Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:44:55.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Figure of the Reader in Petrarch's Secretum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Victoria Kahn
Victoria Kahn*
Affiliation:
Bennington CollegeBennington, Vermont
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Critics of Renaissance literature have recently claimed that the active role of the reader in the production of meaning is only recognized in the sixteenth century. While numerous counterexamples can be found in classical and medieval literature, this essay focuses on the active role of the fictional reader in Petrarch's Secretum in order to demonstrate the limited applicability of such a claim to the early Renaissance. While critics have interpreted the exchange between Augustinus and Franciscus as the dramatic representation of Petrarch's divided will, they have failed to note that this dividedness is conveyed as well by the intertextuality of the work. In his willful misreading of Augustine's Confessions, in his allusions to his own earlier letter on the ascent of Mont Ventoux, as well as in his use and abuse of citations and moral exempla, Petrarch dramatizes his conception of the will itself as a faculty of interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 154 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Augustine, Aurelius. Confessions. Trans. Watts, William. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1912.Google Scholar
Augustine, Aurelius. On Christian Doctrine. Trans. Robertson, D. W. New York: Liberal Arts, 1958.Google Scholar
Bauschatz, Cathleen M. “Montaigne's Conception of Reading in the Context of Renaissance Poetics.” The Reader in the Text. Ed. Suleiman, Susan R. and Crosman, Inge. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980. 264–92.Google Scholar
Billanovich, Giuseppe. Petrarca letterato. Roma: Edizioni di “Storia e letteratura,” 1947.Google Scholar
Calcaterra, Carlo. “Sant'Agostino nelle opere di Dante e del Petrarca.” Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scholastica 23 supp. (1931): 422–99.Google Scholar
Cave, Terence. “The Mimesis of Reading in the Renaissance.” Mimesis: From Mirror to Method. Ed. Lyons, John D. and Nichols, Stephen G. Jr. Hanover: UP of New England, 1982. 149–65.Google Scholar
Compagnon, Antoine. La seconde main, ou le travail de la citation. Paris: Seuil, 1979.Google Scholar
Courcelle, Pierre. “Pétrarque entre Saint Augustin et les Augustins du xive siècle.” Studi Petrarcheschi 7 (1961): 5–17.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. “Prolegomena to a Theory of Reading.” The Reader in the Text. Ed. Suleiman, Susan R. and Crosman, Inge. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980. 46–66.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975.10.4324/9780203449769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durling, Robert M., trans, and ed. Petrarch's Lyric Poems, The Rime Sparse and Other Lyrics. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Durling, Robert M., trans, and ed. “The Ascent of Mont Ventoux and the Crisis of Allegory.” Italian Quarterly 18 (1974): 7–28.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Rushton, trans. Aeneid. By Vergil. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1918.Google Scholar
Freccero, John. “The Fig Tree and the Laurel.” Diacritics 5 (1975): 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumaroli, Marc. L‘âge de l‘éloquence. Genève: Droz, 1980.Google Scholar
Genette, Gerard. Palimpsestes. Paris: Seuil, 1982.Google Scholar
Giuliani, Oscar. Allegoria, retorica e poetica nel Secretum del Petrarca. Bologna: Patron, 1977.Google Scholar
Greene, Thomas M. The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP, 1982.Google Scholar
Heitmann, Klaus. “L'insegnamento agostiniano nel Secretum del Petrarca.” Studi Petrarcheschi 7 (1961): 187–93.Google Scholar
Jauss, Hans Robert. “Literary History as Literary Challenge.” Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Trans. Bahti, Timothy. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982. 3–45.Google Scholar
Kahn, Victoria. “Giovanni Pontano's Rhetoric of Prudence.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 16 (1982): 16–34.Google Scholar
Kahn, Victoria. “The Rhetoric of Faith and the Use of Usage in Lorenzo Valla's De libero arbitrio.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 13 (1983): 91–109.Google Scholar
Kessler, Eckhard. Petrarca und die Geschichte. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1978.Google Scholar
Kohl, Benjamin G. “Petrarch's Prefaces to De viris illustribus.” History and Theory 13 (1974): 132–44.10.2307/2504856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Giulio Augusto. Da Dante al Machiavelli. Firenze: La nuova Italia, 1935.Google Scholar
Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. Trans. Wall, Geoffrey. London: Routledge, 1978.Google Scholar
Marsh, David. The Quattrocento Dialogue. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.Google Scholar
Petrarca, Francesco. Petrarch's Secret. Trans. Draper, William H. London: Chatto, 1911.Google Scholar
Petrarca, Francesco. Prose. Ed. Martellotti, G., Ricci, P. G., Carrara, E., and Bianchi, E. Milano: Sansoni, 1955.Google Scholar
Rico, Francisco. Vida u obra de Petrarca. Studi sul Petrarca. Vol. 4. Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1974.Google Scholar
Segrè, Carlo. Studi Petrarcheschi. Firenze: Le Monnier, 1903.Google Scholar
Stierle, Karlheinz. “L'histoire comme exemple, l'exemple comme histoire.” Poétique 10 (1972): 176–98.Google Scholar
Tateo, Francesco. Dialogo interiore e polemica ideologica nel Secretum del Petrarca. Firenze: Sansoni, 1965.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, Charles. In Our Image and Likeness. 2 vols. London: Constable, 1970.Google Scholar
Trinkaus, Charles. The Poet as Philosopher: Petrarch and the Formation of Renaissance Consciousness. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.Google Scholar
Vance, Eugene. “Le moi comme langage: Saint Augustin et l'autobiographie.” Poétique 14 (1973): 163–77.Google Scholar