The following translates "Un marito geloso," posted by Franco on May 16, 2024, at https://www.naibi.net/A/FATTO.pdf. Page numbers are those of Franco's pdf. Comments in square brackets are mine, added to explain some of the terms in Italian that don't quite translate into modern English. It was certainly a different world from today's.
Florence 1713 - A jealous husband
Franco Pratesi
1. Introduction
I recently presented a poetic composition on the game of ombre found in a manuscript of the Moreniana Library. [note 1] From another manuscript of the same library, [note 2] I now intend to present a text of a different type, but which refers to the same environment in which the noble ladies flirt with knights while playing cards. In this case, it is a scene in which a jealous husband and an obliging knight become offended in such a way that it can only be resolved with the intervention of a well-known expert on chivalric matters.
Archival unit No. 11 contains three volumes. The part of interest is issue 8 of Vol. I, Writings and Opinions on Chivalry by Signore Abb.te [Abbot] Pietro Andrea Andreini, with the title written in a modern hand. (I don't think that the author was also an abbot, although there were many abbots without abbeys in circulation at this time.) On the file, in the Inventory [note 3] we read the following.
8. Opinion. dated 1713/14, around the settlement of a dispute arising from the behavior of a knight towards a lady at a gaming table. Folios 130a -131a contain the Agreed Fact, which is immediately followed by the 2nd Opinion, finally signed by Pietro Andrea Andreini. (ff. 131a -141b ).
Moreniana Library, Bigazzi, 11 vol. 1, f. 130r
(Reproduction prohibited)
1. https://www.naibi.net/A/OMBRE.pdf(Reproduction prohibited)
2. Biblioteca Moreniana, Bigazzi, 11 vol. 1.
3. I manoscritti della Biblioteca Moreniana di Firenze, Florence 1903 et seq. On p. 418.
Page 2
2. Report of the fact
Fortunately we can use the entire report of the event as compiled by the judge, who undertook to write it in such a way that it was approved by all the parties involved. It is not excessively verbose, it is completely clear, and therefore it seems appropriate to me to copy a part of it and transcribe it in full.
__________Agreed fact
A Lady playing where there was a large gathering of Nobility, a young Knight, Florido, stood at the back of her chair, every now and then extending his hands over her cards, whispering in the Lady's ear, making jokes, and laughing. And as her husband Pompeo remained at a distance, observing for quite some time these acts of excessive domesticity, it seemed to him that others were similarly observing them. [note 4] Burning with indignation, he begged Lucido, his relative and a friend of Florido, to let him know that these are not terms from a knight, and from a friend of his, that he should instead stand aside from his wife.
Lucido, after various apologies, realized that if he didn't get Florido out of there, the jealous Pompeo would easily embark on some upheaval, unsuitable on that occasion; he thought it better that he make an embassy to invite Florido to go with him to another, happier gathering, but seeing that Florido did not want to accompany him and that he persevered with the same domesticity towards the Lady, he pulled him aside, begging him in the most discreet manner to get out of there, since at a more opportune time he would have told him the cause.
Florido replied that, for the same reason, he intended for him to specify this cause at the same time. But Lucido, after prolixly begging him in vain to get out of there, and there would be no lack of time, found himself forced to say that since he wanted to hear it, he should know that it seemed to him that Pompeo was all apprehensive and unsettled, because he [Florido] took care to remain with some extraordinary domesticity next to his wife.
Then Florido, in a voice so loud that two Knights not far away could hear him well enough, said “Sig. Lucido, if you tell me this as yours, it will be one thing; if you instead have a commission from Sig. Pompeo to speak to me in this way, please be content to answer him from my side, that he does not know what he is saying, and therefore he mente [word with the modern sense of “lies,” but here more that of “speaks with falsity,” in a very generic but accusatory sense, as in “he’s out of line”, i.e. not in accord with prevailing custom]. [note 5] Then observing that those two Knights had heard, turning to them he said, "Gentlemen, you have heard the reply that I am sending to Pompeo." And having said this, he returned to the side of the Lady.
Lucido, considering that such an answer and [accusation of] mentita had been made public, begged these two Knight witnesses to give him their word not to speak about it, and warned Pompeo, who held, and holds, that he was badly accused [mentito], civility, purity, and modesty, with which each Knight must behave with a Lady, being for him [i.e. being in his favor].
In response, Florido replies that the common custom of Knights conversing with Ladies in this City of Florence (postponing these sophistical moral subtleties) gives him the right to be able to serve in this way, with the candor of a true Knight, and remain next to a Lady. And in proof, he gives the examples of such and such Ladies with such and such Knights of what they did and do, with their husbands being present or absent; and of having with this same Lady with the same feelings of honor, practiced acts of greater confidence and consequence, without Pompeo, even if he was present in his own house, or in conversations, having ever given any sign of displeasure; now he [Florido] doesn’t know why
4. This is a fundamental point; in addition to the direct influence there is also, and perhaps above all, the indirect one, because public ostentation raises fears of possible malicious judgments behind the husband's back.
5. It should not be overlooked that, as we will see, the accusation of mentire was the most serious that one could inflict on the opponent, so much so that as a rule in previous years it led directly to the duel.
Page 3
he [Pompeo] should be offended by it; but when he [Pompeo] wants to use it as a pretext, he [Florido] will clarify it, Pompeo being freed [first], however, from the mentita [the accusation of falsity] given [by Florido] to him [Pompeo] in defense of his [Florido’s?] honor.
It is asked what could be the most prompt and honorable expedient to put to rest this Complaint, which in word of honor is still buried between the Principals, and the two Knight witnesses, Lucido, and two others invited on each side by Florido and Pompeo, to support their respective rights on a point of honor.
3. Legal opinion and comment
The legal expert summarized the event as it had happened and reported by multiple people, in order to obtain a complete and impartial account. The situation is clear but perhaps requires some highlighting. Why is the intervention of the expert necessary, who, with the assistance of witnesses and a person summoned to defend each of the two contenders, must resolve the issue? Because society has progressed to the point that the traditional way of resolving disputes of this kind is no longer acceptable, which was only one and did not require a legal expert but only two seconds to assist in the modalities and procedures of the inevitable duel. So you can also appreciate the social progress that was emerging. But up to a certain point. Because medieval chivalry still retained a substantial part of the strength of its rules.
Among the various aspects here there is one that is most striking of all, and that is what they call the mentita, which appears to be something more than lies or slander, a very serious thing and on this particular, I intend to quote the words of this expert who is entrusted with the role of judge. I will do so exceptionally, because I have not the slightest intention of copying that judge's entire opinion, both because it is very long - tiring even just to read - and because it is very rich in technical terms and quotations from the texts of treatise writers of all eras. So, starting from the mentita, I will try to transcribe some short, more significant passages, adding just a few additional words.
It will therefore be true that Lucido's talk not only had more than enough color, but the right impulse to provoke and then justify Florido's [accusation of] mentita. It happens that all the propositions that could make a man appear to be dishonest force him to defend himself by demonstrating that he is not lacking in the thing repugnant to the honor of the Knight who is accused of it. This is so true that for the sake of pretension [appearance] and for the sake of one's honor, it is permissible to give [respond with] a mentita, even though the injury is doubtful.
However, I rather follow the common opinion among all Knights, who in writing of the most noble Science consider the mentita to far surpass in atrocity any other insult, since it is greater in measure than wounds, slaps, spitting in the face, the club, the cane, the cruet, being covered in filth, owing to the fact that a man is insufficient without having Truth, which is the strongest pillar of honor;
. . .
To confess the truth on my own (without others kindly saying it) I cannot presume to make judgments in this sublime science, and especially where mentite are involved; a very difficult subject for the most elevated spirits, and hateful to me due to the fact that it makes me continually pray to Heaven to keep me away from hearing about it.
…
Since Florido's [accusation of] Mentita was neither Conditional nor Verified, but rather disdainful, insulting, disorderly, and so vain, and devoid of the power to charge, the entire complaint is reduced to Insult alone; so since I need to go and investigate the importance, I will see if I will be able to derive it from degrees of contempt, since these are the scales that are commonly used there.
The judge's final opinion is rather Solomonic; after finding behavioral defects in both parties, he ends up proposing that Pompeo let Florido know that his presence in his home will no longer be welcome, and this slight renunciation will have to be accepted without
Page 4
too much regret from Florido, as it was enough to put an end to the
complaint and all the discussions. The judge's very long opinion ends as
follows.
And if anyone is still not willing to understand the naivety and respect with which I have attempted to proceed, let him at least remember that the Seconds, Lawyers, Confidants, or whatever the term may be that you please me to give, must inflame the causes of honor, not out of bad intention but in order not to accede (as I have done) in the slightest thing that is in the interest of honor to his Principal; so that without respect he defends it by giving reasons, giving exceptions, protesting, removing difficulties, clarifying doubts and doing whatever else is appropriate for the benefit of the cause, with the aim, however, of not exceeding in postures and ways prejudicial to the other Principal, and his Second, if he does not want to give an account of it to the Lord of the Field or steccato [word applying to any fenced-in area, including arenas], as was customary in the times when the Duel was held. However, it is not already so when exceptions and reasons are brought as a just defense, even if they pierce the adversary and the Second, but with the truth; otherwise, he would be failing in his office and in his conscience.
Pietro Andrea Andreini
4. About the author
A portrait of Pietro Andrea Andreini (Florence, 1650-1729) can be seen in a medal attached to his name on the Google Images site. The main source of information about him is found in the Funeral Oration spoken in the Etruscan Academy in Cortona on 1 December 1729 by Ranieri Tommasi. [note 6]
R. Tommasi, Funeral Oration, title page
__________________6. R. Tommasi, Delle lodi dell’abbate Pier’ Andrea Andreini nobile fiorentino accademico etrusco. Florence 1730
Page 5
Stripping this very rare text of the rhetoric of the time, it seems to me that we can derive not only a long life for Andreini, but also one divided into several successive phases. Born in Florence in 1650 of a noble paternal family and even more so on his mother's side, the patrician Busini family, he was soon orphaned. He married and had two daughters, but was widowed soon after and devoted himself to his studies full-time throughout his life.
After his wife's death, he surprised friends and acquaintances with his behavior: everyone thought he had reached the height of erudition.
In short, Andreini still deeply felt the need to learn, despite all that he had gained from prolonged reading, and wanted to see with his own eyes other environments of elevated and stimulating culture. So he spent many years away from Florence, seeking other educational stimuli in cities rich in history that were also capitals with a very advanced social and cultural life, also enriched by the presence of foreign scholars who dedicated long studies to Italian art. It is therefore not surprising that once he left Florence, his attention subsequently turned to Naples, Venice, and Rome.He spent entire days and nights with this study; this was his entertainment and most attentive occupation, and this, in short, was what, having made him appear so pale and emaciated, finally demonstrated that the love of study and varied erudition had made Andreini forget about caring for himself.
. . . Not content with having filled his mind with varied and considerable knowledge, he abandons the homeland where he was born, and following the example of Plato, Pythagoras, and Democritus, he travels to various distant cities with the sole object of acquiring new [knowledge]. Now what do you think? Would you have ever believed that since he was capable of teaching rather than learning, there was so much belief in him that he had little or no knowledge?
In these cities, his deep studies of antiquities and meticulous exploration of the cities and their surroundings in search of ancient relics resulted in transforming him into an active collector and connoisseur of antiques. The thing developed in both directions: the main one was the collection of ancient finds and in particular of artistically worked gems, cameos and similar objects, so much so that years later he was able to create a real museum in his palace in Florence, which attracted visits by illustrious experts, including foreign ones. After his death, the precious collection was purchased by the Grand Duke and became a notable part of the collections of the prestigious Grand Ducal museums.
His competence as a connoisseur was appreciated in Rome, even by illustrious figures such as Queen Alexandra Christina of Sweden who "from then on did not want to purchase any Gem or Cameo to enrich her Royal collection that she had not first subjected to the opinion of Andreini." In particular, he was able to immediately unmask countless counterfeits. “Nor was it ever an easy thing to put before his eyes adulterated Medals, or modern works, by many very arrogant desecrators of authentic memories - who with impunity, deserving of every punishment, strive to upset the truth of history and deceive the most attentive Scholars – of which Andreini did not distinguish the fraud."
But his activity did not stop there, because (it would seem after his return to Florence - at least in the most widespread form for which he became famous) his erudition in general and his expertise in particular on matters of chivalry meant that more and more people requested his judgment to resolve the disputes that were commonplace among nobles. Even the Grand Duke relied on him to resolve such matters. We must not be fooled by the fact that only two pamphlets have been printed in his name, which have become very rare. [note 7]
An interesting page of commentary on our author was then written by Atto Vannucci (1810-
1883) for whom, also director of the Magliabechiana then National Library, it was easy to consult his numerous writings that had not reached the press. What you read can be considered an objective
________________
7. P. A. Andreini, Parere cavalleresco intorno al rifacimento de’ danni dovuti dall’offensore all’offeso. Florence 1721; P. A. Andreini, Risposta ad una lettera cavalleresca d’incerto autore. Lucca 1724.
Page 6
presentation expressed at the distance of a century. [note 8] Essentially, Vannucci reverses the situation: only a few experts had been aware of his activity as an antiquarian, which however was very valid, so much so that he still deserved to be remembered for this; on the contrary, his legal opinions on the most complicated questions of chivalry had great resonance at the time, which when read after a century showed the underlying emptiness of the rhetoric of the time. The same Vannucci gives a peremptory opinion on these legal opinions. “He left voluminous manuscripts on these subjects which by good fortune were never printed.”
In short, our author was famous as an expert in chivalry, considered capable of deciding any chivalric question. Perhaps he should be defined as a specialized legal expert, that is, on the laws of chivalry, but in his time there was even talk of the chivalric "science." Today, the association of science with this subject sounds decidedly curious, and reading his prose, we get the impression that we are very far from science. But after all, even today there are institutes and faculties of theological "sciences," for example, and so we must be ready to truly accept the term in a broad sense.
We can certainly say that even Andreini's expertise in matters of chivalry was not improvised, but was based on a profound study of the most important texts on the subject, which he cites at every step in support of his thoughts, also in the particular case examined here.
Florence, 05.17.2024
__________
8. E. De Tipaldo (ed.) Biografia degli italiani illustri nelle scienze, etc. Vol. VI. Venice 1838, pp. 448-449.
No comments:
Post a Comment