The National Idea in Italian Literature: Patriotism and Italian Identity Before the Risorgimento

Preface

Without appealing to the ancients, from whom there is an abundance of national patriotic material and expressions of italianità to be found, particularly in Virgil and many other ancient Italian authors, we will instead begin with Dante Alighieri, who is generally considered the first modern Italian patriot.


I. — Dante Alighieri

The national idea came to Dante as part of that essential continuity between ancient Rome and modem Italy which is the key to Italian civilisation. Virgil himself had defined the national aspirations of Italians throughout the centuries, when he placed upon the lips of Aeneas the pregnant words: Italiam quaero patriam. There was never a time, from the day on which a barbarian conqueror dethroned the last of the old Roman emperors in the west to that on which Victor Emanuel assumed the crown of the united kingdom in 1861, when Italy—in the notorious phrase of the anti-Italian Metternich—was “a mere geographical expression.” As surprising as it may be to those living beyond the Alps, Italy was never a mere geographical expression. The Italians of the early Middle Ages had inherited from the writers of ancient Rome the conception of the Italy of classical literature, whose glories and beauties, whose ancient myths and heroes, had been sung by Virgil and Horace—the Italy which, through the Roman Empire, had given Latin civilisation to the nations whom she united in the Roman Peace. The continuity of the Latin tradition in Italy, kept alive by the grammarians and rhetoricians, by the study of the classics and of Roman law, preserved this conception of an ideal Italian unity after the political unity had been torn to pieces as the result of the Longobard conquest.

We find Italia in this sense in the letters of Gregory the Great at the very beginning of the Middle Ages, when the political dissolution of the peninsula had but just begun. An anonymous writer of Ravenna, at the end of the seventh century, speaks of that patria nobilissima quae dicitur Italia (“most noble fatherland called Italy”). There was a notably strong sense of Latin continuity in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; the new, vigorous, many-sided life and activity of the communes was, in part, a conscious renovation in the Italian cities of the spirit of ancient Rome. Thus, the anonymous poet, who celebrates the victory of the Pisans over the Saracens on the African coast in 1088, begins by uniting this new glory of Pisa with the deeds of the Romans of old:
Inclytorum Pisanorum scriptunis historiam, antiquorum Romanorum renovo memoriam; nam extendit modo Pisa laudem admirabilem, quam olim recepit Roma vincendo Carthaginem.” (“I am going to write the history of the famous Pisans, and revive the memory of the ancient Romans: For Pisa only carries on the admirable glory which Rome once achieved by vanquishing Carthage.”)
And he calls upon not only Pisa, but all Italy, to weep for the fallen hero, Ugo Visconti. A few years later (about 1114), the author of the Liber Maiolichinus—the poem on the conquest of the Balearic Islands from the Saracens—conceives of the enterprise as a national one in which the Commune of Pisa is, as it were, the representative of the Italian nation. The poem begins with Pisa, “Pisani populi vires et bellica facta,” and ends with the name of Italy.

This sense of Italian nationality becomes more explicit in the latter part of the twelfth century, during the heroic contest carried on by the Lombard League against the mightiest of mediaeval German Emperors, Frederick Barbarossa. There is sufficient evidence that, above and beyond their respective cities or communes, these Italian burghers recognised the conception of a common Italian native land. A contemporary chronicler, Romoaldus of Salerno, tells us that, when the representatives of the Lombard communes met Pope Alexander III at Ferrara in 1177 (the year after their great victory at Legnano), they claimed to speak in the name of all Italy, universa Italia, and to have fought pro honore et libertate Italiae (“for the honor and freedom of Italy”). They will receive peace from the Emperor gladly, but only salvo Italiae honore:
“We freely grant him what Italy owes him of old, and deny him not his ancient jurisdiction; but our liberty, which we have received by hereditary right from our forebears, we will never abandon, save with life itself; for we would rather meet a glorious death with liberty than preserve a wretched life in servitude.”
The fruits of the victory of Legnano and the peace of Constance were already being lost in the fratricidal conflicts of the Italian cities, when a national consciousness appears vividly in the writings of the grammarian and rhetorician Boncompagno da Signa. Thus, we find him writing in 1201: “I do not believe that Italy can be made tributary to any one, unless it come to pass from the malice and envy of Italians; for it is set down in the laws that Italy is not a province, but the mistress of provinces”—domina provinciarum, the phrase which we meet again (donna di provincie) in the Purgatorio of Dante.

But it was Dante who first wedded an Italian national idea to the glorious modem vernacular which is the immediate continuation and development of the language of ancient Rome. It is to Dante, as Casini acutely observed, that we owe the discovery, so significant for our own times, that “language is the character and symbol of nationality.” In the De Vulgari Eloquentia, he seeks the ideal Italian language, as the character and symbol of the Italian nation, and declares that, although their court in the body is scattered, the Italians “have been united by the gracious light of reason.” A keen sense of Italian citizenship is revealed in the first of his political utterances after his exile: the Latin letter where he addresses “the kings of Italy all and several, the senators of her holy city, her dukes, marquesses, counts, and peoples,” and subscribes himself “the humble Italian, Dante Alighieri, the Florentine.” The respective rulers and peoples are admonished as members of one body; the writer's Italian nationality comes before his Florentine origin; the tidings of joy and hope are announced to Italy as a whole.

In the De Vulgari Eloquentia and in the Divina Commedia alike, Dante conceives of Italy as a cultural and geographical unity, from the extreme barriers of the Alps to furthest Sicily—the Alps alone being the northern boundary between the Italian and the German peoples. The cities of Istria are no less Italian than those of Lombardy and Tuscany; the eastern boundaries of Italy are indicated by the Quarnaro Gulf:
“che Italia chiude e suoi termini bagna.” (“which encloses Italy and bathes its borders.”)
Some may object that Dante appealed to a foreign Emperor. But in Dante's theory, the Emperor has two closely associated missions to perform: one universal and international, the other national and Italian. The Veltro, the symbol of the ideal Emperor in the first canto of the Inferno, is not only to slay the she-wolf of avarice, but to be the salvation of Italy:
“di quell'umile Italia fia salute.” (“who will be the salvation of that humble Italy.”)
The position of the Emperor with respect to Italy is clearly stated in his letter to the princes and peoples:
“Awake, then, all ye dwellers in Italy, and arise before your king, ye who are reserved not only for his empire, but, as free men, for his rule.”
Like the other nations, Italy is included in the Empire, but she has the special privilege of having the Emperor himself as her king. It is true there is no explicit call in Dante for a fusion of the different Italian states; but the realisation of such an Italian kingdom would obviously imply political unity and the end of the temporal power of the Pope. In any case, the Emperor elect must drizzare Italia (“redress Italy”), he must inforcar li suoi arcioni (“jump on her saddle”), before he can fulfill his imperial mission of universal peace and liberation.

The nationality of this imperial deliverer from strife and anarchy was, to use a scholastic phrase, accidental; for Rome alone could confirm and give its sanctity to the choice of the Electors, and the tradition that he represented would be Latin. And, further, when we examine the De Monarchia, we find that Dante's “imperialism” is merely the outward form of his conception. He looks to the goal of civilisation, the function proper to humanity as a whole; and he finds it to be the actualising, the bringing into play, of all the potentialities of the human mind for thought and for action. For this to be realised, the first requisite is universal peace, and the second is freedom, “the greatest gift bestowed by God on human nature.”

In its ultimate analysis, the Empire meant for Dante the unity of civilisation: a unity of civilisation, originally Italian because the continuation of that Latin civilisation which Rome and Italy had of old given to the world, but now universal in accordance with the diverse needs of the new nations of Europe. It meant the realisation of the principles of justice embodied in Roman law, with full liberty to the individual nations and states to regulate themselves by their own particular laws and customs, according to the special conditions of each. There is a striking sentence in the letter to the Florentines, where Dante rebukes his fellow-citizens because they are striving “that the civic life of Florence may be one thing, that of Rome another.” In this Romana civilitas—this civic life in the Empire under Roman law—he sees all the nations included. But, among these nations, Italy has high prerogatives of her own; she has been donna di provincie (“mistress of the provinces”); and she is still “the garden of the Empire,” “the noblest region of Europe.”

There is no opposition between Dante's nationalism and his imperialism, for his imperialism is itself essentially Italian. Rome is not only the seat of the Papacy and the capital of the Empire, but it is an Italian city, the centre and rallying point of the Italian people. In the letter to the Italian cardinals, Dante speaks of Rome as Latiale caput: “The head of Latium must be reverently loved by all Italians, as the common source of their civic life.” The phrase Latiale caput is from Lucan; but, for Dante, it means “the capital of Italy”.

In the Convivio and the De Monarchia, Dante insists that the Empire is necessary for the well-being of the world, primarily in order to set a check upon illegitimate national aspirations and the greed of kingdoms for increase of territory, and to provide a supreme court of arbitration. In its essence, the world regime of his imagination was a Europe in which the individual characteristics and rights of races, nations, and states would be preserved and developed in the freedom and peace required for the realisation of the goal of civilisation: freedom and peace secured by an Empire which, translated into modern language, becomes a supreme international tribunal of arbitration, armed with authority to compel the quarrels of princes and peoples to be submitted to it, and with power to enforce its impartial decisions for the temporal welfare of humanity. The traditions of such a tribunal, in Dante's eyes, would be Italian, its centre of necessity—by divine predestination, as he would deem—Rome. Thus it was the leading part of Italy in a restored European unity of civilisation in peace and freedom to which Dante's thoughts were directed, rather than towards her political unity as a nation; but he indicated that unity as part of her heritage in the sacred name of Rome, and foreshadowed the ideal of European Catholic unity.


II. — From Petrarch to Boiardo

We pass into another atmosphere with Petrarch. It has been said: “The italianità of Petrarch is one of his finest and most salient characteristics; that italianità still somewhat mediaeval, still somewhat enamoured of ancient Rome, but which already presents and foretells modern Italy.”

“From my boyhood,” Petrarch writes, “I have been inflamed—beyond all my contemporaries whom I have known—with a love of the name of Italy.” He exalts her beauty above that of all other lands, declaring that she lacks nothing—save only peace. And that peace is constantly upon his lips.

“I'vo gridando: Pace, pace, pace” is the closing line of the great canzone, Italia mia; in which, as prelude to this peace, he confidently asserts that Italian arms can still achieve the destiny of the nation:
“Vertú contra furore prenderà l'arme; e fia'l combatter corto; ché l'antiquo valore ne l'italici cor non e ancor morto.” (“Virtue will take up arms against fury, and make the battle short, because ancient valor in Italian hearts is not yet dead.”)
When war breaks out between Venice and Genoa, he bids the contending states to remember that they are both Italian, exhorting them to cease their fratricidal conflict and turn their arms against the foreigner. “If there is any reverence left for the Latin name,” he writes to the Doge of Venice, “remember that those whose ruin you are preparing are your brothers.” In the most famous of his lyrics, Spirto gentil che quelle membra reggi, the address to the new ruler of Rome (whether Cola di Rienzo or another), the man of destiny on the Capitol must restore Rome to her ancient way as a prelude to the regeneration of Italy, for Italy herself is not yet aroused:
“Ma non senza destino a le tue braccia, che scuoter forte e sollevar la ponno, è or commesso il nostro capo Roma. Pon man in quella venerabil chioma securamente e ne le trecce sparte, sí che la neghittosa esca del fango.” (“But Rome, our chief, perhaps by destiny, is now entrusted to your arms, and you can use them to awake her, shake her up. So thrust your hand into those unkempt locks, those tangled, ancient tresses, and help raise this poor and slothful creature from the mud.”)
But the poet has no settled convictions as to how this peace of the nation in the fulfillment of her destinies is to be accomplished. Petrarch dreamed constantly of the restoration of the sovereignty of the Roman People. First he set his hopes upon the Angevin monarchy of Robert of Naples, then upon the new Roman Republic of Cola di Rienzo, then in the Holy Roman Empire, then in the papa angelico (“angelic pope”) of the religious ideal—whose features, despite his disgust with the corruption of the preceding French popes and their neglect of Italy, he seemed for a moment to discern in Pope Urban V. For a patriot like Petrarch, the liberty and unity of Italy was the ideal and supreme goal; so long as this unity would be accomplished, he cared not who conducted the mission, whether it be monarch, emperor, republican or pope.

The second half of the fourteenth century offers a notable series of political lyrics. Fazio degli Uberti, an exiled Florentine and great-grandson of that Farinata whom Dante saw rising indomitable from his fiery tomb in the Inferno, composed—probably in 1368—a striking canzone (Di quel possi tu ber che bevve Crasso), in which he brings the Italian nation herself upon the scene to rebuke the degenerate Emperor, Charles IV of Luxembourg:
“Sappi ch' i sono Italia che ti parlo” (“Know that it is Italy which speaks unto thee”)
Cursing the German crowns of Aachen, Milan and Rome, he declares that Italy will accept no more greedy adventurers from Germany, but calls upon God to take from their hands the “sacred sign”, the imperial eagle, which they have dishonoured, “and give it back, thus defaced, again to my Italians and to the Romans.”

Uberti's Ai Signori e Popoli d'Italia describes the state of fourteenth century Italy as an “age of despots”, when princes fought wars using bands of foreign mercenaries. For Uberti, only an Italy united under a single monarch could restore the fortunes of the peninsula and evict the foreign soldiers.

A definite national idea, even an anticipation of the political unity of Italy, appears in other poets as well. It is found most explicitly in the famous “Canzone di Roma” (Quella virtú che'l terzo cielo infonde), formerly attributed to Fazio, but now recognised to be by Bindo di Cione, a poet from Siena. The poet prays Love to give him grace to recite in defence of Italy what he has heard in a vision from a white-haired lady, who told him that she was the personification of Rome. She has appeared to him, stately in aspect, but in mourning attire, poor and in need, surrounded by the ghosts of the heroes of antiquity. To restore her to her throne, to secure peace and stamp out tyranny, there is only one way:
“Se Italia soggiace a un solo re.” (“Italy must be subject to a single king.”)
Let Italians accept one sole king, who shall found a line of hereditary sovereigns; thus will Italy, “questa ch'è donna dell'altre province” (“she who is mistress of the provinces”), ascend to new greatness:
“Canzon mia, cerca l'italo giardino chiuso da' monti e dal suo proprio mare, e piú là non passare.” (“My canzone seeks the Italian garden enclosed by the mountains and by its own sea, and those beyond do not pass.”)
In this poem, composed in 1355, the writer does not seem to have any particular Italian prince in mind, but nonetheless yearns for a national king to deliver Italy.

Towards the end of the century, a bevy of poets hailed the coming redeemer of Italy in the first Duke of Milan, Gian Galeazzo Visconti. A Paduan poet, Francesco di Vannozzo, composed, in 1388, a cantilena of eight sonnets, in which first Italy herself and then her cities in turn offer homage to the Italian ruler, saluting him as the national Messiah, the chorus closing with the voice of Rome. A few years later, Simone Serdini, a Sienese poet, addressed the Duke with a canzone, exhorting him, “per parte d'ogni vero italiano” (“in the name of every true Italian”), to take the crown of all Italy.

But the time was not ripe for the fulfilment of such aspirations. However, in the following century the balance of power between the five great states (Venice, Florence, Milan, Papal States, Kingdom of Naples), through the diplomacy of the Medici, had almost converted Italy into a federation, and at least gave the peninsula the feeling of independence. The classical revival of the Renaissance confirmed and strengthened a sense of spiritual unity based on the sentiment of the romanità of Italy. And men prided themselves on working for Italy. Francesco Barbaro, defending Brescia for the Venetians, speaks constantly of the liberty of Italy, declaring that he has striven to fulfil his duty patriae sed potius Italiae (“for the Italian fatherland”).

In his De gestis and in his orations, the Venetian diplomat Lorenzo de Monacis compares Venice to Rome and argues that Venice remained free since its foundation and is charged with the divine mission of defending Italian liberty. In his 1425 oration to Doge Francesco Foscari, he characterises the war between Venice and Milan as being waged “not for the expansion of domain, not for a greed for glory, but for the salvation of Italy and our fatherland.”

In 1427 the Florentine humanist Poggio Bracciolini, in a letter to Francesco Foscari, writes: “We who are born in free communes have been brought up to detest tyrants, and we proclaim before the world that we have undertaken this war [against Filippo Maria Visconti] for the protection of liberty in Italy.”

Pope Pius II exclaims in his Commentaries: “I will help thee, Italy, to the utmost of my power, that thou mayst not endure any masters.” Giovanni Pontano, the great Latin poet who was chief minister of the kings of Naples, foretells that Italy will in future ages be united under one single government and resume the majesty of the Empire, and claims everlasting fame after death, not merely as a poet, but as the statesman who for years had sought the peace and tranqiullity of Italy.

More particularly, as the fatal year 1494 approached, when Lodovico Sforza was preparing to ally with the French against King Ferrante of Naples, and men saw that disaster could not long be averted, the name of Italy—with impassioned intonation—is on the lips of poets and statesmen alike, giving eloquent testimonies to the reality of this national feeling. In the dispatches which Pontano wrote for the old king Ferrante, in his despairing efforts to avert the national calamity, such phrases as la pace italica (“Italic peace”), il comune reposo d'Italia (“the common repose of Italy”), Italia unita (“United Italy”), fall constantly from his pen. And, when Ferrante dies, this is Pontano's advice to the new king, Alfonso, if he wishes to save his throne. Let him say in the hearing of all the nation:
“Non ho io pigliate le armi volontario, ma coatto da altri; non per offendere, ma per defendere; non per me solo, ma per la reputazione d'Italia, in mano et governo de Italiani, non de' Tramontani.” (“I have taken up arms not for myself alone, but for the reputation of Italy, that she may be in the hands and rule of Italians, not of barbarian foreigners from beyond the Alps.”)
The lyrical counterpart of Pontano's letters is the virile canzone of another southern poet, his friend and colleague Chariteo; the vanguard of the invaders had already crossed the Alps, when he exhorted the Italian states to lay aside private ambitions, and combine in the face of the common foe:
“Quale odio, qual furor, qual ira immane, quai pianete maligni han vostre voglie, unite, hor sí divise? Qual crudeltà vi move, o spiriti insigni, o anime Italiane, a dare il Latin sangue a genti in vise?” (“What hatred, what fury, what terrible wrath, here the malignant planets have your cravings, are we united or divided? What cruelties will move, O illustrious spirits, O Italian souls, to give Latin blood in the face of the people?”)
It was with the name of Italy, in the last stanza of the Orlando Innamorato, that Boiardo, sick to death, drops his pen, too full of apprehension for his native land to continue his story:
“Mentre che io canto, o Iddio redentore, vedo la Italia tutta a fiamma e a foco, per questi Galli, che con gran valore vengon per disertar non so che loco.” (“While I sing, O Redeemer, God! I see all Italy in flame and fire, brought by these Gauls, who with fierce rage come to lay waste our land, I know not where!”)

III. — From Machiavelli to Guicciardini

The independence of the fifteenth century had been extinguished as a result of the Italian Wars, and Italy was the battle ground of the contending armies of her conquerors (though the contest was still undecided between France and Spain), when Machiavelli, in 1513, wrote the Principe. He is, as it were, crystallizing his observation of the political life of his own time, and his study of ancient history, into the conception of such a prince as he deemed called for by the exceptional conditions of Italy. It closes with that chapter of impassioned eloquence in which the writer appeals to his new prince, backed by a national army, to come forward as the redeemer of Italy from the dominion of the foreigner:
“If it was necessary, in order to behold the virtue of Moses, that the people of Israel should be slaves in Egypt, and to recognise the greatness of the mind of Cyrus that the Persians should be oppressed by the Medes, and the excellence of Theseus that the Athenians should be scattered; so, at the present time, in order to know the virtue of an Italian spirit, it was necessary that Italy should be reduced to that condition in which she now is, and that she should be more enslaved than the Hebrews, more down-trodden than the Persians, more scattered than the Athenians; without a head, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn, overrun, the victim of every kind of ruin… Left without life, she waits to see who it is that shall heal her wounds… We see how she prays God to send her some one to redeem her from these barbarian cruelties and insolence. We see her all ready and disposed to follow a banner, if there be the man to raise it… Then let not this occasion pass, in order that Italy, after so long a time, may see one who shall be her redeemer. Nor could I express with what love he would be received in all those provinces which have suffered from these foreign inundations; with what thirst for vengeance, with what steadfast faith, with what devotion, with what tears. What gates would be barred against him? What people would refuse him obedience? What envy would oppose him? What Italian would deny him homage? This barbarian domination is repugnant to all.”
The figure of the redeemer of Italy again comes before us, in Machiavelli's later work, the Arte delta Guerra,—and now the prophecy is more explicit. Machiavelli is showing, from the examples of the past and present, how an Italian national army should be raised, equipped, and handled in the field. A prince, of a character totally different from that of those who held sway in the land before the disasters ushered in by the French invasion of 1494, is needed for the purpose:
“I declare to you that, whichever of those who now hold states in Italy shall first enter upon this road, he will—before any other—become ruler of this country; and it will befall his state as befell the kingdom of the Macedonians, which, coming under Philip, who had learned the method of training armies from Epaminondas the Theban, became so powerful by this training and discipline, that, in a few years, Philip was able to occupy the whole of Greece.”
No such clear vision is found in the other political writers of the Cinquecento. If we turn to the poets, Ariosto reveals a sense of nationality in his impassioned denunciation of all Italy's invaders. Frenchman and Spaniard, Swiss and German alike, and vaguely anticipates a time when Italians will have the power to repay them in kind. He gives the answer to Boiardo's dying cry of dismay, in his pictured pageant of the French invasions of Italy and their results:
E che brevi allegrezze e lunghi lutti, poco guadagno et infinito danno riporteran d'ltalia; ché non lice che 'l Giglio in quel terreno habbia radice.” (“And will bring back from Italy brief joys and long sorrows, little gain and boundless damage, because the lily is not permitted to take root in that land.”)
Ariosto's Italian feelings are inevitably coloured by the politics of his sovereign, the Duke of Ferrara. In general the poets of the Cinquecento bear eloquent witness to the patriotic aspirations that all the mighty armies of Europe could not quench: to the conviction that Italy, in virtue of the Roman idea and the Latin tradition, represented something imperishable, something immeasurably beyond the power of her conquerors to touch or comprehend. Thus, Francesco Maria Molza, in his sonnets on the sack of Rome, taunts the uncouth barbarian with the mighty life of the Romans in the tongue that scorns age and time, and warns him that the noble Latin blood cannot remain long under the vile yoke of Germany and Spain:
“Vivrà, barbaro stolto, la grandezza del gran popol di Marte in quella pura voce, che poco di tua man si cora. E la vecchiezza e 'l tempo insieme sprezza.” (“Foolish barbarian, the grandeur of the great people of Mars will live...”)

“Non potrà molto il Latin sangue adorno sotto giogo sì vil rimaner preso, lo qual più volte alteramente ha scosso.” (“Latin blood cannot remain long under the vile yoke...”)
In a celebrated series of sonnets, Giovanni Guidiccioni exhorts Italy to be true to her former self, urging her, by her memories of old, to recover her lost liberty from those who once adorned her triumphs, closing with an inspired picture of the return of peace and freedom to the land. Nor are such ideas confined to the polished lyrics of the Petrarchists, who may be regarded as merely following in the steps of Petrarch himself. We find them expressed, with uncouth vigour, by the greatest realist among the Italian poets of the Cinquecento: Teofilo Folengo (who used the pseudonym Merlino Coccaio). What his latest editor, Alessandro Luzio, well calls the “magnanimo orgoglio di italianità” (“magnanimous pride of Italianity”), appears alike in the hexameters of his maccheronic epic, Baldus, and the unpolished octaves of his Italian poem, Orlandino:
“Italia bella, Italia, fior del mondo, è patria nostra in monte ed in campagna, Italia forte arnese che, secondo si legge, ha spesso visto le calcagna de l'inimici, quando a tondo a tondo ebbe talor tedeschi, Franza e Spagna; ché se non fusser le gran parti in quella, dominarebbe il mondo, Italia bella.” (“Italy, beautiful Italy, flower of the world, is our fatherland...”)
And he can utter his thought with a coarseness of invective unknown to the Petrarchists, when he invokes a horrible curse upon every Italian, rich or poor, who desires the presence of the foreigner within his land.

Finally is also Gian Giorgio Trissino, friend and mentor of Andrea Palladio. His most notable contribution to Italian literature is the epic poem L'Italia liberata dai Goti (The Liberation of Italy from the Goths). Published in 1548, Trissino's epic follows the wars of sixth-century Roman general Belisarius against the Goths and features a heaven of Christian figures, including of course God and the Virgin. The population of heaven is rounded out by numerous angels, whom Trissino divides into pro-Italian and pro-Goth factions. Over the course of the poem Belisarius's campaigns proceed back and forth across Italy, with alternating victories and defeats as the partisan angels intervene on both sides, turning the tide of battle by means of disguised appearances, strange mists, and similar devices. God is petitioned by an angel “called providence by us” to pity the poor Italians in the poem's opening scene. The epic lasts for twenty-seven books, ending in the final Italian triumph.

Finally there is Francesco Guicciardini, historian and statesman, who wrote his groundbreaking Storia d'Italia (History of Italy) between 1537 and 1540, which revolutionized the art of historiography. The first edition was published posthumously in 1561. Guicciardini begins the work by stating:
“I have determined to write about those events which have occurred in Italy within our memory, ever since French troops, summoned by our own princes, began to stir up very great dissensions here.”
Now Guicciardini was a Florentine, and the prince in question (who summoned the French to Italy) was the Duke of Milan, a ruler who had little to do with Guicciardini's homeland in the Republic of Florence. What's more, Florence and Milan had an old rivalry and history of war against each other. Yet in the very first sentence of his work, Guicciardini specifically says the French were summoned by “our own princes”, clearly showing the existence of an Italian identity; for Guicciardini it mattered not whether the prince in question was from Florence or Milan or any other city: all are Italians, therefore all are “our own princes”.

Later in the same work Guicciardini laments the fall of the Kingdom of Naples to the French invaders:
“By domestic dissensions, which had blinded the so-renowned wisdom of our princes...a renown and powerful part of Italy fell from Italian rule to the rule of people from beyond the Alps.”
Even if the various Italian states were politically divided, for Guicciardini—an Italian patriot—they are still part of the same land of Italy and therefore are treated as belonging to the same country; moreover, the wars and dissensions among the Italian princes are considered domestic disputes, almost as civil wars, while those from outside of Italy (such as the French) are reckoned as foreigners.


IV. — From Marino to Alfieri

In the period that followed the Renaissance and preceded Napoleon—the period in which Italy first lay under the dominion of Spain, then became again the battlefield of Europe, and finally in great part a political dependency of Austria—there were two states that preserved the Italian independence and remained the depositaries of Italian nationality: the Republic of Venice and the Duchy of Savoy. Bernardo Tasso wrote of Venice:
“Is she not the ornament and splendour of Italian dignity? Does she not represent an image of the authority and greatness of the Roman republic? In this dark and tempestuous age, what other light or splendour remains to hapless Italy? Are we not all servants, all tributaries, I will not say of barbarian, but of foreign nations? of those, I say, whom the noble Italians of old led captive in their triumphs? She alone has preserved her ancient liberty; she alone renders obedience to none save God and her own well-ordered laws.”
The idea of Venice as a beacon of Italian liberty and freedom dated back many centuries and was acknowledged even by non-Venetians. The Tuscan writer Boncompagno da Signa, at the end of his Amicitia, composed in 1205, wrote:
“The Italian people neither can nor ought to live under tribute, for liberty chose her chief seat in Italy. But, although it is Italy from the strait of Messina and Brindisi unto Aquileia and Susa, there are nevertheless boundaries which liberty in modern times hath not been wont to cross: Rome, Perugia, Faenza, and Treviso for the laws of liberty extend to the bed of the swift-flowing Tagliamento. Assuredly the admirable realm of Venice, which is one of the chiefest members of Italy, preserves Italian liberty in the highest degree.”
This testimony of a Tuscan—writing about 1205—to the italianità of Venice is noteworthy, and the whole tone of the passage shows that when Italians, in the age of the Communes, spoke of Italia, they did not mean the restricted Regnum Italicum of the Middle Ages, but the whole of Italy, from Sicily to the Alps.

Even from the deep south of Calabria the famous Dominican monk Tommaso Campanella extolled Venice in his sonnet Nuova arca di Noé (The New Ark of Noah), written in the sixteenth century. He likens Venice to Noah's ark for having been a place of shelter for the Romans during the barbarian invasions, and calls Venice the sole bearer of Italian liberty, untainted by foreign subjection. For these reasons, says Campanella, Venice is the loyal heir of Rome:
“New Ark of Noah! when the cruel scourge
Of that barbarian tyrant like a wave
Went over Italy, thou then didst save
The seed of just men on the weltering surge.

Here, still by discord and foul servitude

Untainted, thou a hero brood dost raise,
Powerful and prudent. Due to thee their praise
Of maiden pure, of teeming motherhood!

Thou wonder of the world, Rome's loyal heir,
Thou pride and strong support of Italy,
Dial of princes, school of all things wise!

Thou like Arcturus steadfast in the skies,
With tardy sense guidest thy kingdom fair,
Bearing alone the load of liberty.”
For Italian patriots, the role of Venice in the shaping of the national destiny was to maintain the glory of the Italian name and preserve Latin civilisation on the eastern shore of the Adriatic, bequeathing her rights and tradition to the Italy of today; the role of Savoy was the ultimate fulfilment of Machiavelli's prophecy. There is a noble canzone by Marino, composed in the early years of the seventeenth century, in which Italy appeals to Venice, urging an alliance between the Lady of the Sea and the Unicorn of the Alps, for the deliverance of the nation from the power of Spain. Traiano Boccalini, writing in the shelter of “la serenissima liberta veneziana” (“the most serene Venetian freedom”), prophesies that the universal monarchy, which Spain is vainly seeking, will return again “alia nobilissima nazione italiana” (“to the most noble Italian nation”) and styles the Duke of Savoy, Charles Emanuel I., “il primo guerriero italiano” (“the first Italian warrior”). This phase of Italian political thought, looking to the House of Savoy for deliverance, is represented in the famous poem addressed to Charles Emanuel by Fulvio Testi in 1614:
“Carlo, quel generoso invitto core, da cui spera soccorso Italia oppressa, a che bada? A che tarda? A che piu cessa? Nostre perdite son le tue dimore.” (“Charles, that generous unconquered heart, from which the oppressed Italy seeks hope...”)

“Chi fia, se tu non se', che rompa il laccio onde tant'anni avvinta Esperia giace? Posta ne la tua spada è la sua pace, e la sua liberta sta nel tuo braccio.” (“Who else shall deliver Italy from so many years of captivity, if not you? Your sword is its peace, and its freedom is in your arm.”)
Modena's poet laureate Alessandro Tassoni detested the foreign rulers of Italy, especially the Spaniards. In his 1612 booklet Le Filippiche he attacks the Spanish domination of Italy and expresses enthusiastic support for Duke Charles Emmanuel I's appeal to pope and princes to join in Italy's liberation from the foreign intruder, Spain:
“How long will we, Italian princes and gentlemen, ...endure being downtrodden by the arrogance and conceit of foreign peoples who...confuse courtesy with cowardice? I speak to the princes and nobles. ... All other people...have nothing more dear than their fatherland. They forget their hostility and hatred and unite to defend her against foreign depredations; indeed, dogs, wolves, lions inhabiting the same region, the same locality, the same forest, join together for the common defense; we Italians alone, so different from all other people and from all other animals, abandon our neighbor, abandon our friend, abandon our fatherland, to join with alien foes! What a sorrowful destiny for Italy this is! ... What fear or hope can induce us to forsake the Duke of Savoy at such a momentous occasion, who is embattled for the reputation of the princes of Italy and for our common liberty, to submit to people, who instead of thanking us for our help hold us in no regard?. ... Of whom do we have fear? That [Spanish] kingdom which once had a robust body is now exhausted by luxury..., and is now an elephant with the heart of a helpless wretch. ... And if [Spain] succeeds to occupy Piedmont, to gain control of the door into Italy, and roam throughout [the peninsula], I am asking you Italian princes and nobles what hope...”
Tassoni urges Italian union against Spain and condemns those Italians who support foreign power:
“But the wise and the pusillanimous say it is impossible; the nobles and knights desire honours and medals, prizes of their servitude. And truly, those unhappy creatures with souls so servile that they enjoy being ruled by a foreign power, are unworthy of the name of Italian.”
The booklet, one of the firmest and most embittered expressions of patriotism of its age, made a lasting impression on Duke Charles Emmanuel, who nominated Tassoni as his secretary in 1618. In 1622 Tassoni published another work, La secchia rapita (The Stolen Bucket), a satirical poem in which he cleverly criticises the petty wars between Italian states which exhausted the country and allowed Italy to become easy prey for foreigners.

More than a century later, in 1739 (by which time the Dukes of Savoy had attained the title of Kings of Sardinia), we find a southern Italian, Pietro Giannone, writing that the “antico valor d'Italia” (“ancient valour of Italy”) is preserved alone in the Italian peoples who form the dominions of the princes of Savoy, and calling upon the other Italian rulers to follow their example, and restore in their subjects the ancient military discipline, whereby “they will see Italy delivered from servitude and brought back to her former glory.”

In 1780 the philosopher Gaetano Filangieri, one of the most celebrated publicists of his time, proposes an Italy jointly led by Naples and Piedmont-Sardinia. In the same year the Piedmontese historian and writer Galeani Napione made similar appeals to the House of Savoy. In his works Osservazioni intorno al progetto di pace di Sua Maestà e le potenze barbaresche (1780), Idea di una confederazione delle potenze d'Italia (1790) and Memoria sulla necessità di una confederazione delle potenze d'Italia (1794), he proposes a confederation of Italian states under the supreme leadership of the Papacy in order “to give re-birth to the ancient power and the ancient naval glory of Italy.” Under the influence of Napione, the idea of an Italian confederation is taken up by King Vittorio Amedeo III in 1791, but comes to nothing due to the opposition of other statesmen.

Briefly diverting back to the Seicento, we must mention the famous sonnets of Vincenzo da Filicaia, a Florentine poet and senator. His genius takes its source in deep national and religious feelings. The patriotic ardour that fills his breast for the ancient liberty of Italy is the foremost expression of Italian national sentiment in the entire seventeenth century:
“Italy! Italy! Thou who art doomed to wear the fatal gift of beauty, and possess the dower funest of infinite wretchedness, written upon thy forehead by despair. Ah! Would that thou were stronger, or less fair, that they might fear thee more, or love thee less, who in the splendour of thy loveliness seem wasting, yet to mortal combat dare! Then from the Alps I should not see descending such torrents of armed men, nor Gallic horde drinking the wave of the Po, distained with gore, nor should I see thee girded with a sword. Not thine, and with the stranger's arm contending, victor or vanquished, slave for evermore.”

“Where is thine arm, Italy? Why shouldst thou fight with the foreigners?”
Another man who has a special claim to be remembered is the Jesuit writer Saverio Bettinelli. In a book published in 1773 he was the first writer to give the word risorgimento a political meaning, though he used it to describe the intellectual reawakening of Italy in the early Middle Ages.

The typically Italian spirit at any epoch reveals itself in the sheer virility of thought and utterance—that virility which St. Catherine so prized even in the mystical life. And this national virility is personified in the poet who arose during the period immediately preceding the Risorgimento. This poet, in whose person Piedmont became identified with Italy, was Vittorio Alfieri.

At the end of one of his works in prose, Del Principe e delle lettere, completed in 1786, Alfieri speculates upon the form in which the destiny of Italy will be accomplished. Italy, he thinks, will soon be reunited under two princes (evidently the kings of Sardinia and Naples), and these two kingdoms will afterwards, either by marriage or conquest, be reduced to one. At this stage in Alfieri's political creed, king and tyrant were considered synonymous. So he continues that this one remaining sovereign will proceed to abuse his excessive power, and will in consequence be abolished by the Italians, “who by then, being all united and conscious, will have learned to act together and to consider themselves one single people.” The form of government, then to be introduced, he declares elsewhere to be a question which must be solved by the best Italians living at the time of this liberation.

But Alfieri's gift to the nation was not his political reflections, but his poetry. The passion for liberty and hatred of oppression, with the belief in the power of literature as an instrument for national and social regeneration, is the animating spirit of his tragedies. For him the drama, as he says in one of his letters, should be a school in which “men may learn to be free, strong, generous, impelled by true virtue, intolerant of all violence, lovers of their native land, fully conscious of their own rights, and in all their passions ardent, upright, magnanimous.” The aim of the poet in his dramas was the creation of characters of rigid strength and inflexible wills, to inspire and form men and women of virile temper for the popolo italiano futuro, “the generous and free Italians of the future”—to whom he dedicated his latest tragedy, the Bruto secondo, in 1789, the year that marks the beginning of the French Revolution.


V. — From Napoleon to Manzoni

Eight years after Alfieri's dedication, those “Italians of the future” saw what was destined to become the symbol of Italy's national aspirations. In January 1797, during the republican movement that accompanied the invasion of Italy by the French revolutionary armies, the future banner of the nation—the tricolour of red, white, and green, representing the spiritual virtues of faith, hope and charity—was raised for the first time at Reggio Emilia.

In spite of the devastations of the French armies and the prepotency of the conqueror Napoleon (himself of Italian name and Italian blood), to whom, in common with a great part of Europe, Italy was made subject, the revolutionary and Napoleonic era stimulated the national consciousness of Italians, turning their thoughts towards an ultimate renovation and unification. “Potremo sperare di risorgere fra non molto” (“We hope to be resurrected before long”), the poet Giovanni Fantoni had written in 1796. In an ode, La Repubblica Cisalpina (written at the end of 1797), Giovanni Pindemonte salutes the national banner, uttering the hope that the new republic may liberate all the other Italian states, reign “sul bel paese intero” (“over the entire beautiful country”) and change its name from “Cisalpina” to “Italica”. He is addressing Milan:
“Oggi in te la Repubblica nascente fonda suo centro e di sua possa il nido; e finor troppo ignoto Italia sente uscir da te di libertade il grido. Il Mincio istesso nel cui forte aiuto il Teutone oppressor vivea tranquillo, sulle torri ondeggiar vede il temuto tricolorato libero vessillo.” (“Today in you the nascent Republic finds its center and its nest; and henceforth the unfortunately unknown Italy hears the cry of liberty coming forth from you. The Mincio river is the same in which the Teutonic oppressor quietly lived, but now the feared free tricolour banner flies from its towers.”)
Vincenzo Monti, in his tragedy Caio Gracco (finished in exile at Paris in 1800), makes his hero appeal to the Romans in the name of Italian liberty, and receive as answer from the assembled citizens:
“Itali siam tutti, un popol solo, una sola famiglia.” (“We are all Italians, a single people, a single family.”)

“Italiani tutti, e fratelli.” (“All Italians and brothers.”)
Ugo Foscolo, in the days of Napoleon's power, had fearlessly admonished him in the name of Italy. On the return of the Austrians to Milan, in 1815, he chose to leave his native land rather than swear allegiance, “Cosí Ugo Foscolo diede alla nuova Italia una nuova istituzione, l'esilio” (“Ugo Foscolo gifted the new Italy with a new institution: exile.”) In that same spring, almost exactly a century before Italy drew her sword in the great European war, came the proclamation of Rimini—Murat's abortive call to the Italians from the Alps to Sicily to assert their independence. A poet, then thirty years old, destined in old age to become a citizen of the Rome of United Italy, Alessandro Manzoni, hailed the proclamation in a noble canzone, cut short by the failure of the enterprise:
“Liberi non sarem se non siamo uni.” (“We will not be free if we are not united.”)
It is the first lyric of the Risorgimento.

The Italian Origin of Romeo and Juliet

William Shakespeare’s world renowned Romeo and Juliet (written between 1591 and 1595) stands in the English-speaking world as one of the greatest love stories ever written. It is most interesting to discover then, that Romeo and Juliet was not, in fact, truly of his own creation, but rather a variation on a story told many times in Italian literature from the fourteen hundreds onwards. Centered on the theme of star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet’s tale was told at least a century before Shakespeare actually wrote it.

The first certain tale of the woes of Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet descends from Italian author Masuccio Salernitano (1410-1475). Published a year after his death, Salernitano’s 33rd chapter of his Il Novellino tells of Mariotto and Giannoza, a pair of lovers who come from the feuding families of Maganelli and Saraceni respectively. In this account, their romance takes place in Siena, Italy rather than in Verona and is believed to have occurred contemporary with Salernitano’s time. Much like Shakespeare’s version, Mariotto and Giannoza fall in love and marry secretly with the aid of and Augustine friar. Shortly thereafter, Mariotto has words with another noble citizen—in this case, not his love’s own cousin—and kills the nobleman, resulting in his fleeing the city to avoid capital punishment. Giannoza, distraught, is comforted only by the fact that Mariotto has family in Alexandria, Egypt and makes a good home for himself there. However, her own father—unaware of her wedding—decides it is time for her to take a husband, putting her in a terrible position. With the aid of the friar who had wed her and Mariotto, Giannoza drinks a sleeping potion to make her appear dead, so she can be smuggled out of Siena to reunite in Alexandria with her husband. Of course this plan goes terribly awry, and her letter to explain their plan to Mariotto never reaches him, though news of her death quickly does. While she flees to Alexandria to finally reunite with him, Mariotto returns to Siena at risk for his own life to see her corpse one final time. It is then he is captured and taken to be executed for his previous crimes, beheaded three days before Giannoza’s own return to the city. Giannoza then, heartbroken, wastes away of a broken heart, to be finally reunited with her husband in heaven.

As one can see, there are many similar elements between Shakespeare’s tale and Salernitano’s. The themes of feuding families, the forbidden love, the sleeping potion, and the terrible communication mishap all lead to the parallel ending of mutual death. Writing only a hundred years apart, Shakespeare could well have come across Salernitano’s work, or one of the many other variations that were written before the story reached the Shakespeare’s desk. Luigi da Porto in 1530 wrote a similar compilation of Romeo Montechhi and Giulietta Cappelleti, moving the setting of their lives from Siena to the Verona from where Shakespeare would write it. The pair again wed in secret with the aid of a friar only to be torn apart by Romeo’s accidental killing of Giulietta’s cousin and their subsequent deaths—Romeo by Giulietta’s sleeping potion, and Giulietta by holding her breath so she could die with him.

Following da Porto came Matteo Bandello (1480-1562), a monk and an author who took da Porto and Salernitano’s tales even further. He is the Italian author who is most directly credited as having influenced Shakespeare, as Bandello introduces many of the specific themes that make Shakespeare’s play so well known today. Bandello’s version, while in many ways comparable to Salernitano’s text, provided the well-known last names of Montague and Capulet to the two titular characters. Bandello also added the element of the costume ball, at which Romeo and Juliet meet, and also the pertinent moment in which Juliet viciously kills herself with her lover’s dagger so that she may join Romeo in the afterlife, rather than merely wasting away as Giannoza did. Bandello’s tale was closely copied by the French author Pierre Boaistuau, whose version was then translated into English by Arthur Brooke as The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet in 1562. This English translation was the actual text that influenced William Shakespeare to write his Romeo and Juliet.

References:
Masuccio Salernitano (Il Novellino, 1476)
Luigi da Porto (Historia novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti, 1530)
Matteo Bandello (Giulietta e Romeo, 1554)
Pierre Boaistuau (Histoires tragiques, 1559)
Arthur Brooke (The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet, 1562)
William Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet, 1591-1595)

Cato Predicted Greek Philosophy and Ethics Would Destroy Rome

Marcus Portius Cato (234-149 B.C.), better known as Cato the Censor or Cato the Elder, was a famous Roman senator, consul, censor, general and writer. The Roman historian Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.) stated that Cato was “a man of integrity and uprightness”. In his Historia Romana, the Roman historian Cassius Dio (approx. 155-235 A.D.) wrote the following about Cato:
“He was a man who surpassed those of his age in every virtue.”
The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus (approx. 330-391 A.D.) compared Cato the Censor to those in Ammianus’ time who craved bronze statues and associated fame:
“Of these few some set their hearts upon statues, believing that in this way their fame will be secured for ever, as if there were more satisfaction to be gained from senseless bronze figures than from the consciousness of a well-spent life. They have these statues covered in gold leaf, a privilege first granted to Acilius Glabrio for his skill and courage in defeating king Antiochus. But Cato the censor showed how much finer it is to despise these vanities and to set one’s steps on what the bard of Ascra calls the steep path to true glory. When he was asked why, unlike many others, he had no statue, Cato replied: ‘I would rather have good men wondering why I have not deserved a statue than grumbling because I have been given one: that would be much worse.’”
In his writing De Tranquillitate Animi, the Roman statesman Seneca (4 B.C.-65 A.D.) recorded:
“…if you had access to the age of Cato, which produced many men worthy to be born in Cato’s time. (It also produced many who were worse than at any other time and who committed appalling crimes: for both groups were necessary for Cato to be appreciated – he needed the good to win their approval and the bad to prove his strength.)”
Roman writer Cornelius Nepos (approx. 99-24 B.C.) wrote the following about Cato:
“…although often attacked, he not only suffered no loss of reputation, but as long as he lived the fame of his virtues increased.”
In his Pro Archia Poeta, Roman senator Cicero (106-43 B.C.) wrote that Ennius of Rudiae, the father of Roman poetry (died 169 B.C.) wrote in praise of Cato. Cicero himself said: “Such was the brave and venerable Marcus Cato, the most accomplished man of his day” and “the great Marcus Cato, prince of all virtues.”

Cassius Dio records that in a speech to the Roman Senate, Cato wrote that women should be adorned “with modesty, with love of husband, love of children…”

Marcus Portius Cato was very concerned that the sexually immoral practices of the Greeks and Asians would spread among the Romans. The Roman historian Livy recorded that Cato told the Roman Senate:
“The better and the happier becomes the fortune of our commonwealth day by day and the greater the empire grows – and already we have crossed into Greece and Asia, places filled with all the allurements of vice, and we are handling the treasures of kings – the more I fear that these things will capture us rather than we them.”
As the ancient Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) records, Marcus Portius Cato wrote a ‘History of Rome’ (now lost). Drawing on this source and possibly other historical sources, Plutarch recorded that when two Greek philosophers, Carneades the Academic and Diogenes the Stoic philosopher came as ambassadors from Athens to Rome, “the most studious of the city’s [Rome’s] youth hastened to wait upon them and became their devoted and admiring listeners.” Cato was very displeased about this event and criticised it publicly. Plutarch recorded:
“This he [Cato] did, not, as some think, out of personal hostility to Carneades, but because he was wholly averse to philosophy, and made mock of all Greek culture and training, out of patriotic zeal. He says, for instance, that Socrates was a mighty prattler…And seeking to prejudice his son against Greek culture, he indulges in an utterance all too rash for his years, declaring, in the tone of a prophet or a seer, that Rome would lose her empire when she had become infected with Greek letters. But time has certainly shown the emptiness of this ill-boding speech of his, for while the city was at the zenith of its empire, she made every form of Greek learning and culture her own. It was not only Greek philosophers that he hated, but he was also suspicious of Greeks who practiced medicine at Rome.”
In Plutarch’s Vite parallele, Plutarch says that Cato stated that “Socrates was a turbulent windbag…”

In his Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX, the Roman Valerius Maximus (first century A.D.) wrote about Cato:
“Admiration of his brave and unblemished life made M. Porcius Cato venerable to the senate. So much so that when he was filibustering in the house against the tax farmers contrary to the wishes of Consul C. Caesar and in consequence was led to prison by a lictor on Caesar’s orders, the entire senate followed him without hesitation… When the same personage was watching Flora’s games, put on by Aedile C. Messius, the people blushed to ask that the actresses be stripped naked. When Favonius, a great friend of Cato’s who was sitting next to him, told him of this, he left the theatre, not wishing that his presence should interfere with the custom of the show. The people followed him as he went out with tremendous applause and then recalled the ancient mode of merriment back to the stage, confessing that it recognised more majesty in Cato alone than it claimed for its universal self. To what resources, what magisterial powers, what triumphs was this accorded? Cato’s patrimony was small, his way of life narrowed by self-restraint, his clientships not large, his house closed to canvassers, his father’s family with one celebrated ancestor, his aspect by no means ingratiating, but his virtue complete on all counts. It made everyone who may wish to indicate a blameless, excellent citizen use Cato’s name as a definition.”
Cato was not a prophet of God. But he had a very good understanding of the practical morally corrupting effects which Greek philosophy and culture had had on Greek society by that time. Cato knew that Greek philosophers had mostly advocated or at least passively accepted paedophilia or pederasty, public nudity and other immoral practices.

Plutarch claimed that Cato’s prophecy was not fulfilled. Plutarch says that Rome was at its greatest when it had adopted every form of Greek learning and culture. It is true that Rome was greatest militarily, economically and scientifically when it adopted every form of Greek learning and culture. But it was at this same time that Roman society became more morally corrupt and wicked than it had ever been. This laid the foundations for the collapse of the Roman Empire in later centuries.

Moral corruption usually takes centuries to finally produce the collapse of a society.

Note also that Plutarch says that Cato “was also suspicious of Greeks who practiced medicine at Rome.” As shown below, one of Cato’s primary reasons for saying this was revealed by the Roman statesman Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.). Like Plutarch, Pliny had access to Cato’s ‘History of Rome’ also.

The Roman governor, admiral and writer, Pliny the Elder wrote that because of the sexually abusive attitudes of so many Greek male physicians in ancient times, Cato was more afraid of the entrance of one Greek male physician in Rome than he was of the invasion of Rome by an army led by a foreign queen:
“What adulteries have been committed under the colour hereof, even in princes’ and emperors’ palaces? As for example, Eudemus and Livia the princess, and wife to Drusus Caesar; Valens likewise with the queen or empress above-named, Messalina. But say that these crimes and odious offences are not to be imputed unto the art itself, but rather to be charged upon the persons, I mean the corrupt and lewd professors thereof: yet surely I am of this belief, that in regard of these enormities, Cato was as much afraid of the entrance of physic, as of some queen into the city of Rome.”
Pliny’s expression “What adulteries have been committed under the colour hereof…” refers to adulteries between male doctors and female patients under the guise of being medical treatments.

Cato was a Roman traditionalist known for his conservatism, moral austerity and opposition to Hellenization. He tried to preserve Rome’s mos maiorum and combat degenerate Greek influences, which he believed would lead to moral corruption and ultimately cause Rome’s downfall.

References:
Cicero (Pro Archia Poeta)
Cicero (Pro Cnaeo Plancio)
Cornelius Nepos (De viris illustribus)
Livy (Ab urbe condita libri)
Seneca (De Tranquillitate Animi)
Valerius Maximus (Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX)
Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia)
Cassius Dio (Historia Romana)
Plutarch (Vite parallele)
Ammianus Marcellinus (Res Gestae)

Petrarch and the Greeks

An evident characteristic of Petrarch, besides his devotion to Italy and Ancient Rome, is his opposition to Greeks and the Byzantine Empire. On the one hand, Petrarch was an admirer of ancient Greek culture. His appreciation for certain ancient Greek writers made him eager to read their works in the original language. To that end, he took lessons in the Greek language and befriended several Greeks. But Petrarch's works, even those written to his Greek friends, reveal considerable animosity toward the Byzantines.

One aspect of Petrarch's hostility was his belief in the superiority of Latins over Greeks in matters of culture and history. In a letter to Boccaccio dated March 1, 1365, Petrarch rails against the Calabrian monk Leontius Pilatus for fancying himself Greek rather than Italian: “Our Leontius is really a Calabrian, but would have us consider him a Thessalian, as though it were nobler to be Greek than Italian.” After proceeding in his description of Pilatus by mocking his long, shaggy beard and hair, and naming various character flaws such as a lack of virtue and wisdom, Petrarch informs Boccaccio that Pilatus had the gall to ask him to write to the Byzantine emperor on his behalf. Petrarch ridicules the very notion. In the same letter, he criticizes the Byzantines for their persistence in referring to their empire as Roman: “the Greeks call Constantinople another Rome. They have dared to call it not only equal to the ancient city, but greater in monuments and graced with riches. But if this were true on both counts as it is false (I would say it without offense to Sozomen who wrote this) surely no little Greek, however impudent, would dare to call them equal in men, arms, virtues and glory.”

In an earlier letter to Cardinal Giovanni Colonna, Petrarch argued that a Greek cannot rightly consider himself nobler than an Italian because “whoever says this would also say that a slave is more noble than a master.” Petrarch supports this assertion by pointing to ancient Greece's subjection under the Roman imperium. Petrarch was a proud Italian who rejected Greek pretensions to the Roman name. The very idea that Greeks were Romans, for him, was absurd. The real Romans, Petrarch implies, were Italians who spoke Latin; they became masters of the world, sweeping up all of Greece in the process. The only true descendants of the ancient Romans are those who now occupy Italy, while the modern-day Greeks are no more than the descendants of an enslaved and subjugated people who unjustly usurped the dignity of the Roman Empire. For Petrarch, the Greeks were nothing more than former Roman slaves who later pretended to call themselves Romans. As he argues in his Itinerarium ad sepulcrum Domini, the Byzantine Empire became famous for its emulation of the Roman Empire, but it was not the real Roman Empire.

In 1354 the idea appears again a letter to Nicholas Sygeros—a letter written in thanks for a manuscript of Homer that the Byzantine official had sent to him. Petrarch's gratitude to Sygeros did not restrain him from discrediting the Byzantine emperor, who still styled himself “Roman Emperor”; Petrarch instead calls him “emperor of Constantinople” (constantinopolitanus imperator), as opposed to the real Roman emperor.

Despite his great love of learning and antiquity, Petrarch did not fully appreciate ancient Greek culture either, and disliked even more strongly the modern Greeks who lived among the ruins of ancient Hellas. The reason for his aversion was not only ethnic or cultural, but also religious: in the centuries before Petrarch's birth, the Latins and Greeks had become sharply divided by religious faith and sentiments, consecrated by the Eastern Schism of 1054. Petrarch, as an Italian and a Latin, was a staunch Catholic. His consuming passion for both ancient Rome and the Catholic faith shaped his condescension toward Greece—ancient and modern—just as it did toward Islamic countries. Petrarch argued that all these lands were once under Rome's benevolent aegis; breaking away from Roman rule only sent them into cultural decline, political anarchy, heresy and schism.

Petrarch's antipathy for the Greeks went beyond cultural criticisms; on a few occasions his message became bellicose, as in his letters to the rulers of Venice and Genoa. In these letters he begs the two governments to stop fighting one another and to embrace their connection as fellow Italians. Much worthier battles, he argues, can be fought against the Muslims and even against the schismatic Greeks. Religious antagonism played a very large part in Petrarch's views of Byzantium, as can be seen in his letter to Doge Giovanni da Valente, who took office in 1352, and the Council of Genoa. Petrarch repeats his plea for a cessation of war among Italians in exchange for a joint attack on Byzantium and the Holy Land:
“Yea indeed, not only do I not grieve, but I greatly rejoice over the deceitful and indolent Greeklings who dare nothing on their own. I desire to see that infamous empire, that seat of error, destroyed at your hands, if by chance Christ has chosen you avengers of their wrongs, if He assigned to you that vengeance which all Catholic peoples have unfortunately deferred.”
With this statement the Greeks are compared to Muslims or to heretics such as the Albigensians and Bogomils—groups whose existence was believed to pose a great danger to the Christian faith, which therefore could only be met with crusade.

Petrarch's resentment of the Greeks intensified over time. In a letter to Pope Urban V written in 1366, Petrarch urged a return to Rome and aid to the beleaguered Christian East. While he encourages the pope to lead a crusade to Constantinople to help the Byzantines push back the Turkish advance, he also advocates a return of Latin rule to Constantinople. He believed that the arrogant, schismatic Greeks—who hate the Latins so much that they reconsecrate their churches when a Latin so much as enters them—needed to be punished for their hatred and schism. He even goes so far as to advocate a crusade against Byzantium. According to Petrarch, Jerusalem is possessed by enemies, while the Byzantines, as heretics, are “worse than enemies” (peioris hostibus):
“The fact remains that a great sea lies between us and our enemies who now hold Jerusalem. So, as matters now stand between us and them it is no small effort. ... On the other hand, nothing stands between us and these petty Greeks except our lethargy and our laziness, since, while they have the utmost hatred, they have no power, and it is a simple matter for any two Italian states that want to [attack]; if you would begin to favor it, I can guarantee you that whether together or just singly they can either overthrow that unwarlike empire or lead it back to the bosom of the Mother Church.”
Petrarch's friendship with several Greek scholars, we may assume, would have been greatly complicated, if not impossible, had they not been Roman Catholics. This was certainly the case with Coluccio Salutati, an Italian humanist who expressed even greater ambivalence toward the Byzantines a generation later. Salutati saw them as schismatics stubbornly steeped in error who possessed numerous character flaws. For certain Greeks, such as the Byzantine scholars Demetrius Cydones and Manuel Chrysoloras, Salutati expressed only esteem. Yet this admiration by no means extended to the Greeks as a people. Byzantium was not a breeding ground for great scholarship in Salutati's eyes. On the contrary, Cydones and Chrysoloras were rare exceptions among the Greeks: “I perceive you have appeared, like a light in darkness, for the study of literature, almost lost among the Greeks, because the minds of all are taken up with ambition, pleasures and avarice.”

Here, Salutati echoes the common Western view of the Greeks. Recall that Petrarch too described them as “deceitful and indolent”. Ancient Romans such as Cato the Censor, Cicero and Juvenal described the Greeks in the same manner, hence the intentionally ironic phrase “Greek honesty” applied by the Romans to dishonest business dealings. Interestingly, these same kinds of classical stereotypes were used by ancient Greeks and Romans to describe Asians, and Petrarch used such terms to describe the Arabs in particular. Thus in Salutati we see a clear example of Byzantium shifting closer to the Oriental world in the eyes of Westerners. 

Arriving back on topic, the straightforward and blunt honesty that Salutati takes in his letter to Cydones is remarkable; he does not hold back in expressing his opinion of the Greek people even though Cydones was Greek. Salutati's familiarity is most likely due to the fact that Cydones, unlike the majority of Greeks, was a Roman Catholic who supported Church union. Salutati states:
“But there is one thing about you, by which I am greatly pleased: clearly, I can tell that you are not held by the errors of your race regarding the faith without which we cannot be saved. Thus, my discussion with you is not only with a learned man, but also with a Catholic.”
Petrarch held views very similar to Salutari in this regard, and it is interesting to note that all the Greeks whom Petrarch was on friendly terms with were Roman Catholics. Presumably he would have found it very difficult to maintain a friendship with most other Greeks. In the eyes of Petrarch, the mass of modern Greeks who rejected ecclesiastical unity were as great an enemy of the Italians as the Muslim peoples were. More precisely, Petrarch viewed them as an obstacle to crusade and Christian unity; if they could not help the common Christian cause, then they were fair game for destruction by Italian fleets. Many of Petrarch's contemporaries envisioned the Greeks in a triangular relationship with the Latins and the Muslims; they were neither allies, nor full-fledged enemies, but somewhere in between. To Petrarch's mind, the Greeks were clearly closer to being the enemy.

The anti-Latin attitude amongst the Greeks should also not be overlooked. The hostility of Greeks towards the West predated the Crusades and the Eastern Schism of 1054 by several centuries. Indeed, the pride and chauvinism of the Greeks is well known by students of ancient and medieval Greek history. Prideful arrogance combined with a stubborn intolerance of non-Greek customs caused many Greek prelates to denounce Latin customs and anathematize Western traditions as “heretical” as early as the seventh century, namely during the infamous Council in Trullo, held at Constantinople in 692. Several of its canons were later referenced by the Greek patriarch Photius in his anti-Latin diatribes and denunciations of the Western Church in the ninth century.

Another episode characteristic of Greek attitudes was the disdain shown by Emperor Michael III in a letter addressed to Pope Nicholas in 864 or 865, in which he accused Latins of speaking “a barbaric and Scythian tongue”. This caused the indignation of Nicholas, a native of Rome, who promptly responded with a letter dated September 28, 865, rebuking the hypocrisy of the young Byzantine:
“But you have reached such a point of fury that you inflict insult on the Latin language, calling it in your letter a barbarian and Scythian tongue. ... Now, if you call Latin a barbarian and Scythian tongue because you do not understand it, consider how ridiculous it is to call yourself emperor of the Romans, and not to know the Roman tongue... Therefore, cease to call yourself emperor of the Romans since in your opinion they are barbarians, whose emperor you claim to be. For the Romans use this language which you call barbarian and Scythian.”
All these incidents took place long before the formal schism between East and West in 1052, but are emblematic of the prolonged anti-Latin attitude which prevailed amongst the Greeks for many centuries. The hostility of the Greeks towards the West was undoubtedly another influence which helped shape Petrarch's own attitude toward the Greeks. After all, if the Greeks so despised the Latins that they denounced both Ancient Rome and the Catholic religion, then why should not Latins detest the Greeks in return?

References:
Emperor Michael III (Letter to Pope Nicholas I, 864-854)
Pope Nicholas I (Letter to Emperor Michael III, September 28, 865)
Petrarch (Letter to Cardinal Giovanni Colonna, June 21, 1333)
Petrarch (Letter to Doge Giovanni da Valente and the Council of Genoa, November 1, 1352)
Petrarch (Letter to Nicholas Sygeros, January 10, 1354)
Petrarch (Letter to Boccaccio, March 1, 1365)
Petrarch (Letter to Pope Urban V, June 29, 1366)
Coluccio Salutati (Letter to Demetrius Cydones, February 15, 1396)

Heroism and Tragedy: The Fall of Negroponte in 1470

The fall of Negroponte to the Turks on July 12, 1470 is mournful episode in Venetian and Christian history. The most iconically tragic moment was the death of the Venetian heroine Anna Erizzo, the beautiful daughter of the former bailo Paolo Erizzo, one of the last defenders of the last tower still in the hands of Venetian forces, a woman who chose to be a martyr rather than succumb to the lustful desires of Sultan Mehmet II. Anna Erizzo is widely celebrated in Venetian culture. A novel featuring Anna Erizzo was published in 1783 by Vincenzo Antonio Formaleoni. Her story was adapted to opera (or “ballo serio”) for Carneval 1836-37 by Antonio Montacini under the title Anna Erizzo, ovvero la Presa di Negroponte. The story of Anna Erizzo was the subject of paintings, such as Tranquillo Cremona’s depiction of 1860 in which Maometto II, angered by the resistance of Anna Erizzo to his desires, is about to decapitate her. She remains today a heroine of Venice and of Christianity.

The Sultan Mehmet II himself led the attack and conquest of Negroponte, the most important Venetian colony that remained in the Aegean after the fall of Constantinople, after careful preparation and planning. He was motivated by a strong desire of revenge and vendetta after the Venetian assault on Aenus (today Enez) near Constantinople on July 14, 1469. The daring and successful attack, conducted by a Venetian fleet under the command of Captain General Nicolò da Canal, personally enraged Mehmet, the same who had conquered Constantinople sixteen years earlier.

The Turks, led by Mehmet, besieged and captured Negroponte on July 12, 1470. After conquering the city, the Turks perpetrated terrible massacres against the inhabitants. The slaughter of adult males and defenders of the city, and the tragic fate of the surviving women and children of the Venetian colony are little known by casual readers of history. First a word about the young Christian boys: many were enslaved and brought up as janissaries in the Muslim religion. One of these was the eye-witness Giovanni Maria Angiolello, born in Vicenza, whose brother Francesco had been killed while he was defending one of the gates of the city. Others were Nicolò Zorzi, Marchese of Bodonitsa, and his son Marchesotto, who returned to Venice only at the end of the century.

The women too began trickling back to Venice: some had escaped, most redeemed by money payments to their captors. Many of them, even the nobles, were purely colonials: they were descendants of Italian settlers, born in Negroponte, and many of them had never seen Venice before. The women and orphans arrived in dire poverty: once wealthy, they now had nothing at all on which to survive in what was for them a new city. Some were welcomed by members of the Giustiniani family, feudatories of the castles of Caristo and Stura (Karistos and Styra in Greek) on the island of Negroponte and often members of the Venetian colonial government there.

Almost five years after the fall of the city, some 15 adult women survivors, many accompanied by minor children (a total of 27 souls), penned the most moving petition ever recorded in the deliberations of the Venetian Senate. The women recounted the tragedy they had been forced to witness when their menfolk – husbands, sons, brothers, in-laws – were executed before their eyes, and how their own survival had itself been a miracle. Pennyless, they requested the basics of life, namely, lodging, food and firewood, and they listed their names. Despite the financial straits in which the government found itself in the midst of the longest war to date against the Turks (1463-1479), the senators found a way to come across with aid to these survivors. Dowries for entering a convent and annuities were granted, even though parsimoniously. The petition indicated that “all the world” already knew of their fate, reflecting the fact that they had learned of the “Lamentations” in prose and epic poetry that had been printed and distributed in Italy and the rest of Europe by a nascent printing industry. Noteworthy is the fact that the reigning doge at the time of the petition was Pietro Mocenigo, Nicolò da Canal’s successor as Captain General.

Some of the women were put up in the monastery of Santi Filippo e Giacomo across the canal behind the ducal palace, others in the Vioni Hospice along the Riva degli Schiavoni, dedicated since 1409 to female pilgrims waiting to embark to the Holy Land. And it was in the latter hospice that some of the survivors, including two on the list of the petitioners, founded the convent of the San Sepolcro for the Observant Franciscan Third Order. The two were the elderly Polissena Premarin and the young and beautiful Beatrice Venier, members of the largest noble families resident in Negroponte. We know about them from the Vita beatae Clarae Monachae Sancti Sepulchri Venetiarum (a biography of Blessed Chiara Bugni, 1471–1514, a Franciscan tertiary and visionary from Venice, and one of their consorelle) written by Francesco Zorzi, an Observant Franciscan of the nearby convent of San Francesco della Vigna.

Beatrice’s story was this: she was about to hang herself by her long blond hair in order to save her virginity from the military license of the barbarians, but was led – by the miraculous intervention of the Virgin Mary – to a Venetian ship aboard which she found Polissena Premarin, whom she knew as a fellow villager. The story is vaguely and tenuously similar to the story of the heroine Anna Erizzo, daughter of Paolo Erizzo. Very likely the two women Polissena and Beatrice, together with many other of the survivors and refugees, had taken a vow that they would lead a life of chastity as nuns if they were saved from death. Locally they found two other holy women, the noble Maria da Canal and the citizen Orsa Usnago, who joined them as co-founders of the convent. Beatrice, Maria and Orsa (Orsola), together with their young consorella Chiara Bugni, performed many miracles in their lifetime and were duly beatified by the Franciscan hagiographers.

If to these we add Antonio Pizzamano, bishop of Feltre and administrator of the miraculous convent of Motta di Livenza, perhaps designed by Francesco Zorzi, and Antonio Contarini, patriarch of Venice and reformer of female convents, both of whom were involved in the life of suor Chiara, that makes six “beati” (“blesseds”), all of whom were acquainted with one another; perhaps that constitutes a record; it is surely sufficient for a Vita... and a life-time.

History of the Legend of Paolo and Anna Erizzo

The legend of the martyrdom of Paolo Erizzo and the heroic death of his daughter Anna Erizzo is one of the most beloved stories in Venetian historiography. Paolo and Anna Erizzo’s heroic acts took place during the fall of Negroponte (Chalcis in Greek), when Venice suffered almost her worst loss of the entire fifteenth century, since the city had been, after Crete, her chief naval station in the Aegean.

Paolo Erizzo, born in 1411 in the old Palazzo Erizzo near San Canziano in Venice, was elected bailo (‘bailiff’) of Negroponte in 1468. Two years later, Sultan Mehmed II attempted to conquer the Venetian island. The Ottoman fleet was under the command of Mahmud Pasha while the land forces were led by Mehmed II himself. At the end of June 1470, the Ottoman cannons began battering the city walls while the Ottoman troops scoured the island, killing all Greeks and Latins over fifteen years of age and enslaving all the others. The Ottomans began their final attack on the 11th of July, entering the city the following morning. The Venetians continued fighting, culminating in a general massacre, and Mehmed II entered the devastated city on the 12th of July.

Paolo Erizzo only surrendered after the Ottomans had pledged the safety of those who had taken refuge within the castle walls. The sultan, however, reneged on his promise and ordered their execution. According to the eyewitness Giacomo Rizzardo, Mehmed II “limited himself to slaughtering Paolo Erizzo and then washed his hands and his face in his blood.” Another eyewitness, Giovanni Maria Angiolello (1451–ca. 1525) from Vicenza, who survived the fall of Negroponte and became a slave and servitor of sultan Mehmed II, and whose memoirs are referred to as “Historia Turchesca”, states that Paolo was killed during the first onslaught, that is in the defence of the part of the town named Burchio (Vourkos in Greek) on the 12th of July.

Paolo’s only daughter, Anna Erizzo, a modest maiden of exceptional beauty, was captured and dragged to the Sultan’s tent as his prize. But the Christian maiden preferred death to dishonour: refusing to enter the harem of her father’s murderer, Anna chose a martyr’s death rather than defilement. Insulted by her refusal, she was cut to pieces by the angry tyrant with his scimitar.

Although the eyewitnesses Rizzardo and Angiolello make no reference to Anna Erizzo or to this following detail, other contemporary accounts say that Paolo Erizzo was sawed in half. The first mention of Paolo Erizzo’s martyrdom by sawing in historiographic literature is most likely the one in Marcantonio Coccio Sabellico’s Historia rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita (Venice, 1487). This manner of death also appears in the Erizzo family chronicle preserved in Marciana, Tuscany.

We should mention here Francesco Sansovino’s book Gl’Annali Turcheschi overo Vite de Principi della Casa Othomana (Venice, 1573). Sansovino did not describe the sawing of Paolo Erizzo, but related that all Italian youths were killed, some by impalement and, interestingly, others by sawing in half. Sansovino also mentions Erizzo’s daughter but without using her given name. He described her as a daughter of Paolo Erizzo, young and beautiful, destined for the sultan’s harem on account of her beauty, and finally slain because she refused to submit to Mehmed’s will. According to Giuseppe Gullino, the oldest reference to Paolo’s daughter is to be found in an anonymous annex to Laonicus Chalcondyles’s book Origine et rebus gestis Turcorum libri decem..., published in Basel in 1556. In the annex with the title “De Nigroponti captione”, the daughter of “Paulus Erico” (Paolo Erizzo) appears without her given name, but the description of her is similar to the later one by Sansovino as the only daughter of the praetor, a chaste and beautiful virgin, who was brought to the sultan because of her beauty and killed because she didn’t submit to the sultan’s will.

In 1647 an extensive description of the heroic acts of Paolo Erizzo and his daughter appears in the book La Galerie des Femmes Fortes by the French Jesuit Pierre Le Moyne (Paris, 1647). Le Moyne related the stories of the martyr’s death of “Paul Erici” (Paolo Erizzo) and the virtuous decision of his chaste daughter, who appears without her given name, but with the epithet “La chaste Venitienne” (“the chaste Venetian”). Relying on an earlier, but not quoted, historiographic book, Le Moyne reported that Mehmed had fallen in love with the captured daughter of Paul Erici and had promised her wealth, offering her “sceptres and crowns”. The Jesuit fleshes out Anna’s story with her thoughts on death and finally with comparisons between her fate and those of early Christian saints, between Mehmed and Nero and between the dangers of the battlefield and those of an amphitheatre.

Giovanni Sagredo’s Memorie istoriche de’ Monarchi ottomani (Venice, 1673), which had a significant impact on the European image of the Ottomans in the 17th and 18th century, is similarly extensive in its description of the stories. Sagredo described Paolo Erizzo as the former bailo of Negroponte, who could have returned safely to Venice but decided to stay in the besieged town in order to prove his courage and seize this opportunity to distinguish himself. Erizzo roused the defenders with his speeches and his acts. After a long period of fighting, he submitted himself to the victor to save his head. But the Ottomans, cruel as usual, sawed him into two parts under the pretence that they had promised to save his head but not his bust. Before his death, Paolo Erizzo was loath to leave his beautiful daughter Anna exposed to the lust of the barbarians and asked the janissaries to kill her. They answered that they would not dishonour her but that she would be reserved for the appetites of the Sultan. Confronting him, Anna appears with the face of a victor rather than a slave. She is not prepared to submit even though the sultan has promised her own apartment, sceptres and crowns, rich clothes and gems. With a stroke of his sabre, the sultan releases her innocent soul, which rapidly rises into glory.

Sagredo’s book had a strong impact on the visual arts, and was also used as a historical source for tragedies and opera librettos. Stefano Carli from Capodistria should also be counted as part of this group; he found inspiration for his tragedy La Erizia in Sagredo’s book. This outstanding tale from Venetian history was suggested to him by his elder brother Gian Rinaldo, a noted economist, antiquarian and patriot. Stefano Carli explicitly quoted Giovanni Sagredo as his source of inspiration. A portrayal of Paolo Erizzo’s torture, found among the decorations of the Sala del Maggior Consiglio in the Doge’s Palace, bears further witness to the importance of Paolo Erizzo in Venetian history.

Other Venetian stories are somewhat similar the legend of Anna Erizzo. It should be pointed out that some inhabitants of Negroponte survived the massacre of July 1470 – a few women and also some young boys who had been brought up as janissaries in the Muslim religion had been able to escape by paying off their captors and began trickling back to Venice, some of them finding a home in the Venetian monasteries. Two such women were the elderly Polissena Premarin and the young and beautiful Beatrice Venier, members of the largest noble families resident in Negroponte. In the story of Beatrice Venier, who was about to hang herself by her long blond hair in order to save her virginity from the rapacious appetite of the Turkish barbarians, but was led by the miraculous intervention of the Virgin Mary to a Venetian ship, there seems to be a vague similarity to the story of Anna, the beautiful daughter of Paolo Erizzo. Polissena Premarin and Beatrice Venier had probably taken a vow that they would lead a life of chastity as nuns if they were saved from death and, with other survivors, they founded the San Sepolcro convent for the Observant Franciscan Third Order in Venice, where they performed many miracles. Their beatification was recorded by Franciscan hagiographers. Although we are certain of Beatrice’s family name (Venier), it should be stated that Giuseppe Bettinelli mistakenly referred to Beatrice as a member of the Renier family in his Dizionario storico-portatile di tutte le Venete patrizie famiglie (Venice, 1780).

As regards historical evidence for the legend of Anna Erizzo, a certain Anna Erizzo from Negroponte is to be found in the list of women in the harem of Mehmed II, albeit with no indication that she was the daughter of Paolo Erizzo. Although we cannot be absolutely certain that the Anna Erizzo mentioned in this list was Paolo’s daughter or even from the same family, since it was common for servants to take the name of the patrician of the house in which they were employed, and the list in question does not offer any specific biographical details, however based on other historiographical accounts it is safe to assume that it is indeed the same Anna Erizzo, daughter of Paolo Erizzo.

In popular Italian legend Anna Erizzo stands as a woman who chose to be a martyr and who became a heroine of Venice and of Christianity, as well as a symbol of feminine purity, religious constancy and Catholic virtue.

References:
Giovanni Maria Angiolello (Historia Turchesca)
Marcantonio Coccio Sabellico (Historia rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita, 1487)
Francesco Sansovino (Gl’Annali Turcheschi overo Vite de Principi della Casa Othomana, 1573)
Laonicus Chalcondyles (Origine et rebus gestis Turcorum libri decem, 1556)
Pierre Le Moyne (La Galerie des Femmes Fortes, 1647)
Giovanni Sagredo (Memorie istoriche de’ Monarchi ottomani, 1673)
Giuseppe Bettinelli (Dizionario storico-portatile di tutte le Venete patrizie famiglie, 1780)