The First Freethinker

Francesco Petrarch’s Abrasion of Authority

Francesco Petrarch’s reputation precedes him. That rare cultural emergence of worldly reform during the Renaissance — be it the philosophical fantasies of humanism and empiricism or the broad affirmation of mankind’s vitality in achieving progress — was first recognized by Francesco Petrarch. Humanism, tourism, self-introspection, and the Italian rebirth itself flourished only after Petrarch’s cathartic descent from Mont Ventoux.[1]

But in his contributions to literature and lyric poetry he holds anti-authoritarian sensibilities shown in his conviction and stressing of the human capabilities over inherently influential figures and ideas that were prevailing by the 14th century debut of the Renaissance. In his Epistolae Familiares Petrarch insists one’s self is of more value than dominant power structures, “I am my own authority.”[2]

More than anything Petrarch perhaps understood the scope and potential of the human spirit, of intellect. Much of his work concerns his personal evaluations and struggle for moral enlightenment and reputation, with Secretum showing his profound critique of himself and what he saw as sinful insecurities. His poetic story Trionfi, though in religious description, suggests the significance of the soul as “looks shall fade and white shall be thy hair…however much thy neck and feet rebel,” but fulfillment and human progress is still tangible through human passion.

In his account Ascent of Mount Ventoux, Petrarch after proving the importance of recreation and travel for a better life, compares the mountain to the “range of human contemplation.”[3] [4] Any rigid scholastic, classical, or ideological authority for Petrarch would only inhibit the ethical and philosophical prospects of the human mind.

So Petrarch’s rejection of Late Medieval vernacular literatures and political structures which led to rediscovering reason based learning from the lost Classical works in the 14th century would define much of the Renaissance movement. The scholastics of his age were derided in his letters and there was a sense of failure or deficiency in his contemporary world in terms of its corruption and superstition, and when he began his dialogues with Cicero and St. Augustine he was defying convention; he had come to study these texts by a whole rejection of the existing societal framework that had existed for centuries by the 1300s. “Dark Ages” in reference to the medieval period comes from his own writings.

Petrarch’s disavowal of this and subsequent search for meaning from historical authors reflect a disgust of inherent human authority. For example, the prominent absolutist view of leaders like Aristotle as gospel was accosted in On His Own Ignorance, “[Many] are so captivated by their love of the mere name of Aristotle that they call it sacrilege to pronounce any opinion that differs from his on any manner.”[5] He sees the deification of authority figures equally as problematic as dominant belief systems left unchecked by empiricism and rationalism. Neither might Petrarch allow to assert itself into the public realm without diligent scrutiny by a person’s agency which his cause of Humanism would grow to emphasize.

But Petrarch was not blind to the fallibility of his own idolized figures as his dialogues and personal confessions in his Letter to Posterity attest a growing ever changing struggle to find that untenable archetype for philosophy. His literature was often revised and altered upon meditation, and his “correspondence” to Cicero and Virgil underscore his frustration with even his personal inspirations. Contrary to some popular historiography, the Renaissance cannot fall into such an inflexible delineation as just carefully emulating the classical Greco-Roman authors.

For one, the intellectual dissemination of ideas that manifested throughout art, civics, religion, science, architecture and literature is far more nuanced. And likewise, though the father of the Renaissance — Petrarch — looked to the Classical manuscripts for a study of moralistic ideals because of what he deemed to be a thoughtless unethical age of darkness during the medieval era, his recurring desire to link antiquity to modern, Roman history with Christian testament, secular rationalism with spirituality, all show an evolving and subversive way of looking at the world and its paradigms.

Even in his personal life which guided his contributions, Petrarch after 1342 found his religious views rooted in Christian theology at odds with his secular humanism and his brother’s decision to become a monk.[6] He would cite no issue with reconciling the two but perhaps his mere questioning of doctrine paint the portrait of a man plagued by always questioning mind. Petrarch rebuked Seneca for his ties to a dictator in Rome, “Your consenting to teach a cruel tyrant could have resulted from bad judgment or error, or some kind of fate…but this desire of yours was certainly the fault of your judgment.”[7]

The elaborate ideas considered in the Renaissance which valued the individual’s contribution to a rebirth in culture are not without the first man of the Renaissance and his evaluation of the world around him. Petrarch’s consciousness of the antiquity for the nourishment of his future was not inconsistent with his criticism of intrinsic power and obedience. Petrarch’s literature prioritizes his faculties, the intelligence and independence of the mind, over devotion towards authority and is therefore anti-authoritarian.

From his attacks on his contemporaries’ to his ridicule and unfulfillment from scholasticism in his day, his disillusionment with classical authorities, and his ongoing efforts to find moral, religious, and intellectual enlightenment and attain a civil reputation for his efforts, Petrarch embodied not only renaissance but rebellion. For inherent authority and conformity were too rigid of beasts and were in conflict with Francesco Petrarch’s own perspective laid out in his Letter to Posterity. “And such was my innate longing for liberty that I studiously avoided those whose very name seemed incompatible with the freedom that I loved.”[8]

[1] Julia Conaway Bondanella and Mark Musa, eds., The Italian Renaissance Reader (Meridian S), Reissue ed. (New York: Plume, 1987), IX-1.

[2] Francesco Petrarch, Letters on Familiar Matters XXIV (Rerum Familiarium Libri), translated by Aldo S. Bernardo (New York: Italica Press, 2005), 1. http://www.italicapress.com/index260.html.

[3] Francesco Petrarch, The Triumphs, translated by Peter Sadlon, http://petrarch.petersadlon.com/trionfi.html.

[4] Bondanella and Musa, eds., The Italian Renaissance Reader (Meridian S), Reissue ed. (New York: Plume, 1987), 14.

[5] Francesco Petrarch, On His Own Ignorance, from Hillsdale Online Database, https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=386.

[6] Victoria Kirkham and Armando Maggi, eds., Petrarch: a Critical Guide to the Complete Works (University Of Chicago Press, 2012), 97–99.

[7] Francesco Petrarch, Letters on Familiar Matters XXIV (Rerum Familiarium Libri), translated by Aldo S. Bernardo (New York: Italica Press, 2005), 5. http://www.italicapress.com/index260.html.

[8] Bondanella and Musa, eds., The Italian Renaissance Reader (Meridian S), Reissue ed. (New York: Plume, 1987), 16.