideology and more of the embodiment of an identity and culture. This is why language was central to both humanists; language became the medium through which Sicilianità was expressed, consumed, and absorbed. In this chapter I will provide background for the historical period in which each humanist lived—grounding them in their historical context and environment, particularly the string of battles that comprised the Italian Wars (1494-

1559). These battles highly influenced Sicilian identity formation, and the works of both

D’Arezzo and Veneziano. The works I will focus on primarily are two writings,

Osservanti dila Lingua Siciliana, a Sicilian grammar book written by D’Arezzo containing some of his original poetry, and Veneziano’s, Canzuni Amursi Siciliani, a poetry book he composed solely in Sicilian dialect. By analyzing these two sources I will show how each humanist constructed Sicilianità, and how the intellectual tradition indicated by this construction of Sicilian identity contributed to the intellectual tradition delineated in the previous chapters. Additionally, I will demonstrate how the historical landscape of the period in which D’Arezzo and Veneziano were writing shaped the progression of Sicilianità.

As mentioned previously, in the works of D’Arezzo and Veneziano there were two primary developments of Sicilianità that were different from expressions of Sicilian identity discussed in earlier humanists such as Tommaso Schifaldo (1430-1500?), Lucio

Marineo Siculo (1460-1533), and Tommaso Fazello (1498-1570). Moving from the mid- fifteenth century into the late-sixteenth century Sicilianità became much more than the expression of a tradition that served as the foundation of a Sicilian identity; it became the

161

embodiment of an identity. In his grammar book, D’Arezzo put a great deal of effort into making sure that Sicilian paradigms were established as a standard for Sicilian literature-- paradigms he claimed had roots in ancient past and established the groundwork for

Tuscan literature. In doing so, D’Arezzo not only provided the underpinning for the establishment of a Sicilian language, but he also provided a standardized articulation of

Sicilian identity. D’Arezzo’s Sicilianità was comprised of a literary tradition that, according to him, was older and greater than that of Tuscany, and should rightfully be restored as the standard paradigm for all Italian poetry. Therefore, recognizing “Sicilian verse” as distinct, and writing it in a standardized language captured Sicilianità within a spoken language through which Sicilians could express their true identity.

Veneziano took D’Arezzo’s thesis one step further, by suggesting that the ability to articulate Sicilian was the embodiment of Sicilianità. For Veneziano, when he spoke

Sicilian it was an expression of the embodiment of his Sicilian identity; Sicilianità was a physical attribute just as hair or eye color might be. As I will show in this chapter,

Veneziano consistently used corporeal imagery in his conceptualization of Sicilianità, and emphasized his discomfort in utilizing other languages since, when he did so, he felt that he was not displaying his authentic self. Veneziano would often refer to his work that was not written in Sicilian as “not me,” “masked,” “veiled,” words that conveyed the obscuring of identities. Therefore, in contrast with Sicilian humanists of the mid-fifteenth century D’Arezzo and Veneziano physically tied their Sicilianità to their own personal identities. This was a form of Sicilianità which crossed over from cultural ideology to physicality.

162

This change in the rhetoric of Sicilianità may, in part, be due to the effects of the

Italian Wars on Sicily. D’Arezzo lived through the wars, and Veneziano would have been about sixteen years old when the wars ended in 1559. While the direct control Spain had over Sicily was contingent at best, Sicily had changed from the state it was in before the

Wars occurred. Much of the agricultural materials produced in Sicily went to Spain, as well as a great deal of money, due to the new taxation policies the Spanish employed in

Sicily, not to mention the introduction of the inquisition in Sicily.251 D’Arezzo was angry at the state of Sicily after these foreigners invaded, and made a mess of Sicilian culture and language. While Veneziano expressed sorrow, he particularly mourned for the loss of

Sicilian language and identity since he was now forced to speak the language of others rather than his own, forcing him once again to be “masked.” In order for both Claudio

Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano to express their true identities they had to represent their Sicilian identity, which began with speaking Sicilian.

The Standard Sicilian Form: The Case of Claudio Mario D’Arezzo

Claudio Mario D’Arezzo was born in Syracuse, Sicily sometime between the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century; the exact date of his birth is unknown. Since he was born into a noble family, D’Arezzo had the privilege of attending the finest academies on the island, where he became a prolific prose writer, and

251 H.G. Koenigsberger, The Practice of Empire: Philip II and Sicily, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1951). Francesco Benigno, “Integration and Conflict in Spanish Sicily,” Thomas Dandelet and John Marino Ed., Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700, (Holland: Brill Publishing, 2007). Domenico Sella, Crisis and Continuity: The Economy of Spanish Lombardy in the Seventeenth Century, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1979). Antonio Calabria, The Cost of Empire: The Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the Time of Spanish Rule, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). 163 began to work with Cristoforo Scobar, a lexicographer of Spanish descent who was born in Sicily. In 1518, D’Arezzo moved to Messina, where he became a political activist publishing various essays and pamphlets advocating for policies that would benefit

Sicily. In this period Sicily’s leadership was in contestation since France and Spain— though other political entities were involved—were in the midst of fighting the Italian

Wars (1494-1559). The Italian Wars began with competing claims held by France and

Spain to the throne of the Kingdom of Naples, which were then complicated by other political relationships between Spain and the Duchy of Milan, Venice, and the Papacy.252

It was within the context of this long and violent string of battles that D’Arezzo wrote his first significant political work, Trinacria ad Calorum253, in 1520, which was an appeal to Charles V to stop the continuous bloody struggle over Sicily, which was being consistently invaded by various outside entities. Many of the details of D’Arezzo’s life are not known; however, we do know that after the publication of Trinacria ad Carolum,

D’Arezzo left Sicily and was present and instrumental in the peace talks between Spain and France after the Battle of Pavia (1525), which is considered in current historiography to have been one of the decisive battles leading to Spanish victory in the Italian Wars.

The Italian Wars however, did not officially end until 1559 with the signing of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis, in which France relinquished all of its right to the Kingdom of

Naples. Nevertheless, it was in the peace negotiations following the Battle of Pavia that

D’Arezzo became acquainted with Mercurino di Gattinara, an Italian humanist, who, at

252 Michael Mallet and Christine Shaw, The Italian Wars, 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe, (New York: Pearson, 2012).

253 Trinacria ad Calorum was a pamphlet printed in Palermo in 1521. It appears to have been widely read since in his last work, on the history of the great men of Syracuse, Tommaso Fazello stated that this pamphlet was what launched D’Arezzo’s political career. Today only one known copy exists at the Alexandrian Library in Rome, and special permission is required to gain access to the document. 164

that time, was serving as chancellor to Charles V. Gattinara served the Spanish court as a statesman and was a fervent advocate of a global Spanish Empire.254 Through this friendship cultivated between D’Arezzo and Gattinara, Charles V became aware of

D’Arezzo’s writing prowess and assigned him to be his court historiographer from 1525 to 1532.255

It was during this period, at the Spanish Imperial court, that D’Arezzo wrote his grammar book entitled, Osservanti Dila Lingua Siciliana, Et, Canzoni, Inlo, Proprio

Idioma (Observing the Sicilian Language, and Verse in its Proper Form). The book was not printed however until 1543, when D’Arezzo returned to his home in Syracuse. The

1543 edition is the only printed version of D’Arezzo’s work; thus, it was never translated into Latin, Tuscan Italian, or Spanish even though it was commissioned by Charles V.

There are three known copies of the grammar book still in existence; one is at the regional library of Messina, another is housed in the Newberry Library in Chicago, and the last one in in the Laurentian Library in Florence. The edition discussed here is the one housed in the Regional Library in Messina. D’Arezzo titled the first chapter of the book,

“A Cui quista Opera si Indiriza” (“Whom this Work Addresses”).256 As suggested by such a title, D’Arezzo addressed his audience, explaining for whom and for which purpose he wrote this grammar book. D’Arezzo opened this section by referencing

254 Rebecca A. Boone, Mercurino di Gattinara and the Creation of the Spanish Government, (New York: Routledge, 2015).

255 The biographical information for D’Arezzo is from the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, an online data base serviced through major universities, museums, and government agencies which is intended to collect data on all important Italians. Many of the pages are written by scholars and are approved by the President of the Italian Republic.

256 Claudio Mario d’Arezzo, 1543, Osservanti Dila Lingua Siciliana, Et, Canzoni, Inlo, Proprio Idioma, Di Mario, Di Arrezo, Gentil’Homo Saragusano, (Messina: Paolo Siminara, 1543), 1. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. 165

Dante’s De Vulgare Eloquentia, in which Dante stated that under the Norman kings

Sicilian became one of the most “laudable” languages in Italy. By D’Arezzo’s lifetime,

Dante’s work had already become seminal in Italian literary history. The Divine Comedy, arguably Dante’s greatest work, is contemporarily credited with being one of the transitional works from Middle Ages to Renaissance literature, and in the early modern period Dante’s work became the standard by which many Italian writers and poets fashioned their own writings. Therefore, by challenging Dante, D’Arezzo was calling into questions the very foundation of Italian literary tradition. Dante continued in De Vulgare

Eloquentia to say that because Sicilian culture and language became degraded after the demise of the Norman dynasty—for which Dante blamed a declining economic state among other things—Sicilian could not be the language of Italy since in his lifetime, “the most eloquent natives [Sicilians] have preferred not to use their own language.”257

D’Arezzo contested and problematized this assertion made by Dante, as he argued that Dante did not take into account some key factors in the development of Italian and

Sicilian language and culture. One argument D’Arezzo made to challenge Dante was that the poetic traditions of Italy, Tuscany included, could be traced to the Sicilian School of poetry established by the Norman King Frederick II in Palermo. While Dante also noted the importance of Sicilian in the evolution of Italian poetry, he stated that Sicilian poetry could no longer be considered Sicilian by the 1300s since the poetic language of Sicily was no longer the language of the pedestrian Sicilian. D’Arezzo countered Dante’s argument as he suggested that while colloquial Sicilian had been corrupted by foreign populations moving through the island, that did not justify Dante’s flippant dismissal of

257 Dante Alighieri, De Vulgare Eloquentia, translated by Steven Boterill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 8. 166

the legacy of Sicilian poets in the evolution of Italian poetry. According to D’Arezzo, it was Sicilians who introduced the sonnet form and Occitan verse to the Italian peninsula.

The Tuscans, therefore, appropriated “Sicilian Poetry,” as the genre was still called in the sixteenth century, as their own. D’Arezzo wrote, “…because the Sicilian language has assumed glory above all others in Italy: There can be no other, save Sicilian, which today the Tuscans have appropriated, and that which was used by Dante and those of his generation to write their poetry…Therefore, all poetry that is written by Italians can be called Sicilian...our rhymes are more refined, as we are the inventors of this tongue (the one which Tuscans claim today to be their own) they [Tuscans] write poetry and sonnets making themselves rich on our poetic genius.”258 D’Arezzo continued his critique of

Tuscan “appropriation” of the Sicilian language by stating, “If Tuscans think our language is ‘rustic’ and ‘crude’ they should not take our inventions and claim them as their own.”259 D’Arezzo took a severe line in arguing that the primary foundation of

Tuscan poetry was not Tuscan but Sicilian. It was evident that D’Arezzo was not only seeking to critique the “Tuscan forefathers” of the Italian language; rather, D’Arezzo’s main purpose was to dispense with a Tuscan standard paradigm of language and poetics altogether.

D’Arezzo problematized Dante’s argument about class as well. In his dedication,

D’Arezzo did not dedicate this work to his patron Charles V; instead, D’Arezzo addressed his work to two groups of Sicilians. D’Arezzo explained in this section, similar to Dante, that there was a distinction between the language of the “mediocri paesani” and

258 Ibid., 3-4.

259 Ibid., 3.

167

the “principali siciliani”260 (mediocre peasants and elite Sicilians.) According to

D’Arezzo, the language of the peasants became “rustic” and “unrefined” because of the intrusion of foreigners such as the French, Aragonese, and Castilians; however, the language of the educated elite Sicilians was as “laudable” as Dante explained it was in De

Volgare Eloquentia.261 Again, according to D’Arezzo, as was seen with Tommaso

Fazello, the “foreigners” who bastardized Sicilian were primarily those rulers who came after the Normans. Until Norman rule, presumably, Sicilian was a laudable language.

Dante suggested that refined Sicilian had its roots in Greek, and Latin. However, because this Sicilian was no longer spoken by the popular classes in Sicily, Dante argued that it could not be considered as one of the most beautiful languages in Italy. D’Arezzo, instead, because his concept of Sicilianità was inclusive of all classes, suggested that the

“mediocre peasants” simply needed to be taught what proper Sicilian was.

D’Arezzo continued throughout his work to emphasize the class distinction between “peasants” and “elite” Sicilians. However, while this difference may have had important implications for the standardization of Sicilian dialect, D’Arezzo never suggested that one group was more “Sicilian” than the other. D’Arezzo’s inclusive conceptualization of Sicilianità was made evident when he wrote, “This is my purpose, to record the grammar of our academies so those who know it can teach it, and those who do not, may have a linguistic tradition with which they can be content.”262 Aside from clear indicators of Sicilianità, such as the use of pronouns like “our” and “us,” which

260 D’Arezzo, 2.

261 Ibid., 3.

262 Ibid., 3. 168

D’Arezzo utilized throughout his work, this statement indicated that in his conception of

Sicilian identity all classes of Sicilians were included, the popular and the elite. Clearly, as D’Arezzo indicated, the elite were to teach the linguistic tradition of Sicily while the popular classes were to learn about their culture by learning their language properly.

D’Arezzo’s purpose, in his words was that they—all classes of Sicilians— may be

“content” with their linguistic tradition. D’Arezzo, as many other Italian humanists did, was building a cultural foundation for Sicily by recording and promoting the grammar of

Sicilian.

D’Arezzo’s Sicilianità, and his motivations in removing Tuscan as the standard of

Italian literature could also be seen in how he did not write this work for anyone else but

Sicilians--not even the King of Spain. Additionally, D’Arezzo further emphasizes Sicilian identity by blaming foreign influences for the degradation of colloquial Sicilian.

D’Arezzo differentiated Sicily from other parts of the Italian peninsula, and he critiqued other parts of Italy for how they viewed Sicily. D’Arezzo, shortly after dedicating his book to Sicilians, continued on to say, “voglo sia tanto iudicata di Siciliani” (I want this to be judged by Sicilians), not by Tuscans who D’Arezzo claimed “only seek to judge works believing they possess the knowledge of understanding what is laudable and what is base in poetry, and then they impose those beliefs on all others in Italy.”263 While

D’Arezzo opened with a critique of Dante, here again he was suggesting a complete dismissal of a Tuscan standard in regards to poetic and linguistic traditions. D’Arezzo had no interest in being reviewed or critiqued by Tuscans; this work was a work of

263 Ibid., 4. 169

Sicilianità, made for Sicilians, by a Sicilian. Therefore, D’Arezzo argued for Tuscan acknowledgement of the Sicilian literary tradition, not for Tuscan approval.

In the second section of the introduction, D’Arezzo went further in detail discussing the evolution of Sicilian poetry. As he took to task another Italian Humanist,

Pietro Bembo, D’Arezzo’s discussion became more patriotic. Pietro Bembo (1470-1547) was a Venetian humanist whose histories and theories of Italian literature and poetry became very famous. Bembo is most famous for his literary theories and trying to incorporate more Greek-sounding rhythms into Tuscan Italian poetry. Bembo proclaimed that the perfect models of Italian poetry were the poems produced by Petrarch, and that the work of Boccaccio represented the ideal for prose writing. Since Bembo wrote in the style of Petrarch and Boccaccio, and sought to propagate this style, he is often credited with cementing the elevated status of the Tuscan style which permeated the Italian

Renaissance.264

D’Arezzo critiqued one of Bembo’s theoretical arguments that in order to write

Italian poetry, Italian poets must know Provençal. D’Arezzo wrote, “This man [Bembo] is very devoted to the nation of Provence, and to the contrary of Sicily; in doing so he creates contention concerning the invention of these rhymes between these two nationi

(nations)…he wishes to conflate and confuse the words spoken by Petrarch ‘ut fama est’ so it appears that we Sicilians have no right to the foundations of this poetry.”265

D’Arezzo is referring to Petrarch’s words from the Trionfi, where Petrarch explained that the glory of the sonnet came from the Sicilians, hence the term “Sicilian Verse.” Bembo

264 Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani.

265 D’Arezzo, 5. 170

argued that when Petrarch spoke those words, he was instead referencing the Sicilian court’s fondness for the poetry from Provence. D’Arezzo refuted Bembo’s argument and continued to advocate for Sicilian acknowledgement in the creation of poetry, D’Arezzo here explicitly used the word “nation” to reference Sicily. D’Arezzo, did this knowingly and intentionally; therefore, there is no doubt D’Arezzo was constructing a unique

Sicilian identity.

D'Arezzo continued in his critique of Bembo, as he simultaneously began to build a mythologized history of the Sicily. D’Arezzo repeated that Sicilian was the original language of the sonnet, and used Petrarch’s last chapter of the Trionfi in order to substantiate this claim. In contrast to Bembo’s main argument which posited that

Provencal was dispersed through Italy from Naples, D’Arezzo conversely, emphasized the phrase in question from Petrarch’s Trionfi, “the Sicilian race (who deserve this fama) as few before them did brought poetry to all of Italy.”266 D’Arezzo strengthened his argument by utilizing the words of Aristotle and Cicero to express how the legacy of

Sicily in poetic tradition gave the island fama in the history of Sicilian and Italian poetic traditions. D’Arezzo’s purpose here was to demonstrate how Bembo interpreted Petrarch incorrectly, as is mentioned above when D’Arezzo restated Petrarch’s quote “ut fama est.” D’Arezzo harshly berated Bembo for not being well read. He stated that if Bembo had read and properly interpreted Dante “he would not be well known in Italy…his false claims were simply made because he writes for popularity, this is how we can account for his devotion to Provence.” Rather, D’Arezzo, in agreement with Petrarch and Dante established, “it was through Frederick II the Emperor and his mother Constance, who

266 Ibid., 6.

171

gave birth to him, publicly in the streets of Palermo, and his son Manfred, that there was established a culture of intellectual and learned men in Sicily and other nations.”267

This reference to Frederick’s birth is interesting because the most accurate and widely accepted historiographic narrative of the birth of Frederick II places his birth in the city of Lesi in the province of Ancona located in central Italy, not in Palermo.268

According to most current historians Queen Constance, Frederick’s mother, while she was far along in her pregnancy, was traveling down from Milan to return home to Sicily in order to attend the coronation of her husband Henry VI. While on her journey to

Palermo Constance went into labor and gave birth to Frederick on December 26, 1194.

The public aspect of Frederick’s birth is quite controversial as well, but Constance’s entire pregnancy was challenging to accept for most Italians and Sicilians in the Middle

Ages. One reason was Constance’s age; she was forty years old when she gave birth to

Frederick; coupled with her age was the rumor that in her youth she had been consecrated to a God and was forced join a nunnery. The Queen’s age and religious past, together with the political rivalry and struggle over Sicily between Henry VI and Constance’s nephew, Tancred of Lecce, caused historians of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to have drastically diverging narratives of Frederick II and his origins. Historians such as

Giovanni Villani, Dante, and Petrarch269 all discussed Constance and the birth of

267 Ibid., 6.

268 Historians such as David Abulafia, Hubert Houben, Karla Mallette, and many others discuss the circumstances surrounding the birth of Frederick II in greater detail, but all agree on his birth in Lesi as well as the controversy surrounding his birth and conception.

269 The historical account of Giovanni Villani was used primarily by Karla Mallette. However other historians have also sought to understand how the story of Frederick II was utilized in the midst of the political intrigue between the Guelfs and Ghibellines. Often, particularly in the case of Petrarch and Dante, Frederick II was usually written of in disparaging terms because of his overwhelming Ghibelline supporters. Dante and Petrarch were Guelfs. David Abulafia, Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor, (New 172

Frederick as some sort of supernatural event. A powerful King, but a man, born of a woman consecrated to God, in the streets of a city the day after Christmas was strikingly similar story to that of Jesus Christ, or for those who took issue with Frederick, perhaps this was the tale of the anti-Christ. For example, in Dante’s Divine Comedy, he placed

Constance in Paradise while Frederick himself appeared in Hell.

Thus, the mythologizing of Frederick II and his mother Constance began long before D’Arezzo was writing, but northern and southern Italian humanists accepted the narrative for different reasons. D’Arezzo’s emphasis of Constance’s “public birth” to

Frederick in “the streets Palermo” established the arrival of a King to his people in a birth witnessed by his people. Additionally, the way D’Arezzo worded his sentence “it was through his mother Constance and Frederic II” he positioned Constance as the mother of

Sicily. D’Arezzo continued on to say, “It is from these illustrious men that we were born, it is from them that our culture was born, and it is from them that our writings were diffused throughout the whole of Italy, and outside of Italy, contrary to what this Bembo would have us believe.”270 Bembo, rather than subscribing to the argument that the birth of Italian literature could be traced to the Norman court in Sicily, claimed that French and

Spanish interactions with Italian writers at the court of Naples were the first to introduce

Provencal verse.

It should be noted that D’Arezzo was not the only historian in the Renaissance that believed Frederick to have been born in Palermo, nor was this a characteristic specific to Sicilian humanists; this issue was a point of contention for many historians

York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Thomas Curtis van Cleve,The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).

270 D’Arrezzo, 6-7. 173

during the Renaissance both in Sicily and outside of the island. However, the claim about the birth of Frederick II in the streets of Palermo served historians with positive interpretations of the Norman dynasties as well as those with more critical opinions of the

Norman kings. Reflected in these differing interpretations of the birth of Frederick II is a greater understanding of how Sicilian culture was interpreted outside of Sicily. These readings demonstrate how Renaissance intellectuals determined whether being from

Sicily was positive or negative for various reasons, most of which were political, social, and cultural.

D’Arezzo continued through the next couple of pages to discuss this debate concerning Sicily and Provence, but D’Arezzo was doing so in order to construct a foundation for Sicilianità. D’Arezzo showed how time and time again the various regimes that ruled over Sicily at a particular time took Sicilian poetry and language, and incorporated it with theirs or appropriated it altogether. D’Arezzo claimed that these practices were utilized by the French, the Spanish, and even other “nations” in Italy.

D’Arezzo also argued that these ruling bodies would take these traditions and claim them as their own.271 Towards the end of the Introduction, D’Arezzo wrote, “What is left to answer the question in this contention between Sicily and Provence is solely the opinion of one author who disagrees with all the others. We must ask this question of the rhymes themselves and look to their form to see which patria they would claim.”272 D’Arezzo’s use of the word patria here is quite provocative. He was not simply concerned with understanding the poetic form for linguistic purposes, he was concerned with adding to a

271 Ibid., 8.

272 Ibid., 8. 174

Sicilian tradition. The word patria, homeland or country, as expressed by D’Arezzo in this passage was used in the same way as Machiavelli did in The Prince. Considering the popularity of Machiavelli’s writings, D’Arezzo would have been aware of the context in which the word was utilized; therefore, the way D’Arezzo was discussing the poetry as being reflective of a patria, rather than the manifestation of a poetic tradition shows that he was using this work of grammar to establish Sicilianità.

D’Arezzo built upon the previous statement by conceptualizing a Sicilian identity which was culturally significant and therefore could be proud of its patria. D’Arezzo stated, “Certainly when determining the patria of these rhymes one would say they are

Greek or Latin, not Barbarian. However, who are we to negate the patria of Epicharmus of Syracuse of whose great comedies Horatio testified in his Epistles…or Plautus an exemplary heir of Epicharmus, or Stesichorus of Himera whose divine future was assured by his poetry, and Theocritus whose poetry even Virgil failed to eclipse.”273 The opening sentence of this passage suggests that D’Arezzo was viewing the patria of these great poets as something beyond Greek and Latin, something that perhaps others may consider

Barbarian. D’Arezzo was establishing Sicilianità while simultaneously contesting outside perceptions of Sicilian culture as crude, unrefined, and “barbaric.” While the ancestry may be primarily Greek—as suggested by the names that D’Arezzo mentions—there was a mixed heritage that was not purely Greek, and not purely Latin to which D’Arezzo was pointing. This poetic tradition started with the Greeks, was lauded by the Romans, but is

Sicilian. Additionally, while many of the writers he mentioned were Greek or of Greek

273 Ibid., 8. 175

descent, they were born in Sicily and therefore are products of Sicilian culture and intellectualism.

For another paragraph or so D’Arezzo continued to list prominent Sicilians not just from Syracuse but from all over Sicily including Palermo and Messina. At the end of the introduction, D’Arezzo once again persisted with his critique of Bembo; he said, “As it concerns the arguments made by that Bembo when it comes to modern Sicilian I would say that if they are not completely mindless they do not contain one shred of truth to them…for some like him, our poetic traditions and language may seem disgraceful, but for many ingenious others who truly know poetry ours is given the highest praise.”274

Here, D’Arezzo critiqued Bembo for not recognizing the greatness of Sicilian tradition as the ancients had, which showed Bembo’s lack of understanding concerning Italian poetic tradition.

The next section of D’Arezzo’s book is short--only one page in fact--and is presented to the reader as a summary of proper poetic analysis. For this short comparative analysis D’Arezzo used a poem written by a “Gentleman from Palermo”275 named

Bartolomio Corbera,276 which was contrasted with a short poem written by Pietro Bembo.

D’Arezzo spoke highly of Corbera’s work as he stated, “it is an encapsulation of all our poetic tradition in one verse;” as for Bembo’s poem he stated that it was “an attempt to

274 Ibid., 8.

275 Ibid., 9.

276 Bartolomeo Corbera also known as Bartolomeo Asmundo was a Sicilian poet from Palermo who wrote circa 1472. Little is known about him other than he was a lyrical poet from a noble family. His poetry was like Veneziano’s written on only Sicilian dialect, and only two of his works exist. One is housed in the Roman Regional Archives and the other in the regional archives of Palermo. Gaetana Maria Rinaldi, Il repertorio delle 'canzuni' siciliane dei secoli XVI-XVII, in «Bollettino del Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani», Palermo, n. 18, 1995, pp.41-108. 176

mimic our poetic traditions, which primarily they claim are a disgrace, however no one could ever refute the influence of Sicilian verse on this poem.”277 The poems appear as follows:

Bartolomio Corbera

In this continuing war: for which I am grievously At fault: I have gained much respect, For this tired body little by little: little by little I push to Death: that with great pleasure I await, That ever-nearing vision of being dead Which fills me with increasing joy This happiness will be my comfort Only to have a longer life, which mocks me.278

Pietro Bembo

When I think of torture, My love, the grievous torture you have put me through: Swiftly I run to meet death: This way I hope to end my sufferings: But I do so: and only lengthen my journey: Each step I take, in this sea, this sea of torment: Brings me only pleasure.279

The poems are indeed quite similar. The darker themes of death, and torture, set against opposing themes of love, glory, and pleasure are evident in both. However, where

Bembo’s poem was primarily centered on the “pain of pleasure” that love brings,

Corbera’s poem was less obvious in its purpose. Corbera’s poem indicated an internal struggle, which tortured him, and therefore made him long for death; however, as joyful as the thought of death made him, ironically, his life did not end. There is very little to do

277 Ibid., 9.

278 Ibid., 9.

279 Ibid, 9. 177

with love and romance in Corbera’s poem when compared to Bembo’s. D’Arezzo argued here that not only did Bembo, “steal the form and structure of this poem” but he also

“closed it off into a simplistic little verse stripping it of its original genius.”280 D’Arezzo stated, “we can see the influence of Sicilian poetry in this [Bembo’s poem], but its tiresome topic and poor execution show a degradation from the original form.”281

D’Arezzo’s “tiresome topic” comment pointed to the clichéd quality of Bembo’s poem focusing on love, which lends credence to D’Arezzo’s previous conviction that Bembo was writing merely for the sake of popularity. Additionally, Corbera was older than

Bembo; Bembo was born in 1470, the same year that Corbera was named prefect of

Palermo for the Aragonese court. D’Arezzo’s argument then, that Bembo stole Corbera’s work, was quite plausible. Overall, this section on poetry indicates D’Arezzo’s broader argument, that Sicilian tradition was stolen and augmented by northern scholars while these same scholars depicted Sicily as culturally inferior.

Finally concluding all introductory sections in Chapter Four of his work,

D’Arezzo closed his polemics saying “So it would appear, that not only did Sicilian assume the greatest fama of all the languages in Italy, but Sicilians, in that time, spoke the most refined language in all of Italy.”282 This statement was a final indictment by

D’Arezzo, attesting to the high culture of Sicilians in comparison to mainland Italians.

Since this work of D’Arezzo’s is a grammar book, he could have simply ended it with a declaration about the superiority of the language; he goes further by stating that the

280 Ibid., 9.

281 Ibid., 9.

282 Ibid., 10. 178

sophistication of Sicilian people could be captured through the language they spoke, which was the most civilized and lauded language of the Middle Ages, and praised by those such as Dante and Petrarch. The argument stretches even further back to how the

Romans sought to mimic Sicilian-born Greeks, whom D’Arezzo claimed as Sicilian. By ending this way D’Arezzo firmly rooted Sicilian identity within a language, which— historically before all others in Italy—had achieved superiority in poetic, prosaic, and colloquial forms. This was the language that served as the foundation of Sicilianità, and

Sicilian identity.

In Chapter Five of the book D’Arezzo officially began his discussions of grammar, opening with topics such as differences in Sicilian between singular and plural, past, present and future tenses, how to properly conjugate masculine and feminine roots of verbs, and more. By the second paragraph of this section, D’Arezzo began making comparisons between Sicilian and Tuscan. Initially, D’Arezzo’s references to Tuscan in comparison to Sicilian were utilized more as a common reference point for his intended audience. By 1542, most of the Italian peninsula would have known Tuscan as the lingua franca of Italy; therefore, since D’Arezzo’s purpose was to oppose the Tuscan standard paradigm of language and literature it would have been important that his readers had a general understanding of the variations between the language they would be most familiar with, Tuscan and the language D’Arezzo was attempting to teach them, Sicilian.

D’Arezzo began by describing differences between Tuscan and Sicilian articles, as well as past and future tenses. D’Arezzo gave several examples in the opening paragraph of this section, demonstrating how the Tuscan vernacular had been primarily based on the writings of three authors: Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. D’Arezzo used

179

sections from The Divine Comedy, The Triumphs, and the Decameron to show the uniform application of plurals within these works which, of course, were mainly derived from Latin grammar.283 D’Arezzo wrote, “They write this way to create a pure Tuscan without creating any errors in the Latin root; however, I have noticed, if you have not taken note yourself that Boccaccio’s multipart novella is titled ‘Decameron’. This word is not Tuscan, and is not Latin, but it is purely Greek.”284 D’Arezzo’s emphasis on pointing out the Greek origins of the word “Decameron” showed how he, as well as many other

Sicilian humanists, identified with their Greek ancestry. This was also suggested by how

D’Arezzo structured this statement, differentiating the word Decameron as distinctly “not

Latin and not Tuscan.” From here, D’Arezzo ended the very short chapter five by continuing to discuss the use of “vulgarized” Latin and its interplay with other languages, particularly what this meant for the singular and plural grammatical structures of Tuscan and Sicilian.

In Chapter Six, D’Arezzo opened with the rhetorical question “should vulgarized

Latin [vernacular language] be used?”285 D’Arezzo came to the conclusion that because beautiful poetry can be produced in vernacular speech, such as the works of Dante and

Petrarch, therefore vernacular languages were acceptable to use in colloquial speech as well as in poetry and high literature.286 Additionally, according to D’Arezzo, Latin roots were useful in vernacular speech since they were so commonly used and understood throughout Italy. However, D’Arezzo made a significant point here, that “a poet to

283 Ibid., 10-11.

284 Ibid., 11.

285 Ibid., 12.

286 Ibid., 12. 180

produce his best rhymes, must produce them in his mother tongue.”287 This conceptualization of a “mother tongue” was indicative of the creation of the nation as a fraternal community utilizing familial rhetoric in order to construct Sicilianità. The use of the term “mother tongue” would also be used later by Antonio Veneziano (1543-1593).

This was a manifestation of the “horizontal comradeship” as described by Benedict

Anderson, that is, in the case of D’Arezzo, the common language that binds an identity.288 To this statement D’Arezzo added, “when we look for a poetic verse, we must look beyond solely Tuscan, but to all other nations which have a standardized vernacular.”289 Again, D’Arezzo used the word nation to discuss Tuscany as well as implying that Sicily was a “nation.” Also, D’Arezzo was clearly stating that the Tuscan language is not, and should not, be a standard for poetic prowess; rather, each “nation” should be considered within the context of their own poetic and literary tradition, assuming they have a standardized vernacular. This was a bold statement to make considering the cultural cachet Tuscan held in regards to Italian vernacular, particularly since D’Arezzo’s statement suggested that there should be no single standard for all poetry, but rather poetry should be understood within the context of the culture in which it was created.

D’Arezzo continued from this point to discuss some of the laudable qualities of

Latin, by praising its universalism and how it “brought the gospels to the world.”290

Nevertheless, D’Arezzo abruptly shifted his argument as he discussed the importance of

287 Ibid., 13.

288Anderson Benedict. Imagined Communities, (London: Verso, 2006), 7.

289 D’Arezzo, 13.

290 Ibid., 13. 181

the Latin language. However, like the Sicilian humanists discussed in the previous chapters D’Arezzo praises Latin but he also discusses the limitations of Latin, he wrote,

“It should never enter the thoughts of a truly wise man…that the ample majesty of the

Latin language should ever be fully extinguished; however, while many around the world honor this language Latin has civilized barbarians, but barbarians have also civilized

Latin.”291 First he argued against the supremacy of Latin in everyday speech. While he did not believe that Latin should ever be completely dispensed with, since he recognized the importance of Latin especially for the church, he did not believe it should take precedence over one’s “mother tongue.” Additionally, the last part of this phrase by

D’Arezzo, where he stated, “…Latin has civilized barbarians, but barbarians have also civilized Latin,” suggested an acknowledgement of foreign influences on Latin, or perhaps, an evolution in Latin itself, which allowed D’Arezzo to make the argument that

Latin itself had changed through various generations. D’Arezzo here made an important argument, in acknowledging the evolution of Latin D’Arezzo brought to light its imperfection, and more importantly emphasized how Latin had also been influenced by other languages. Thus, Latin becomes just one language among many, and can be held to the same standard as vernacular languages. According to D’Arezzo, Sicilian then is as laudable as Latin especially for Sicilians who identify with their “mother tongue.”

D’Arezzo went further, stating, “I deeply regret having listened to the opinions of others, and writing my first work in Latin [Trinacria ad Calorum] rather than expressing myself in our Sicilian…this was our history from the most ancient battles to the conquering of Syracuse by the Athenians…and holds the stories of many of our heroes

291 Ibid., 13. 182

living and dead.”292 This deep regret, of not having written his history of Sicily in

Sicilian, was an expression of D’Arezzo’s Sicilianità. This was a history for his people, much as his grammar book was meant to be the foundation for formulating Sicilian identity, but he was pained that he had been dissuaded from making this work “ours.”

The language, then, begins to embody the Sicilian identity, since writing a work in Latin made it “theirs.” Therefore, for D’Arezzo the first step in articulating Sicilianità was mastering the Sicilian language.

In Chapter Eight, D’Arezzo progressed into a discussion of the more mechanical structure of Sicilian etymology. He explained to readers, for example, how Sicilians could not write or pronounce certain words that in Latin began with “f” such as flume, the

Latin word for river. For such words Sicilians retained an “x,” instead the Tuscans retained the “f.” For example, the Tuscan word for river was fiumi which in Sicilian became xumi. D’Arezzo argued against keeping the “f” because again it was a sign of

Latin supremacy in the vernacular, and the “x” made words simpler and cleaner.293

D’Arezzo also discussed how many learned men from the Italian south were considering changing the “x” in their own vernacular to mirror the Tuscan style. Regarding this debate D’Arezzo wrote, “If we wish to return to the simplicity and refinement of our language, we must write this way, otherwise we would become equally Tuscan.”294

D’Arezzo was again arguing that Sicilian in its purest form was more refined than

Tuscan.

292 Ibid., 14.

293 Ibid., 13-14.

294 Ibid., 14. 183

The rest of D’Arezzo’s grammar book was divided with chapters titled with specific parts of speech and grammar. D’Arezzo explained what they were, how they were said in Tuscan, how they differed in Sicilian, and ending with why the Sicilian form was better, or was stolen by the Tuscans. D’Arezzo primarily linked the superiority of

Sicilian with how it was closer to its Greek and Latin roots, but he acknowledged other influences on the language as well, such as Spanish and Arabic.295 Like in Fazello’s work, D’Arezzo had no problem accepting the Arabic words in Sicilian, and claims that

Arabic “enriched” Sicilian poetry, which was often written in Arabic through the Middle

Ages.296 The second to the last section of the instructional guide in the grammar book by

D’Arezzo was called “On the Structure of Poetic Verse.”297 D’Arezzo demonstrated how to properly compose a sonnet, and of course D’Arezzo mentioned the eloquent verses of

Dante and Petrarch. However, D’Arezzo claimed that Dante and Petrarch were inspired by the poetry coming out of Messina and Palermo in the Middle Ages.298 Again, this is evidence of D’Arezzo tying Italian poetic history to Sicily. Even the poetry of the greatest Italian writers, Dante and Petrarch, came from Sicily, according to D’Arezzo.

D’Arezzo ended the instructional section of the grammar book with a reference to a classical Latin author as he stated, “If someone should ever ask me ‘what is the best way to send out our many lyrical verses?’ I would respond to him as Horatio in Ars

295 In various parts of the book D’Arezzo mentions how the “y” in Sicilian came initially from Greece but has also been continually introduced through Spanish-speakers on the island. He also mentions how certain words such as “azzizzari” (dress up) in the vocabulary were introduced into Sicilian through Arabic- speakers who influenced Sicilian in the Middle Ages. However, while he mentions the various influences, other than Latin on Sicilian, he always emphasizes the “genius” and “virtue” of the Sicilian language.

296 Ibid., 32.

297 Ibid., 32.

298 Ibid., 33-34. 184

Poetica, that is that one man is nothing without a rich and abundant vein of literature in front of him, which he then builds upon.”299 D’Arezzo’s call to action was to build a tradition of language and poetry in Sicilian that could be exported outside of Sicily and known as Sicilian. This was evident in his consistent use of “our verses” and how he was rhetorically discussing the emanation of poetry from Sicily to the rest of Europe and perhaps the world. The entire instructional section served as the foundation of Sicilianità.

D’Arezzo continually worked to demonstrate Sicilian contributions to Italian poetic tradition, advocated for the inversion of the Tuscan paradigm in literature, and boldly advocated on behalf of Sicilians for the recognition of their culture. D’Arezzo used grammar and the standardization of Sicilian in order to construct Sicilianità. The next section will analyze the works of Antonio Veneziano, who sought to conceptualize

Sicilianità through poetry. Veneziano’s work shared many similarities with D’Arezzo’s, particularly the physical embodiment of Sicilianità.

Sicilianità in the Art of Language in Antonio Veneziano

Following the instructional grammar section of D’Arezzo’s book there were compiled several of his poems. I would like to analyze D’Arezzo’s poetry together with that of Antonio Veneziano. Many themes that were present in the D’Arezzo’s grammar book were also evident in Antonio Veneziano’s poetry book. Antonio Veneziano was primarily a poet. He was born and raised in Monreale, a town just outside of Palermo.

Like D’Arezzo, Veneziano came from a wealthy and prominent family; his father was the

299 Ibid., 35. 185

mayor of Monreale and his great grandfather was a Bishop. Additionally, because of his position as Mayor of Monreale, Veneziano’s father, Antonio Veneziano Senior, had connections to the Spanish court. He was in contact with Charles V, and even gave

Charles a tour of the city of Monreale when he came to tour Sicily as part of his Imperial territories. Much in the same way as D’Arezzo, Veneziano’s upbringing gave Antonio, the younger, access to the best schools in Palermo.300 In 1579, Veneziano wrote a poetry book entitled Canzuni Amurusi Siciliani (Sicilian Love Songs); all of the poetry in this collection was composed in Sicilian dialect. Veneziano’s poetry book was broken into eight chapters that were divided thematically. There is only one copy of the book housed at the Regional Library of Palermo, which is the only existing copy since the book was never printed or circulated. The book is thematically structured, and divided into eight chapters, each titled with a specific theme such as love, spirituality, or anger. For the purposes of my analysis, I will be focusing on those poems that most clearly display elements of Sicilianità.

Veneziano opened his poetry book with a five-page dedication to his patroness, whom he referred to simply as “Mia Patruna” (My Patroness).301 In this dedication

Veneziano explained to his patroness why he undertook the task of writing a Sicilian poetry book. He stated initially, “I have taken it upon myself to put together a collection of poetry in our language…perhaps I send this collection out with the hopes that others will recognize my poetic genius…I shall be the first to bring to light the poetry of

300 Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani

301 Antonio Veneziano, Canzuni Amurusi Siciliani, 1579, Mss. XI, Box 6, Folder 9. Biblioteca Regionale di Palermo A. Bombace, Palermo. 186

Sicily.”302 Like D’Arezzo, Veneziano also utilized pronouns such as “our.” In addition,

Veneziano in his own words claimed that he wanted to be known for his poetic genius, but above all, he wished to be known for his poetic genius in Sicilian.

While D’Arezzo framed Sicilian tradition in poetry as a signifier of culture and utilized it in order to construct a Sicilian identity, for Veneziano Sicilian language became more than an identity. Veneziano, perhaps through a more poetic sensibility, discussed Sicilian identity in more corporeal terminology than earlier Sicilian Humanists.

Towards the beginning of his introduction Veneziano stated, “If I wish to be recognized for my poetic genius then would it not be best to do this in, not only the language which I first spoke, but that language which I suckled like my mother’s milk?”303 When

Veneziano discussed the Sicilian language it was his medium for embodying Sicilian identity, to an even greater degree than was discussed by D’Arezzo.

Veneziano echoed several themes highlighted by D’Arezzo, two of which were the greatness of Greek influence on Sicilian culture while also claiming that Sicilian linguistic tradition had not been properly recognized. Veneziano wrote, “Homer was

Greek and wrote in Greek, Horatio was from Latin-speaking lands and wrote in Latin,

Petrarch was Tuscan and wrote in Tuscan, would it not be to my benefit as a Sicilian to write in Sicilian?”304 Aside from demonstrating his Sicilianità, in stating this, Veneziano showed how language was indicative of identity and he asked why should he hide his

Sicilian background. To this question he answered, “Plautus had the ability to imitate the

302 Ibid., 2-3.

303 Ibid., 2.

304 Ibid., 4. 187

first comedy writer the Sicilian Epicharmus; and Virgil was content to imitate the Idylls of Theocritus also a Sicilian, yet I, a Sicilian now must become a parrot of the languages of others.”305 Veneziano’s offended tone at having to express himself in a language that was not his own, and that, therefore, did not properly represent him, was quite clear. For

Veneziano, great men, since classical times, had been were mimicking great Sicilians, but in 1579 he had to justify his own Sicilian identity; however, Veneziano instead chose to celebrate that identity with this collection of poetry claiming his Sicilianità.

Veneziano closed his introduction to the poetry book stating, “Poetry is not found in language, it is in our veins, in our spirit, and in our thought…for now it has given me great pleasure to show myself in my truest form; for when I wear a mask, I demonstrate how well I can play a role like any other would do…but I have resolved that each one of us would best to express themselves in their mother tongue; by doing so, the best instructed writer will demonstrate more of his emotion, his fury, his happiness, and his skills in his language rather than in repeating the languages of others.”306 For Veneziano, his poetry suffered when he was “wearing the mask.” Therefore, in order to be the poet who sheds light on Sicilian poetry he must do so in Sicilian, because he was Sicilian, but even more so than D’Arezzo, Veneziano claimed Sicilian as his “mother tongue,” which spoke to the familial rhetoric in national identity creation and indicated his Sicilianità.

Both of these men--D’Arezzo and Veneziano--also expressed their Sicilianità through their poetry. In chapter 8, titled, “Songs of Spirituality” the first poem in the section was one of a series of four total verses that told a story. The opening lines of the

305 Ibid., 4.

306 Ibid., 5. 188

first poem were: “Antonio Veneziano, a Sage and learned man/a citizen of Palermo, the city which is the highest son,/of Apollo in truth/ for those who now know, and those who knew, makes and made Kings.”307 With the exception of the dedication in the introduction, this was the only chapter of the book where Veneziano introduced himself, and immediately he identified himself as a “citizen of Palermo.” Veneziano wanted his reader to know who he was, and he boasted about himself as he stated he was a “Sage and learned man.” Much in the same way that D’Arezzo named himself the Gentleman of Syracuse, Veneziano here named himself “the Sage of Palermo,” and introduced himself in poetic form. It was intriguing that Veneziano opened the “Songs of

Spirituality” section with this introduction, Veneziano like many humanists in this period, categorized himself as an extraordinary man. Veneziano was similar to Dante, “the Sage” who could see what those around him could not. Veneziano, however, was not simply “a sage and learned man;” he clearly stated he was from Palermo, perhaps in contrast to

Dante, the Florentine. It is evident in these two lines of poetry that Palermo itself was an inextricable part of Veneziano’s identity, and to strengthen this identity Veneziano created the link with the classical Greek past which was indicative of similar constructions of Sicilianità made by humanists such as Siculo and Schifaldo.

Veneziano also named himself a “citizen” of Palermo, while perhaps “citizen” as

Veneziano was utilizing the term may not be what we consider “citizen” to mean today, the term still appeared to constructed a political identity, and had not been utilized by any previous Sicilian humanists discussed thus far. By describing Palermo as the “city of the highest son Apollo…which made and makes kings” Veneziano established a tradition of

307 Ibid., 446. 189

the historical significance of Palermo stemming from the Greeks that continued into his lifetime—drawing a continuity of Sicilian greatness from antiquity to his present day.

Apollo was of course the god of the sun, but he was also the god of poetry and the patron god of Sicily when it was still part of the Greek world. Veneziano is utilizing the reference to Apollo to mythologize Sicilian history, linking it with a classical past.

Therefore, with this introduction to the “Songs of Spirituality” Veneziano placed himself in a league beyond mere humanity, because he was a poet, but even more important he was a poet from Sicily which—as his introduction suggested—meant that the greatness of

Sicilian poetic tradition ran through his veins as did his Greek heritage did.

This poem that opened the “Songs of Spirituality” was one of a group of four that told a story. There was no title to these four verses, but each verse held a different part of the plot. All four verses contained elements of Sicilianità. As noted above, Veneziano continued to tie himself to Palermo and to Greek traditions; additionally, Veneziano added other elements here that became relevant in discussing how he formulated Sicilian identity in subsequent poems. To begin with, Veneziano played with the juxtaposition of

Christianity and paganism by incorporating elements or people of those traditions.

Veneziano did so by utilizing the language of “citizen” versus “foreigner.” As he did so

Veneziano would place himself in one of the two opposing groups, and would tie his identity to that group.

For example, in the four poems mentioned above, we were introduced to a figure named Tiberio Paternò who, Veneziano described as “coming from a noble house in the guise of a friend.”308 Tiberio Paternò was not a real person; however, I would argue that

308 Ibid., 446. 190

Veneziano was referring to the city of Paternò in Sicily, just south of Catania, which was known during Veneziano’s lifetime as a former stronghold of the Normans. The Countess

Adelasia (1075-1118)—grandmother of Frederick II (1194-1250)—established a convent there, and many of the royal house of Hohenstaufen spent summers there as well. In the last line of verse one, Veneziano explained how this “friend” of his stole his one and only love named “Fenici.” The name of Veneziano’s love interest in this series was interesting since “Fenici” is very close to “Finici” which in Sicilian is the name of the Phoenicians.

The Phoenicians also appeared in a poem later in the collection, which will be subsequently discussed. Throughout this collection Veneziano utilized historical, religious, and cultural references in poetic ways to make certain arguments. The figure of

Tiberio was completely the opposite of Veneziano, who associated himself with Arab culture. Tiberio was Christian but deceitful, and added nothing of valor to Sicily.

Veneziano was from Palermo, the city of Apollo, highlighting the Greek origins of the city, and was in love with a woman whose name referenced the Phoenicians, who were not Christian and who—Veneziano later suggests—were of Arab-descent. Paternò was a nobleman who was corrupt and kidnapped his love, but was associated with Christianity.

In the second verse Veneziano wrote that Paternò was the “citizen” (civi) of an

“unhappy city” (civitate non felici) who was admonished by Veneziano to appear and be

“sworn in front of Apollo.”309 Veneziano affirmed his own Greek identity in contrast to the Christian identity of Paternò by bringing his enemy to be sworn in front of his god

Apollo. This would not be the last time that Veneziano placed emphasis on the Greek heritage of Sicilians, while mitigating the importance of Christianity in his constructions

309 Ibid., 446. 191

of Sicilianità. For Veneziano Christianity was a part of Sicilian identity, but not as important as its Greek heritage.

Earlier in the collection, in the second chapter of Veneziano’s poetry book, which was a chapter consisting of primarily love poems, Veneziano introduced the only two- verse poem of the book. This poem by Veneziano had nothing to do with love; rather, this piece was concerned with the art of writing poetry. Titled “Sdegnu di Antonio

Veneziano” this piece differed in tone and theme from the rest of the chapter.310 The term

“Sdegnu,” most accurately translated into English means “repulsion.” The tone of this section echoed the tone of the Veneziano’s opening dedication. He utilized many of the same imagery of the dedication, particularly the corporeal embodiment of Sicilian identity through language, and additionally Veneziano used many historical and literary references throughout this poem to defend his arguments. The opening verse reads:

“I used my tongue, but my hand was lazy, Of writing, and not speaking truth; I also did not know how to pull myself away from those lines Of love, the court, and honorable acts: Now I cry and grow fatigued overs these rhymes; As both the Muse and I grow cruel, The infamous and insolent Laura, as she screams, Sends me forth broken, damaged, and changed in my style?”311

Veneziano was very candid in this opening poem. Echoing his introductory dedication, Veneziano—in the first two lines—pointed to the laziness of his hand in not speaking the truth. The “truth”—in the original cosa vili, things that are truthful— referred to his inability to write poetry in Sicilian, which explained the use of the tongue

310 Ibid., 379.

311 Ibid., 379. 192

which was not lazy and continued to speak the language. Veneziano also admitted in lines three and four that he was unable to pull himself away from the more popular poetic trends of the time: courtly love, unrequited love, and honorable acts. In lines five and six,

Veneziano expressed regret over his lack of Sicilian style, and “the Muse” grew cruel as he grew cruel to himself for not expressing his true poetic identity. Lines seven and eight were the most poignant, and echoed D’Arezzo’s work as well. “The infamous and insolent Laura” (ki Lavura infami, k’insolenti striga) was without question a reference to

Petrarch’s Laura, but for Veneziano, in contrast, she was not the ideal woman, but a source of anguish. The very descriptors he used for Laura, “insolent” and “infamous,” and “screaming,” were all negative and lacked decorum. In the end, she sent Veneziano forth “disfigured,” “damaged,” and “changed,” (Mi storciu, mi guastau, mi cangian). For

Veneziano, Laura was far from the ideal woman; instead she was the very thing that was

“disfiguring” him, forcing him to take on unnatural forms. For Veneziano it would appear that Laura was the representation of the Tuscan standard that forced him to obscure his

Sicilianità.

Veneziano’s last line echoed a Petrarchan style here as well, which Veneziano mimicked with a specific purpose. Veneziano echoed Petrarch because he could write like Petrarch, and do so in Sicilian, a vernacular that would have been regarded by most northern Italian intellectuals as far less important than Tuscan. Veneziano, then, was demonstrating his poetic prowess in his own language while showcasing the beauty of

Sicilian in Tuscan style. His methodology in writing and deciphering poetry was not altogether different from Petrarch; however, there were ways in which Veneziano was strikingly different from his northern Italian contemporaries, and these characteristics

193

were what made him a Sicilian Humanist. In the book, The Intellectual World of the

Italian Renaissance: Language Philosophy, and the Search for Meaning, historian

Christopher Celenza outlines specific characteristics of Italian humanism as he focuses on the intellectuals of the northern Italian Renaissance.312 According to Celenza, northern humanists beginning with Petrarch were focused on the standardization of vernacular

Italian because Latin had already reached the peak of perfection, while Latin nonetheless remained the foundation of the educated elite in the north. By contrast, as I demonstrated with D’Arezzo, Veneziano, and even Fazello, while Sicilian humanists recognized the importance of Latin they valued Greek even more highly as the foundation of academia more so than Latin. The vernacular languages for Sicilian humanists, therefore, were not to be refined because of the perfect nature of Latin, but rather for the cultural advancement of Sicily, which again was an indication of Sicilian Sicilianità.

Celenza also outlines several other themes he claims were shared by Renaissance humanists. One of these themes was that in Renaissance humanism, as in many cultural movements that proclaimed their newness, scholars still practiced many past traditions and shared beliefs with past generations.313 This was true for Sicilian humanists as well, as we can see by the consistent use of past models and methodologies for writing history, poetry, and grammar. However, Sicilian humanists often pointed to Greek models more so than Roman ones and many, like Siculo and Schifaldo, looked to other Sicilians to create a body of academic work and intellectual tradition. Another theme Celenza indicated was the “institutionally enfranchised man” who struck out against institutional

312 Christopher S. Celenza, The Intellectual World of the Italian Renaissance: Language Philosophy, and the Search for Meaning, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

313 Ibid., 94. 194

structures.314 Celenza utilizes the examples of northern humanists such as Lorenzo Valla and Leonardo Bruni. This is certainly another theme shared by Sicilian humanists; as has been demonstrated, many of these men were commissioned by the Spanish crown and utilized their positions to disparage the oppressive monarchy. As Celenza discussed, where Sicilian humanists differ most from northern Italian humanists is that of the

“Anthropological Imagination.”315 According to Celenza, northern humanists attempted to understand ancient religion in all its facets. In this sense Sicilian humanists were far more radical; they didn’t just attempt to understand the pagan Greeks, or the Muslim

Arabs, they claimed them as part of their ancestral past and incorporated them into their conceptualizations of Sicilianità, just as we saw Veneziano do with the Greeks and Arabs in his poetry.

To return to Veneziano’s poem, the last two lines emphasized the Tuscan standard, which D’Arezzo attempted to subvert. The Tuscan style was forcing Veneziano to change his poetic voice. However, because Veneziano embodied his Sicilianità, he described it poetically as Laura doing violence to his person. Veneziano was no longer a representation of his Sicilian self, he was a damaged and broken figure that wore a mask and was changed in his poetic style, and therefore, changed in identity. However,

Veneziano ended this verse asking a question. This was evocative of the original Sicilian sonnets written in the Greek style that posed ethical questions, and often consisted of two verses: the first, which posed a problem and the second, which offered a solution. This was another sign of Sicilianità, as Veneziano’s was utilizing the Greek debate structure to

314 Ibid., 99.

315 Ibid., 107-108. 195

change the foundation of the poem from one based upon a Tuscan paradigm to one based in the Greek tradition which originated in the Norman court in Sicily. Veneziano’s question, according to this poem, can be summed up as, “do I change my style in order to conform to what the Italian standard is, or stay true to who I am?”

The verse of “Sdegnu” which followed this opening, and that served as the response to the dilemma posed above, stated:

“The Oracle of Pythia responded, In order to stop this pestilence, For a God that has never been seen or known Afflicted Attica would sacrifice Authari In this sacred refuge I arrive Looking to be saved by you Woman Sacred is the altar of my heart For it repulses me to defend it.” 316 In line one, written in L’Oraculu di Pithia rispondiu, Veneziano indicated that he was asking the Oracle of Pythia for the response to the previously stated question.

Continuing with the connection to classical Greece, the Oracle of Pythia was the high priestess of the god Apollo who held a long connection to the city of Palermo. Oracles were also often known to give misleading responses. During the period of Greek settlement in Sicily the group that settled Palermo believed themselves to be sanctioned by the god Apollo.317 As indicated by the previously translated poem from the “Songs of

Spirituality,” Veneziano knew the history of his city, and therefore it was only

316 Veneziano, 379.

317 In her doctoral dissertation, Archgetes, Oikistes, and New-Oikistes: The Cults of Founders in Greek Southern Italy and Sicily, Christine Lane outlines specific Greek cults that were celebrated in Sicily and Southern Italy during the period of Greek settlement. The Oikistes setteled Palermo and because of their connection to Apollo minted coins with Apollos face, called panormos. Some believe that the name Palermo itself came from these coins, since these early inhabitants of the city were named Panormitani. This naming can be seen being used as late as the Renaissance in humanists such as Palermitan Antonio Beccadelli (1394-1471) who worked at the court of Naples and was often referred to as “Il Panormita.” 196

appropriate that he was seeking the answer to his very complicated question from the spiritual head of Palermo. Veneziano was looking for the Oracle to “stop this pestilence,” which considering the context of the first verse Veneziano’s pestilence could refer to the continued spread of Tuscan verse as the standard of poetry, or the continued use of those popular poetic trends he referred to in the previous verse; however, because “pestilence” was an affliction and because of the following poem, I argue that Veneziano was pointing to the conflict of identity within himself. Should he be a great poet, or should he be a great Sicilian poet?

The “unknown god” (un mai vistu e canuxutu Diu) introduced in the third line presents a bit of a mystery but perhaps can be understood in conjunction with line four.

The Attica peninsula was the region that held the city of Athens, and Authari (540-590

AD) was a Lombard King who through the 570s into 590s held court at Pavia and conquered much of the Italian Peninsula going as far south as Reggio Calabria.318 Authari wanted to move further down the peninsula and into Sicily, but was never able to accomplish this goal since his armies were forced to turn back because of pestilence. One of Authari’s legacies was that he adopted policies that were more tolerant of Christianity, while he was pagan in practice, but many historians have suggested that he adopted beliefs similar to Arianism and he married a Catholic Queen, Theodolinda (570-628 AD), daughter of Garibald I (540-? AD).319 Additionally, Authari adopted more Roman-styled laws and cultural traditions. Throughout this second verse Veneziano used the contrast of

Paganism and Christianity; it was the metaphor through which he explained the appeal of

318 Paul Deacon, History of the Lombards, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 140.

319 Michael Frassetto, The Early Medieval World: From the Fall of Rome to the Time of Charlemagne, (Santa Barbara: University of California Press, 2013), 525. 197

Tuscan verse in contrast to Sicilian verse. More importantly, the emphasis on Greek tradition over Roman tradition was a main tenant of Sicilian Humanism and a defining feature of Sicilianità. To return to lines three and four, Veneziano was utilizing the unknown god, and the historical references to the pagan Attica sacrificing the Authari, the pagan king who perhaps converted to Christianity to emphasize once more the inner conflict of his own style and identity as a poet. When (L’Attica afflitta) Attica was afflicted with pestilence it sacrificed Authari; when Attica was not in its pure state it did evil things. Likewise, Veneziano could not be good and pure when he was afflicted with the pestilence of having to obscure his identity.

Throughout the second verse of “Sdegnu” Veneziano appeared to be placing himself in the position of the pagans, the Greeks, since he was asking the Oracle for help, and he emphasized this again in lines five and six: “In this sacred refuge I arrive/ Looking to be saved by you Woman.” Veneziano again addressed the priestess as he arrived in her temple, and admitted he was looking to her for his salvation. He was looking to be healed by the Greek tradition. In lines six and seven, Veneziano, again similar to his opening dedication, emphasized his disgust for having to defend the “sacred altar” (u

Sacru l’autaru) of his heart. He did not want to change his identity, but continuously had to justify who he was, and he could not continue to do so even in a world where he was continuously forced to change his poetic voice, and therefore, his identity.

The poem immediately following “Sdegnu,” was once more an untitled verse, and

Veneziano’s decision to include it here was not simply by chance. Veneziano wrote:

“I sang, and yet they say I sing, about writing, But the language was dismembered through my pen: I created an epitaph on a sepulcher, That inside held a rotting corpse,

198

Yet with every hasty taste of my pen, I celebrated every little thing, As he who never wanted to be the commander has now become, And now must carry out his task with a heart that has been pierced by a spear.”320

From the first words “I sang” in line one, immediately it is evident that Veneziano was discussing poetry he had written in the past, not the poems contained in this collection.

Right after the words “I sang” Veneziano moved to the negation of his identity from the outside world “and yet they say I sing, about writing.” In some ways, echoing D’Arezzo,

Veneziano in this line was acknowledging that he was no longer “singing” for those people he sang to in the past; he was writing a book of poetry completely in Sicilian; therefore, his main audience now was Sicilians, not anyone else. The second line of the poem, “But the language was dismembered through my pen,” (e fù la lingua, ne la pinna, muzza) was a reference to his earlier works. Veneziano discussed that since he as a

Sicilian poet was forced to write his art in other languages, the “pen” dismembered and destroyed his Sicilian since it would not write in Sicilian. In lines three and four,

Veneziano described his previous writings as an epitafiu “epitaph” on a sepultura

“sepulcher.” This was the reinvention of Veneziano, the sepulcher was his own, for the poet he used to be, and the epitaph were those previous works not written in Sicilian left as the legacy of the poet he had been. In line four, the corpse was rotting, because it was simply a wasted person, not anyone who truly lived as they were. However, as Veneziano demonstrated in lines five and six, he was so embroiled in his writing process, affittata, hastily “licking his pen” and not noting how it was affecting him, he continued to celebrate every small creation of his poetry. The word Veneziano used “cusuzza” is the

320 Veneziano, 396. 199

diminutive of the word “thing.” By utilizing that particular word, Veneziano magnified the insignificance of his non-Sicilian works; they were simple little things. In line seven,

Veneziano grappled with being a celebrated poet of a form he was not proud of. In his time, Veneziano was often referred to in documents as Magnifico.321 He was magnificent for the poetry he wrote but it was not poetry he was proud of; therefore, he never wanted to be made “commander” but it had nevertheless happened. Then Veneziano emphasized in line eight how he mourned prior works, and now, because of them, worked with a heart pierced by a spear since, he should have been true to his identity throughout his poetic career.

It is clear that throughout his poetry Veneziano expressed his Sicilianità as an identity he embodies through his articulation of the Sicilian language. We can also trace the struggle of identity in Veneziano’s work as he discussed his previous works that were not written in Sicilian. However, some of Veneziano’s poetry also discussed the foundations of Sicilian identity by tracing is multicultural history. In Chapter two, simply titled “Book II Canzuni Amurusi Siciliani,” Veneziano included many poems that utilized particular literary or historical references (as he continued to do throughout his later chapters). There was one particular poem in this chapter, which was untitled, but appeared about halfway through this section and which reads:

There is a memory that is impressed in my mind, That there was an ancestor named Phoenician, That was not believed to have been greatly educated, I wonder if he is alone, and happy somewhere in Arabia? I doubt that this is the case, For eyes have never seen fama,

321 This is the case in various estate documents, ecclesiastical documents, and letters. Veneziano was given the title because of his poetic prowess in and outside of his hometown. Additionally, it served to differentiate him from his father who was also named Antonio but was often referred to—sometimes in the same documents—as Magnus or “great.” 200

The world recognizes you, and confesses That this creation is more unique and beautiful than words can say.322

One thing that is immediately striking in the first two lines, was how Veneziano was claiming the Phoenicians (Finici) as “ancestors.” The Phoenicians, an ancient civilization that originated in the Levant, arrived in Sicily shortly after the earliest Greek settlers, sometime in the early 800s B.C.E., and they continued to prosper on the western coast of Sicily until the third Punic War (149-46 B.C.E.). The Phoenicians were then taken over by the Romans, but some of their legacies in Sicily were long-lasting. For example, it is believed that the Phoenicians brought grapes to the Sicilian west coast, which remains the main wine-producing region in Sicily to this day. Veneziano acknowledged this “ancestor,” who he sarcastically pointed out many believed “lacked education.” Veneziano also emphasized the Phoenician expulsion from Sicily in line four as he pondered if perhaps, Finici was off happily in Arabia. It is important to note that

Veneziano acknowledged an Arabian ancestral connection, as well as acknowledging those who were Greek and/or pagan. This is indicative of the truly multicultural foundations of Sicilianità. This also stands in opposition to so many other European groups at the time, including the Spanish, who would not have so willingly claimed Arab ancestry.

Veneziano was not the only Sicilian humanist to claim Arab Ancestry; Tommaso

Fazello also discussed the influence of “Saracens” on Sicilian culture.323 Then in lines five and six Veneziano wrote: “I doubt that this is the case/for eyes have never seen

322 Ibid., 292.

323 Tommaso Fazello, Della Storia Della Sicilia Volume II, 473. 201

fama.” Veneziano doubted that “the Phoenician” was away because he could see his legacy in Sicily, and “the eyes that have never seen fama” were those people from the outside who did not acknowledge the Phoenician legacy evident in Sicilian culture. Lines seven and eight provided Veneziano’s main objective for the poem; it was the Phoenician ancestor who had created something for which he was recognized all over the world, according to Veneziano. In the original poem the “creation” in question was gendered female, as the word beautiful uses the feminine form--in Sicilian, “betta.” The Phoenician was gendered male, so the “creation” could be himself. Since in Sicilian histories, such as those written by Tommaso Fazello, Phoenicians played a critical role in influencing pre-

Roman Sicily, it was possible that the “creation” in Veneziano’s poem was Sicily itself.

Evidence pointing to this can be traced through the writings of many Sicilian humanists, as most all Sicilian humanists gendered Sicily female, and often referred to her as “Sicilia

Betta” or “Sicilia Bedda” (Sicily the beautiful). This phase “Sicilia Bedda” would have signaled to readers that Sicily was the creation of the Phoenicians who, in part, added to the beauty of Sicilian identity and culture. This also lends credence to the argument that

Sicilian humanists may have been creating a national identity since often the rhetoric of the nation was one where the nation was gendered female while those who “discovered” or “formed” the nation were male. However, more research is required to substantiate this claim.

Antonio Veneziano died on August 19, 1593. At the time, Veneziano had been imprisoned at Castellammare, Palermo. He was held under suspicion of writing a public performance piece mocking the Spanish viceroy of Palermo, Don Diego Enrique de

Guzmàn. While at Castellammare, the old medieval fortress that was being used as the

202

prison caught fire, and Veneziano perished in the flames. It is unknown if Veneziano truly was to blame for the performance piece, but some Sicilian historians believe there is ample evidence to suggest this was the case.324 In a rather ironic twist, Veneziano died for his Sicilianità, for his mockery of foreign invaders who had so wounded his beautiful

Sicily.

Conclusion: The Literary Construction of Sicilianità

Both Claudio D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano were ardent defenders of the

Sicilian language. These two humanists represent the evolution of Sicilianità as the embodiment of an identity, rather than solely a cultural construction. For D’Arezzo and

Veneziano, language was the way to internalize and articulate Sicilianità to others, which is why they emphasized that Sicilians should speak their language. In part this was because they recognized a Sicilian tradition that was being overlooked, but also because

D’Arezzo and Veneziano recognized the importance of language and literary tradition in the process of constructing a Sicilian identity. Having lived through the Italian Wars and under Spanish imperial rule, Sicilianità became more crystalized in a corporeal form.

This crystallization was reflected in the works of both D’Arezzo and Veneziano; through contact with constant foreign invasion Sicilianità became less of an ideology, and evolved into a physical identity. This was evident in how D’Arezzo consistently contrasted Sicilian literary traditions with those of the Tuscans, and how he argued that

324 Aside from the Sicilian humanist Tommaso Fazello supporting that Veneziano was the hand behind the performance piece, but the influential Sicilian journalist and essayist Leonardo Sciascia also believed this to be the case. La Corda Pazza, “La Vita di Antonio Veneziano,” (Milan: Adelphi Publishing, 1991). 203

those Tuscan traditions had their roots in Sicilian literature even though the Tuscans—as well as others—refused to recognize Sicily’s contributions to Italian literary tradition.

Additionally, D’Arezzo’s attempt at subverting the Tuscan paradigm was also an indication of his desire to establish a literary tradition free of Tuscan influence.

D’Arezzo’s arguments against Dante, Bembo, and Petrarch provided further evidence of the continued marginalization of Italian southern history that Fazello pointed to. It was not in the interest particularly of Petrarch and Dante, two active Guelphs, to glorify the history and intellectual tradition of a place that had supported the Ghibellines for so long.

While D’Arezzo did not mention this direct political rivalry, he did demonstrate the lack of acknowledgement of Sicilian culture from northern Italian intellectuals.

In his introductory letter, Veneziano also subverted Tuscan paradigms where he defended the Sicilian language, but then also through his poetry in which he identified with Sicilian cultural characteristics. Veneziano, in fact, portrayed himself as Greek not

Latin. Even though by doing so he placed himself within a pagan ancestry and was willing to claim contributions to Sicilian culture from Arab cultures, like Fazello, something the Spanish or northern Italians would never have done. Thus, the works of

Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and Antonio Veneziano built from the foundation constructed by Fazello, and brought together Sicilian literary tradition and the corporeal embodiment of Sicilianità.

204

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION: REFRAMING MEDITTERRANEAN IDENTITY IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD

Understanding early modern Mediterranean identities is a complex process which requires, not just the understanding of the historical environment, but necessitates open paradigms of identity formation. Sicilianità developed in a heterogenous way and evolved from a cultural identity to the embodiment of an identity. There was evidence of this evolution from the earlier works of Schifaldo, Fazello, and Siculo to the later works of D’Arezzo and Veneziano. Therefore, we must utilize paradigms that can be applied to identities that formed outside of Europe in a heterogenous way. The later humanists discussed, D’Arezzo and Veneziano, might have even held some “nationalist” sentiments; however, more research is required in order to suggest that this was the case.

Some historians suggest that nationalist sentiment began during the Renaissance, but they rightfully emphasize the regional context of European spaces when conceptualizing

Renaissance nationalism.325We must be careful to understand early modern national identity within the context of the historical environment analyzed because it does not

325 The Renaissance in National Context. Eds. Roy Porter and Mikuláš Teich, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

205

mean that we cannot or should not have more fluid paradigms for understanding early modern identity formation.

I have argued throughout this dissertation that Sicily in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries provides an insightful lens in reconceptualizing how scholars understand

Mediterranean identity formation in the early modern period. First, Sicilianità as conceptualized by Sicilian humanists during the Renaissance was heterogenous. Being

Sicilian meant claiming a lineage of Greek, Arab, and Norman descent. Through the

Middle Ages Sicily maintained a trilingual court and there was a consistent pattern of exchange between territories in the Eastern Empire, Africa, and northern Europe through both trade and social networks. These cultures were not all Christian and were not all

European thus a framework predicated on European structures cannot be utilized to analyze Sicilianità. Sicily must be understood as a place of exchange, because it was not a solely European space. Sicily was and is a Mediterranean space, and must be understood as a product of multicultural historical processes.

Sicily also had the “parliament,” a governing body of nobles, and religious leaders outside of the monarchy. While more research is required in order to understand the full power and role of the “parliament.” I am cautious to simply call the governing body in

Sicily a true Parliament because, much like national identity, doing so would impose upon it pre-existing notions of the Parliament that first convened in England. It is evident from the histories of primarily Fazello that the Sicilian “parliament” played a role in the rulership of Sicily and in Sicilians’ negotiating with outside ruling bodies for power, but it would be premature to call the structure a Parliament while I am still uncertain of the full scope of its responsibilities. Nevertheless, the existence of a such a body not only

206

provides evidence of state-making, but it also showed the Sicilians had a platform for negotiating on behalf of themselves as Sicilians. The Sicilian “parliament” accounts from

Fazello also showed the participation of non-Christian Sicilians within the governing body which points to the inclusivity of early modern Sicilian identity.

Studying Sicilianità in the Renaissance also works to correct biased nineteenth- and twentieth-century Italian nationalist histories that claimed that Sicily and Sicilians were culturally backward. This is relevant as ongoing struggles between the north and south of Italy continue to this day. Particularly in Anglophone early modern historiography, Sicily and Sicilian scholars are often written out of the narrative of the

Renaissance. Most of the intellectuals analyzed in this dissertation, with the exception of

Lucio Marineo Siculo, have been rarely studied, and Sicily’s place in the Renaissance is still not well understood. This study also serves as an attempt to correct this gap in the historiography and to reinsert Sicily within the narrative of the Renaissance. Filling this historiographical gap would also serve to correct the prejudice narratives of the Italian

Risorgimento.

In chapter one I gave a historiographical summary of the place of Sicily in

Renaissance historiography to this point and summarized my theoretical frameworks for how I intended to analyze the intellectuals whose works I would be using as evidence. In chapter two, I gave some context for the multicultural development of Sicilian society.

My reasoning for doing so was to give context for how Sicilianità would develop in the early modern period, and to show why the Sicilian humanists of the Renaissance claimed the Greek, Arab, and Norman ancestral lineage. In chapter two, I also discussed how

Sicilians used Greek differently from northern Italian humanists. This is a pivotal

207

difference, since northern Italian humanists were using Greek to prove the superiority of

Latin, while Sicilians—particularly through academics—used Greek to establish a foundation for their identity, and used their Greek heritage to differentiate themselves from peninsular Italians. The emphasis on Greek ancestry is reiterated by each of the

Sicilian humanists discussed in this dissertation. It was a foundational element of

Sicilianità.

In chapter three I used the work of Tommaso Fazello to show how Sicilian humanists wrote history and for what purpose it was utilized. I argued that while

Fazello’s method for writing history using Greek and Roman forms was not unique to

Renaissance humanism, what was different was his rather open attitude toward non-

Christian groups in Sicily, primarily Muslim and Jewish groups. Fazello also emphasized

Greek form over Roman, and pulled examples from other ancient Sicilians such as

Diodorus Siculus. I contend that Fazello did so in order to show a continued tradition of

Sicilian academic engagement. I also argued that Fazello was building a foundation for

Sicilianità by using familial rhetoric in his discussion of the Norman Kings, criticizing the Viceroys of the Spanish Kings, and writing about the Habsburg monarchy in complementary terms but not accepting them as part of a Sicilian identity. He made the

Habsburgs “other,” while accepting Greek, Arab, and Norman traditions and mythologizing the Norman King Frederick II as the “Father of Sicily.”

In chapter four I give context for the academic environment of Sicily, and I analyze the works of the Professors Tommaso Schifaldo and Lucio Marineo Siculo. The emphasis on Greek is once again present in these works, particularly in Tommaso

Schifaldo’s lessons of the Satires of Perseus. Greek was of particular importance for

208

Siculo and Schifaldo since in Sicily Greek was considered the language of pedagogy and both of them were instructors. I argue that the works of both intellectuals show elements of Sicilianità through their academic training and through the use of Sicilian humanism.

They employed many of the same practices as Fazello, Siculo for example looks to the same body of work from which to garner information, specifically the histories of

Diodorus Siculus. In this chapter I demonstrated how the intellectual environment of the

Sicilian academies facilitated Sicilian humanism, and through the use of Greek emphasized Sicilianità while linking the identity to the classical past. Linking an identity to the classical in the early modern period was a common way to construct a regional identity.

In chapter five I point to the evolutionary shift in Sicilianità as it is captured in the writings of Humanist Claudio Mario D’Arezzo and poet Antonio Veneziano. With the advent of the Italian Wars, and the legacy left by them in the Italian south, Sicilian humanists began to express their identity in more corporeal way. I argue that the crystallization of Sicilianità, that is, the coming together of one Sicilian identity with three lineages began with the onset of French rule after the death of the last Norman

King. With the battling of the Italian Wars the Sicilianità of earlier Humanist like Fazello and Schifaldo, which was much more an ideological identity, became the embodiment of an identity that was expressed through language both carried in the blood. This was how

Sicilianità was conceptualized by later humanists such as D’Arezzo and Veneziano. In regards to D’Arezzo, he expressed his Sicilianità by writing a grammar book all in

Sicilian dialect in order to standardize the proper Sicilian language. I also argue that

D’Arezzo was trying to subvert the standard Tuscan paradigm of Italian literature while

209 centering Sicilian literature as the Italian standard. Veneziano sought to bring light to the poetry of Sicily by writing an entire poetry book all in Sicilian dialect. These two humanists were the only two who wrote their works all in Sicilian. This is evidence that they embodied their own Sicilianità through their language. Just as Fazello did before, both also used familial language to build their identity, and both expressed open attitudes towards non-Christian groups that influenced Sicilian culture.

Therefore, I argue that there is sufficient evidence captured in the writings of these Sicilian humanists to show that Sicilianità was a heterogenous national identity. It was inclusive of not just different ethnicities and religions, but also inclusive of class. We see class inclusion in the works of Fazello, Siculo, and D’Arezzo. Fazello and Veneziano specifically use familial rhetoric in order to mythologize and conceptualize the Sicilian nation. Additionally, Schifaldo and Veneziano gender Sicily female while talking about her people or protectors as male. It is evident therefore, the what these humanists expressed was a distinct Sicilian identity. However, we must recognize more fluid conceptualizations of Mediterranean identity in order to properly understand identity formation in heterogenous spaces.

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources D’Arezzo, Claudio Mario. Osservanti dila Lingua Siciliana, et, Canzoni, inlo Proprio Idoma di Mario, di Arezzo, Gentil’homo Saragusano. Palermo: A. Giannitrapani, 1543. Special Collections, call number: Bonaparte 5665. The Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Fazello, Tomaso. Storia di Sicilia: Deche Due. Palermo: Pedone e Muratori, 1560.

Fazello, Tommaso. Le Due Deche: Dell’Historia di Sicilia. Venice: Domenico and Gio Battista Guerra Fratelli, 1574.

Raccuia, Girolamo da. (Untitled). Epic poem manuscript, 1111. Archivio della Curia Vescovile di Patti, Patti, Messina, Sicily, Italy.

Schifaldo, Tommaso. Commentarioli in Persium. Published in: Tramontana, Alessandra. In Sicilia a Scuola con Persio: Le Lezioni Dell’Umanista Tommaso Schifaldo. Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2000.

Siculo, Lucio Marineo. Obra Compuesta Por Lucio Marineo Siculo…de Las Cosas Memorables de Espana. Munich: The Bavarian State Library, 1539.

Veneziano, Antonio. Canzuni Amurusi Siciliani, 1574, Mss. XI, Box 6, Folder 9. Biblioteca Regionale di Palermo A. Bombace, Palermo, Sicily, Italy.

Veneziano, Antonio. Letters and state correspondence. January 3, 1574-August 12, 1585. Sezione II: Carte sciolte, serie-2-atti civili, Faldone n. 10, Posizione n. 1. Archivio Communale di Monreale, Monreale, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy.

Veneziano, Antonio. Letters and correspondence. 1574. Sezione II: Carte sciolte, serie-2- atti civili, Faldone n. 3, Posizione n. 2. Archivio Communale di Monreale, Monreale, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy.

Veneziano, Antonio.State documents. January 30, 1590. Sezione II: Carte sciolte, serie- 22-Fas. Processuali, Faldone n. 20a, Posizione n. 2. Archivio Communale di Monreale, Monreale, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy.

211

Secondary Sources Abou-El-Haj, Rifa ‘at ‘Ali. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2005. Abulafia, David. Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Abulafia, David. “The Diffusion of the Italian Renaissance: Southern Italy and Beyond.” Renaissance Historiography. Jonathan Woolfson ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. Abulafia, David. The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ady, Julia Mary Cartwright. Baldassare Castiglione the Perfect Courtier: His Life and Letters, 1487-1529. The University of California: John Murray, 1908. Alexander, Marc. Gibraltar: Conquered by No Enemy. Charleston: The History Press, 2011. Alighieri, Dante. De Vulgare Eloquentia. Ttranslated by Steven Boterill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Amari, Michele. La Guerra del Vespro Siciliano. Naples: Centro Editoriale Meridionale, 1900 Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 2006. Astarita, Tommaso. Between Saltwater and Holy Water: A History of the Italian South. New York: Norton, 2005. Bagni, Irene. “L’Accademia Palermitana degli Accesi: Un Esempio di Petrarchismo nel Tardo Cinquecento.” The Italian Academies 1525-1700: Networks of Culture, Innovation, and Dissent, Jane Everson, Denis Reidy, and Lisa Sampson Ed. New York: Routledge, 2016. Bakewell, Peter and Holler, Jaqueline. A History of Latin America to 1825. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publication, 2010. Benigno, Francesco. “Integration and Conflict in Spanish Sicily”, Spain in Italy: Politics, Society, and Religion 1500-1700. Thomas James Dandelet and John Marino, Ed. Leiden: Brill Publishing, 2007. Benson, Robert Louis and Constable, Giles et. al., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Bentley, Jerry H. Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

212

Boone, Rebecca A. Mercurino di Gattinara and the Creation of the Spanish Government. New York: Routledge, 2015. Bottari, Salvatore. Messina tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento: Il “Caso” Antonello, la Cultura, le Élites Politiche, le Attivita Produttive. Rome: Rubbettino, 2010. Braudel, Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Irvine: University of California Press, 1995. Brucker, Gene. From the Vespers to Garibaldi: Sicily Under Spanish Rule. Berkley: Berkley University Press, 1998. Burke, Peter. The Fortunes of the Courtier: The European Reception of Castiglione’s Cortegiano. London: John Wiley and Sons, 2013. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Calabria, Antonio. The Cost of Empire: The Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the Time of Spanish Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier. New York: Scribner & Son’s, 1903. Celenza, Christopher S. The Intellectual World of the Italian Renaissance: Language Philosophy, and the Search for Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Chambers, Iain. Mediterranean Crossings: The Politics of Uninterrupted Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Cochrane, Eric. “The Profession of the Historian in the Italian Renaissance.” Journal of Social History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Cochrane, Eric. Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Coleman, David. Creating Christian Granada: Society and Religious Culture in the Old World Frontier City, 1492-1600. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013. Coniglione, M.A. La provincia domenicana di Sicilia.Catania: 1937. Cooper, Frederick and Burbank, Jane. Empires and World History: Power and Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Correnti, Santi. Cultura e storiografia nella Sicilia del Cinquecento. Catania: 1972. Croce, Benedetto. La Spagna nella Vita Italiana Durante la Rinascenza. Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli, 1917. Davis-Secord, Sarah. Where Three Worlds Met: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017.

213

Deacon, Paul. History of the Lombards. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. De Sanctis, Francesco. Storia della Letteratura Italiana. Florence: Salani, 1965. Di Camillo, Ottavio. “Interpretations of the Renaissance in Spanish Historical Thought.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 48, 1995. Dickie, John. Darkest Italy: The Nation and Stereotypes of the Mezzogiorno, 1860-1900. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Epstein, Stephen. An Island for Itself: Economic Development and Social Changes in Late Medieval Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Fernàndez-Santamaria, J.A. The State, War and Peace: Spanish Political Thought in the Renaissance, 1516-1559. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Frassetto, Michael. The Early Medieval World: From the Fall of Rome to the Time of Charlemagne. Santa Barbara: University of California Press, 2013. Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London: Verso, 2002. Gioachino, Barbera. Antonello da Messina: Sicily’s Renaissance Master. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005. Grafton, Anthony. Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. Grafton, Anthony et. al. The Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Guarino, Gabriel. Representing the King’s Splendour: Communication and Reception of Symbolic forms of Power in Viceregal Naples. New York: Manchester University Press, 2010. Haskins, Charles Homer. “Science at the Court of Frederick II,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 27 N. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922. Herzog, Tamar. Defining Nations: Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Houben, Hubert. Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Ianziti,Gary. Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012.

214

Jensen, Frede ed. The Poetry of the Sicilian School. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1986. Kagan, Richard L. Clio and the Crown: The Politics of History in Medieval and Early Modern Spain. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Kagan, Richard L. Students and Society in Early Modern Spain. The Library of Iberian Resource Online: Acccessed 6 May 2016. Keahey, John. Seeking Sicily: A Cultural Journey Through Myth and Reality in the Heart of the Mediterranean. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2011. Kelly, Donald R. The Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in the French Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Kirshner, Julius ed. The Origins of the State in Italy 1300-1600. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Koenigsberger, H.G. Monarchies, States Generals and Parliaments: The Netherland’s in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Kristeller, Paul O. Renaissance Thoughts and Its Sources. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Lamers, Hans. Greece Reinvented: Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism in Renaissance Italy. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Langley, Ernest F. The Poetry of Giacomo Da Lentino: Sicilian Poet of the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Laudani, Simona. La Sicilia della Seta: Economia, Società e Politica. Molfetta, Bari: Meridiana, Libri, (1996).

Levin, Michael. Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth-Century Italy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Liss, Peggy K. Isabel the Queen: Life and Times. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Lynn, Caro. A College Professor of the Renaissance: Lucio Marineo Siculo Among the Spanish Humanists. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Harvard Classics, Vol. 36, 1910.

Mallet, Michael and Shaw, Christine. The Italian Wars, 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe. New York: Pearson, 2012.

Mallette, Karla. The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

215 Marino, John A. Becoming Neapolitan: Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.

Megna Paola. “Per L’Ambiente del Lascari a Messina: Una Sylva di Francesco Giannelli.” Studi Umanistici. Messina: Sicania Press, 1993.

Megna, Paola and Cohen-Skalli, Aude. “De Byzance À Messine: Le Vitae Siculorum de Constantin Lascaris, Luer Genèse, et Luer Tradition.” Revue d’Histoire de Textes. Belgium: Brepols Publishing, 2014.

Meserve, Margaret. Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Monter, William. Frontiers of Heresey: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Musto, Ronald G. Writing Southern Italy before the Renaissance: Trecento Historians of the Mezzogiorno. New York: Routledge, 2019.

Nader, Helen. The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance. The Library of Iberian Resource Online: Acccessed 6 May 2016.

Noreña, Carlos G. Studies in Spanish Renaissance Thought. The Hague: 1975.

Norwich, John. Sicily: An Island at the Crossroads of History. New York: Random House, 2015.

Orioles, Vincenzo. “Tra Sicilianità e Sicilitudine.” Demetrio Skubic Octegenario II, 2010.

Parker, Geoffrey. Emperor: A New Life of Charles V. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.

Prag Jonathan R. W. and Quinn, Josephine Crawely. The Hellenistic West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Quatriglio, Giuseppe. A Thousand Years of Sicily: From the Arabs to the Bourbons. Ottawa: Legas Publishing, 1997.

Rinaldi, Gaetana Maria. Il repertorio delle 'canzuni' siciliane dei secoli XVI-XVII. In «Bollettino del Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani», Palermo, n. 18, 1995.

Rodríguez, Manuel Rivero. Felipe II y el Gobierno de Italia. Madrid: Closas-Orcoyen, 1998.

216

Romano, Salvatore Francesco. Breve Storia della Sicilia Momenti e Problemi della Civiltà Siciliana. Rome: Edizione RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana, 1964.

Ruggiero, Guido. The Renaissance in Italy: A Social and Cultural History of the Renaissance, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Runciman, Steven. The Sicilian Vespers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Ryder, Alan. Alfonso the Magnanimous. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Sciascia, Leonardo. La Corda Pazza. “La Vita di Antonio Veneziano.” Milan: Adelphi Publishing, 1991. Silvestri, Alessandro. L’Amministrazione del Regno di Sicilia: Cancelleria, Apparati Finanziari, e Strumenti del Governo nel tardo Medioevo. Rome: Viella, 2018. Smith, Denis Mack. Storia della Sicilia Medievale e Moderna. Rome: Laterza Publishing, 1983. Stylianou, P.J. A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Tramontana, Alessandra. In Sicilia a Scuola con Persio: Le Lezioni Dell’Umanista Tommaso Schifaldo. Firenze: Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2000. Tramontana, Alessandra. L’Eredità di Costantino Lascari a Messina Nel Primo ‘500. Messina: Università Degli Studi di Messina, 2011. Trasselli, Carmelo. Da Ferdinando il Cattolico a Carlo V: L’esperienza Siciliana, 1475- 1525, Rome: Rubbettino, 1982. Tusiani, Joseph. The Age of Dante. New York: Baroque Press, 1974. The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume III: 1400-1800, Masayuki Sato et. al. Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. The Renaissance in National Context, Eds. Roy Porter and Mikuláš Teich. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Van Cleve, Thomas Curtis. The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Zeldes, Nadia. “Conversos, Finance, and Military Campaigns in the Reign of Ferdinand the Catholic: A View from Sicily,” The Journal of Levantine Studies, 2016.

217